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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercutio01" data-source="post: 5751676" data-attributes="member: 37277">I don't think a GM having an out-of-game conversation about play-style is "railroading." I think that's explicitly part of the social contract of gaming. Obviously there was a problem with player buy-in for the OP, which the other players appear to have missed until the problems at the diner. But blaming the GM for explaining the social contract of the game and then trying again to get the player to understand the social contract after the game ended is more about table dynamics than it is about railroading.It's important not to forget that there is an implicit construct (and in some games, it's actually written and explicit) surrounding the way a game is created, run, and played. It would be out of line railroading if the GM said to the OP, "No, you can't kill the NPC and throw him to the zombies." It is not railroading if, after the game, the GM says, "Hey, seriously. Take a look at the show to get a better feel for the kind of game we're playing."When you sit down for a supers game, and the rest of the group is thinking 4C golden or silver age stuff, but one player insists on making an iron age anti-hero, the disconnect is not for the other players and attempts to talk to the outlying player about the setting are not railroading. What the GM appears to have failed to do, is fully explain the setting/game to someone who isn't familiar with it. So, the GM failed part of the social contract, and the player acted on that failure by breaking his part of it.</blockquote>

Verification