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: 2970289" data-attributes="member: 18280">As a representative of your general attitude, it explains why you're having so many problems communicating.Listen and agree are not the same thing.  It's ironic that you would suggest that I am "at square one, making the same basic arguments in different ways" as some form of insult while claiming that you are "often repeating the same points" as though it were some kind of virtue.You have not answered these questions: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?I was about to wash my hands of the whole thing, but at least you did provide some insight to the reasons behind your thinking:OK, I certainly do not disagree with your statements that railroading is something that the DM does to the player, or that the GM has final ruling and the balance of power.  However, your explaination doesn't include the reason why you therefore conclude that the player test is more valid.If I said: All trout are fish All fish live in the water Therefore all trout live in the waterI would create a chain of logic built on premises that could be explained.  If I instead saidAll trout are fish Therefore all trout live in the waterI might still be correct, but I have left out an important piece of information upon which my argument relies.  Likewise, your argument may be correct, but there is no chain of logic inAll railroading is done by DMs to players All DMs have more power than players Therefore if the player says it's railroading it isThis is not to say that you are necessarily wrong.  However, there is at least one premise that is missing from this equation.  The missing premise(s), if true, might lead toward your conclusion.  If false, the missing premises might falsify your position.  It seems to me that one of the premises you build your assertation on isAll players know when the DM is being unfairor something similar.  In fact, the only way I can see to complete that logic chain requires a statement of this sort.  Maybe there is another chain of logic that I haven't seen yet, but if so you have yet to provide it.  Please do so.Again, what "useful, specific information" does the term "railroading" communicate?To use an example from upthread, I was accused of railroading once when I supplied an obvious hook.  The player in question thought that if he did not follow the hook he had no options to play in that session.  I pointed out over 10 other options he was aware of (including the option they had planned to follow up at the end of the last session).  This is an easy example of what happens when both parties can see that a grievance is not valid.However, let us imagine a less clear-cut example.  A PC attacks Bobby the Aardvark, rolls a 16, and hits.  The next round, the same PC rolls a 17 and misses.  The player cries foul.Let us assume further that there is a very good reason for this, one which the player would agree was legitimate if he were aware of it, but which for game purposes the DM doesn't want to reveal.  The DM says "Yes, it looks wonky, but there's a good reason for it" and the player decides to accept that or not.  Generally speaking, what happens next depends upon that player's experience with that DM and/or with DMs in general.  It also depends upon that player's temperament and play preferences.  IME, that is the end of it, and when it is no longer an immediate game issue, I might tell the players why the change occurred.  That's a good thing, because it helps to build player trust.  But I do not feel it is a mandatory thing.Of course, my players generally trust me, and this sort of thing is part of the explicit (written) social contract at my table.If the player does not accept it, and it is a large enough point to interupt the game over, clearly the player and DM are going to clash.  This is going to happen, IME and IMHO, for only one of two reasons:  (1)  They have irreconcilable play styles, and/or (2) one or both of them is an ass.  In either case, the clearest and easiest solution is that the player does not continue to play under that DM.  YMMV, of course.I define legitimate power by the social contract, implied or explicit, in force at any given table.  To some degree, legitimate power is incorporated in the RAW (house rules, WotC material, and/or third party sourcebooks as appropriate).  If the rules suddenly and inexplicably change without warning or discussion, then that is never legitimate.  IMHO.  YMMV.I would further suggest that there are some things that are automatically legitimate for the DM to assume:  Choice of the campaign setting in which his game is set, opening set-up, selection of opponents, selection of treasure, planning & mapping locations, and so on.  Some of these things can admittedly cause problems in and of themselves.  If the DM sets up encounters, for example, that the PCs cannot avoid or survive something far worse than mere railroading is going on.  If the DM is your opponent (as opposed to creating and running your opponents to offer you challenges that you might succeed or fail at), you simply cannot win.  Not only is there no way to win, but also no way that you should continue playing under that DM.  Although it is certainly subjective, I would agree that ultimately the definition of "legitimate" is determined by the players.  In this way, our definitions are similar.  A bad DM is a bad DM, railroading or not.  There are other ways to be a bad DM.  Players have a very simple solution to this problem:  walk.Sure.  I absolutely agree that any DM has the right to deny any player, and any player has the right to deny any DM.  That is an absolute right.I do not argue that railroading is specific to plot (although that is the classic definition from Lo These Many Years Back) but only that there has to be some linear (removal of choice to force players along a direction determined by the DM).I admit that I do make an assumption that the DM in question knows whether or not he is behaving in a fair manner.  I realize that this assumption isn't always valid, but where it is not valid there is very little point in continuing to play under that DM.  I grant that sometimes a DM might do something unfair unintentionally, but if the purpose of the DM is to create a fun game & play fairly, then upon reflection the DM should be able to accept that whatever unfair behavior occurred was unfair.Again, any DM who cannot do this isn't worth showing up for.Therfore, when a grievance is made, I do make the assumption that the DM does (or should) know whether or not it is justified, either now or in very short order.What the DM does not know, and must subjectively judge, is the player's reason for making the grievance.  If he believes that the player is making the grievance "just because" or to attempt to control the game, then the DM should either dump that player or remain firm.  If the DM believes that the player thinks the grievance is justified, he can point out why it is not or ask the player to trust him.  If he is not abusive of his power, and the DM/player play styles are not irreconcilable, then this should be enough.Obviously, making this determination requires either (1) a long-term relationship with the player or (2) listening to the specifics of the grievance.IME, very few problems should cause more than a few minutes to adjudicate, even if the DM is fairly green, assuming that both the DM and players come to the game with a cooperative agenda.  And anyone who comes to the table to cause problems -- DM or player -- should be sent home.YMMV and JMHO, of course.RC</blockquote>

Verification