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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9760905" data-attributes="member: 4937">Even if that was what I had said, you can't now complain about it because your own definition means that unless the players consent to your myth it is railroading.  And we can in fact find examples of players who don't consent to myth and suggest that unless a game is "no myth" then it is railroading.   Now, I'm not inclined to agree with that but by your own definition you can't object to the idea that myth creation is railroading. I'm not even sure what you are saying here because this doesn't seem to be a response to the section of text you quoted.  What I will say is I never said everything a GM does is railroading.  I have described things that aren't railroading, such as arbitration of an action according to the rules and established fiction.  But of course, by your own definition, even that can be railroading if for some reason the player decides that your arbitration is wrong and doesn't consent to it.I strongly suspect that your definition is going to end up needing a caveat of "reasonable consent" where a player in your opinion should be expected to consent.I don't think we agreed to that the last time we discussed coercion.  You can be coerced or manipulated into consent.If you do it secretly, you are still just choosing to ignore the dice, the difference is how you are getting consent for it.  You totally could roll in the open and the manipulate people into giving you consent to ignore the rolls.As for your analogy to crime, I'm just not going to go there.  We've got enough of comparing the hobby to intrinsically dangerous behaviors without going there.</blockquote>

Verification