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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyelf" data-source="post: 2970217" data-attributes="member: 40394">WEther they disagree or not, the other kinds of definintions people are tossing around would onyl help the GM to ignore that problem. But we are. We're tlaking about a parricular subset of that issue. There's a lot more to it than that, but at some point, the GM has to comunicate wiht their players. Well for one thing, if railroding is a matter of preference, asking a forum about it gives the GM a sample of preference and gives them angles on the issue they may not have considered. For instance, to use my aexample above, some GM's don't realise how muhc some players utterly loathe the idea of their PC's minds being tampered with. If anything, asking for opinions from a forum is going to best serve a defininitions wich is subjective and varied based on prefereance. Second, if the GM has a concern, they should avoid leaving well enough alone. There's nothing stopping them from asking the players if they're having fun and feel the adventure is going well- lots of players have a problem articulating their opinions, bringing up a particular issue can help with that. Even if the players give the 'all clear' or the GM chooses nto to press the issue, they can make a point of observing the playrs and how they respond to the factor in question- another thing such a thread is going to offer, potentially, is advice on what to watch for. Are the players, slumping back and becoming passive in theri decision-making at some point in the session? Or, are they doing disruptive things wiht their PC's, wich could signal a frustration wiht the game? There are a lot of sighns that things may be amiss, evem if nobody realises it straight away.AGain, it's not just a matter of 'ask your players', but 'watch your players'. I can think of a lot of 'gambles' and suprises that might clash with player preference- and I personally would not argue for an extreme state of GM disclosure wich would ruin such suprises. BUT, the GM can still A)consider what they know about the player's preferences, and the type of 'power pet peeves' they may have, and B)when they spring the suprise, look at how the player react, and (possibly) plan a contingency if the players really don't like the suprise. I define railroading as relating to play style, so that can't happen. Not every player suits every game. And some players do not suit any game. That said, there may be any number of details to such a situation, for instance if the guards are ever-present, the players may be mighty sick of seeing them, especially if thye planned to play less-than-legal characters.OTOH even if the player has a guard-killing fixation, that's still an issue, it relates to player power issues, and as a result, I feel the definintion is correct. However, there's nothing in the definitions to say the GM must alter the game to suit a player, as i've said before, somtimes ireconcilabe differences arise. In many such situations, the onus is on the players to change their expectations for the game. But the core issue is still the same. I'm not the zealot here. My definintion is inclusive and conciliatory. As we've already discussed, my test for railroading is objective, even if you deny that it is. It's a very simple proposition. Because the term 'railroading' has always been something the GM does to the player. Furthemore, because in the conventioal mode the balance of power is with the GM, dramtically so, and as a result issues of power relate to their actions in a particular way. Only the GM has fiat, only the GM has final ruling.If the Bridle fits.  .  v<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />vBut they do. I've sunk huge amount sof words into these things, often repeating the same points, and you're still at square one, making the same basic arguments in different ways, unwilling to listen to what i'm saying. Like all terminology in this hobby it's a starting point. It comunicates plenty of useful, specific information, and from there, the player can state details about thir prefernces, and, for instance, give examples. This is the process whereby truly specific and useful information is imparted, not some arbitary test wich renders the term meaningless. And if it's not jusged valid, then what? Is his grevience simply ignored, or do we need to create, an additional, redundant definintions to handle those cases? In any event your definintion is bunk- how do you define legitimate power? Does the player have the power to define when the city watch is going to be patrolling a street? No. But if the GM just happens to have the city watch turn up in force on a 'routine patrol' whenever the PC's do anything illegal, is that not railroading? I'd say a lot of people would find such an outcome frustrating and problematic, and with good cause. Nonetheless, a player still has the right to say "well i want to play a ninja so i'm not playing in your game, because I find it too restrictive in this way". And that essentially is the dialogue inherent in all clahses of this sort. You might argue that railroading is specific to plot, but that's an abstraction and not nearly as concrete a line as people might think. For instance, if the GM says 'everybody has to play a cleric', that might not seem to have a constant effect on plot, but it does if the GM uses the 'voice of god' and the ethos rules to constantly step on their choices. Again, it's still and issue of power, and inherent in various campaign choices is an impact on player choice. For isntance, the WLD is going to take power away from the player in a pretty obvious way. The GM has to accept that this is what they are doing, and accept that players may object to such a premise, or grow frustrated or bored with it over time. There are any number of critiera as to wether a complaint might, for istance, prompt a GM to amke chages. But setting up an arbitary test for that is only going to further confuse the issue. I agree that someties the GM should take steps, and other times less so (such as the guard-killing example noted above). But this false critiera for justification is only going to cause problems for groups who's play style or assumptions do not match your own. At worst, it coudl mislead a GM into thinking that he can safely dismiss a greviance, despite it potentially being quite valid. It comunicates that he is unhapy because of control and power issues, and tells you you need to discuss the issue in more depth, and generally determine the specifics of the situation. It helps you because at least you have determined that there is a problem. And it's nto as if your defiintion fares any better in such a situation- wether his greviance tests as railroading or not, you're stil left with a player who hgas a problem they can't articulate. At least my definintion recogises that such issues can be caused by many factors, even ones the GM may find perfectly legitimate. Yes, i agree. But the blanket term for control issues is still railroading. To get more specific than that, you need to talk details, examples, and so on. Terminology will not get you far in such a diverse hobby. I disagree. The false assumptiosn are yours, my definition is about avoiding assumptions as muhc as possible. No, you're wrong because you're stuck on the idea that your preferences and criteria are more commonly aplicable than they are, in ways wich they are not.I'm not going to answer questions set up to be a trap, especially with a yes/no answer. See, right there a lot of people would disagree. For instance I run mainly with the core rules. It varies group by group. A lot. Ok so what does the GM do in such a situation? If the players are sick of ravenloft, the players are sick of ravenloft! If the players come to the table execting the Forgotten Realms(relativly generic and inclusive adventure fantasy), and instead find the GM is running the 'Forgotten Realms' (staggering around waterdeep being abused and bullied but uber-powerful signiature character like Elminster), then again,there is a greviance. Nobody si arguing for that. It's grey way bebfore then, esecially when we consider that problems players and GM's are rarely effective in their comunication. Yeah but if people aren't up front with what they want, or argue about it, then that's only more reason to have preferences in mind as much as possible.There's a difference betwen a curve-ball and a brawl on the pitch. I'm not talking about a boring game, i'm talking about a game wich gives the players what they want, the kind of challenges they enjoy.</blockquote>

Verification