Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2969943" data-attributes="member: 18280">The last time I heard this sort of diatribe, it was coming from door-to-door salesmen pitching salvation.  OK.  If that is true, what do you believe about objective standards so far as defining terms goes?  Do you believe than anything objective can be said about railroading?  If so, what?Why is the player test more valid than the DM test?You actually feel that you can tell me what I do and do not object to?!?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> No wonder your responses don't actually answer other people's objections!We seem to have a real disconnect about what is meant by a "useful" or "valid" definition.  To my mind, a definition must communicate something specific in order to be of any value.  The Lewis Carroll bit quoted earlier speaks to this; if a word communicates nothing in and of itself, where does the value of the word lie?Using my definition, if a player says "I think you're railroading me" he is specifically telling me that he thinks I am taking power that is legitimately his (usurpation of power), and that as a result he has lost the capacity to make choices (resulting in linear play).  This may be a valid criticism or not.  It could be that we differ on whether or not the choice is legitimately his (I think any DM has the absolute right to say "no warforged ninja in this world", for example).  It could be that we differ on whether or not the usurpation results in linear play (I might decide to run the campaign in Thunder Rift, for example, and the player wanted Greyhawk).  These things at least give me some criteria to examine in order to determine whether or not the complaint is justified.  Sometimes a complaint is justified, and requires action to rectify.  Other times, not.Now, for the sake of argument, let us say that I accepted your definition of "railroading" (although I do not).  So, I'm running a game, and a player says I am railroading him.  What does that communicate to me, other than that he is unhappy?  I could ask why he feels that way, he could say "I dunno" and I am stuck with "because the player says it, it is true for him".  How does that help me?  How does that help him?IMO, railroading is one of a plethora of bad behaviors a DM can engage in.  Having seperate terms for them based on some form of shared criteria means that when a player says, for example, "This seems sort of Monty Haulish" we both have some sort of starting point for communication.I believe that you mean what you say.  I believe that you certainly are not alone in believing that this sort of definition is the way to go.  But I also believe that your argument is built on false assumptions:  false assumptions about the nature and value of logic, false assumptions about the motivations of others on this thread, and false assumptions about the nature of language itself.I could be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.  It won't be the last.  But if I am wrong, It's because of something that's either hidden deeply in your diatribe (so that I missed it) or that you haven't actually said, such as an assumption that you are making that you view as being so basic that it doesn't need to be stated.  Actually answering questions that are put to you (and the sort of yes/no questions Quas proposed on the other thread ought not to be too taxing) without trying to insult the person asking you those questions might be a good place to start.  Assuming your purpose on this thread is to be understood.Which may be a false assumption.RC</blockquote>

Verification