Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5751856" data-attributes="member: 6679551">That's not what was said.&nbsp; You're adding your own narrative to the events.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now maybe you have some sort of special powers that allow you to know what was said?&nbsp; When some one tells you that is &quot;not how the game is going to be played&quot; that is an ultimatum.&nbsp; He let him do it ONCE.&nbsp; Every GM has been caught off guard by someone's actions and allowed stuff that later they realize they shouldn't have.&nbsp; The GM stopped the session immediately after this event.&nbsp; I read this as the GM clearly wanting to railroad the player OOC, rather than do it in game.&nbsp; Makes the GM look like less of a tyrant.&nbsp; Nevertheless, there is little difference.&nbsp; It's a railroad.&nbsp; You're&nbsp; restricting player actions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your rationale in this instance is mind-boggling.&nbsp; Allowing something once and then telling someone they can't do it again is still railroading.&nbsp;There's nothing you've offered that changes this except completely ignoring what RR wrote.&nbsp; This irrelevant assertion is probably the key to understanding your mindset.&nbsp; Nowhere does he say or even suggest the other PC's want to kill him.&nbsp; In fact, he later chastised Janx for suggesting this and directly refuted this.&nbsp; He said the other PC's told him he couldn't take charge.&nbsp;&nbsp; According to RR, none of the PC's have said squat to him about his in-game actions.&nbsp; So apparently, none of the other players have yet to voice an OOC problem with his actions.However, you seem to be reinterpreting what was written to support this idea that a player isn't be true to the genre.&nbsp;&nbsp; You seem to want to color the GM as being low key about it and making friendly suggestions.&nbsp; The only rational explanation is that this strikes close to home for you and by defending the GM in this case, you're somehow defending yourself.&nbsp; I get that feeling from a lot of the responses in this thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5751856, member: 6679551"] That's not what was said. You're adding your own narrative to the events. Now maybe you have some sort of special powers that allow you to know what was said? When some one tells you that is "not how the game is going to be played" that is an ultimatum. He let him do it ONCE. Every GM has been caught off guard by someone's actions and allowed stuff that later they realize they shouldn't have. The GM [i]stopped[/i] the session immediately after this event. I read this as the GM clearly wanting to railroad the player OOC, rather than do it in game. Makes the GM look like less of a tyrant. Nevertheless, there is little difference. It's a railroad. You're restricting player actions. Your rationale in this instance is mind-boggling. Allowing something once and then telling someone they can't do it again is [i]still[/i] railroading. There's nothing you've offered that changes this except completely ignoring what RR wrote. This irrelevant assertion is probably the key to understanding your mindset. Nowhere does he say or even suggest the other PC's want to kill him. In fact, he later chastised Janx for suggesting this and directly refuted this. He said the other PC's told him he couldn't take charge. According to RR, none of the PC's have said squat to him about his in-game actions. So apparently, none of the other players have yet to voice an OOC problem with his actions. However, you seem to be reinterpreting what was written to support this idea that a player isn't be true to the genre. You seem to want to color the GM as being low key about it and making friendly suggestions. The only rational explanation is that this strikes close to home for you and by defending the GM in this case, you're somehow defending yourself. I get that feeling from a lot of the responses in this thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification