The Walking Dead

[S'mon]

If the GM tells a player how to play a character that is operating within the framework of the genre, that is railroading.

There's a difference between " operating within the framework of the genre" and "operating as a protagonist within the moral framework of the genre". The OP's character was acting in-genre: as an antagonist. The GM can legitimately declare that the antagonist role - the villain role - is NPC only.

 

[Mercutio01]

That's it. Right there....the heart of the matter. You're upset because the player ruined the mood you were shooting for. What do the Jedi teach?

Let go.

That is correct. And it wasn't just the GM who wanted that mood, was it? It was every other player at the table. And if a player is disruptive, as this player clearly was, that is a problem that needs to be solved.

This is a complete difference in play and GM preferences, and I think we're at the heart of the matter. You want the GM to let go of all control. You just said as much. That is not the way I game. That is, apparently, not the way the GM in question games.

 

[Arrowhawk]

The GM did NOT tell the player how to play the character within the framework of the game.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said.

He allowed the player to do exactly what he wanted to do.

If the next time they play and RR tries to do the same thing, and the GM says you can't do that because I already told you that you wouldn't be allowed to do it, what would you call that?

I see the GM helpfully explaining

I know you do. The fact that you've inserted the world "helpfully" underscores your predisposition on the matter. You've chosen to interpret the facts in a manner that comports with your noting that the GM should be able to control whether Captain Marvel can commit evil acts. I get it.

You see the GM as being a dick, artificially limiting a player's actions, and essentially not allowing any kind of player freedom.

I never said any such thing. You're completely fabricating statements and ascribing them to me. That behavior crosses the line of a civil discussion.

Setting up the game world and explaining the way that the game will be run and the expectations for the players is not railroading.

I have never given my players "expectations." I expect players to operate based on their characters. If we play adventurers with alignment restrictions, that will entail different responses than if we play modern day humans who don't generally conceptualize themselves as having an alignment.

Nor have I ever had a GM tell me what his expectations are for the characters. The world is described to us and we react to it. But then I won't play with GM's who fail to understand that RPGing is a two-way street. The game exists because we all agree to play it.

I do know there are GM's who power trip and I avoid them.

 

[malcolypse]

Correction and apology.

The next time you suspect such a thing, please report the issue to the moderators, rather than make a public scene out of it. Thanks.

Umbran, I want to be clear that I made that accusation publicly first, not Janx. I don't want him in the focus of your ire for something that I did.

I apologize to you for handling it poorly.

 

[Mercutio01]

If the next time they play and RR tries to do the same thing, and the GM says you can't do that because I already told you that you wouldn't be allowed to do it, what would you call that?

The next time something like that happens, the GM should boot the player, because that then crosses the line from a one-time disruption of the game to a serial disruptor.

I never said any such thing. You're completely fabricating statements and ascribing them to me. That behavior crosses the line of a civil discussion.

Just following suit from your last post.

I have never given my players "expectations." I expect players to operate based on their characters. If we play adventurers with alignment restrictions, that will entail different responses than if we play modern day humans who don't generally conceptualize themselves as having an alignment.

Never? Setting an alignment restriction IS setting an expectation. Fact.

Nor have I ever had a GM tell me what his expectations are for the characters. The world is described to us and we react to it. But then I won't play with GM's who fail to understand that RPGing is a two-way street. The game exists because we all agree to play it.

Right. Everyone else at that table appeared to have agreed to the expectations, except RR.

I do know there are GM's who power trip and I avoid them.

Civility, eh? In any case, it's not a power trip to set up expectations of behavior.

EDITED TO ADD: GM's, by their very job, do more work than all of the players combined. Insisting that the GM be a willow that bends to the will of the players at every occasion is irrational as much as a GM that never bends with the players.

 

[Arrowhawk]

And it wasn't just the GM who wanted that mood, was it? It was every other player at the table.

ANd here is where you lack objectivity. There is no evidence that any other player has a problem with RR's play style. There is no evidence he ruined the mood for anyone but the GM. Players objecting in-game does not say anything about how they feel OOC. In-game, my Nuetral Good Cleric may vehemently object to the Orc Fighter in our party torturing a prisoner, but as a player I'm happy to have someone else do the dirty work or play the bad guy.

You seem to be keen on jumping to all sorts of conclusions about the other players.

 

[Mercutio01]

You seem to be keen on jumping to all sorts of conclusions about the other players.

I suppose that is possible. I read "Everyone at the table is up in arms that i cant do that." as being OOC, not IC. Specifically, the "at the table" as the clue that it was the players having the problem, and not the player characters.

I don't think that's jumping to a conclusion. I'm pretty sure that's meant to be read literally.

 

[malcolypse]

From the original post:

Everyone at the table is up in arms that i cant do that.

There's your evidence Arrowhawk.

Edit: I made sure to quote this, so that I couldn't be accused of lacking objectivity. Mercutio01 beat me to the post, though.

 

[Mercutio01]

And I'm done. I'm done because we have two fundamentally different views of how games should be run and played. I believe in a collective creation directed by a GM who sets the stage and expects the players buy in. If the players don't buy-in, then the game doesn't run, and a new game goes on. If the players do buy-in, then they agree to the world the GM has established and play within the bounds.

I believe in social contracts that dictate specific items--showing up on time, following the rules as set, and playing within the expectations everyone else has agreed on. I believe that if the social contract is broken, it should first attempt to be fixed, usually OOC so that a GM can explain what, why, and how. And if the player doesn't buy-in, then there's a different game to be played.

Again, the GM does the most work in any campaign. The GM cannot have a smaller share (or even an equal one) with each individual player. The GM is not just another player.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Never? Setting an alignment restriction IS setting an expectation. Fact.

I don't set alignment restrictions, those are set by the rules of the game. Fact.

If a Lawful Good character wants to act evil, that's his/her prerogative. It may just be a very short one. If the game doesn't use alignments, then alignment is a non-issue.

The players are free to take whatever actions they want. I, as the GM, decide how the environment or NPC's respond.

In any case, it's not a power trip to set up expectations of behavior.

I don't know what goes through your mind when you say "expectations of behavior."