Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9509045" data-attributes="member: 6696971">It needs to be said again and again that the idea of games (any of them) being &quot;railroads via (the play-space constraints of) premise&quot; is just such an absurd concept that it cannot be taken seriously and anyone who puts it forward is undermining their credibility as a thinker on the design and play of games (any of them).&nbsp; If you accept that absurd framing of &quot;railroad via premise&quot;, what we are left with is the reductive position that only the most rudderless, wandering play featuring the most diffuse premise and the most infinite play-space is a non-railroad.&nbsp; Please.&nbsp; Just stop.Railroading is not and cannot be about premise.&nbsp; Premise is &quot;the lines necessary to play games at all.&quot; It is the &quot;boundaries of the play-space, court/mat, etc&quot; so to speak.&nbsp; Railroading is what happens between those lines, within that play-space.&nbsp; It is the frequency and magnitude of instances of Force (typically GM, but it could absolutely be player-side, possibly facilitated by system) whereby the possible outcomes and attendant trajectories of play (within that play-space that premise constructs) are sufficiently undermined/controlled such that &quot;all roads lead to a participant-desired Rome&quot;.&nbsp; Consequently, &quot;system's say&quot; and the other participants (singular or plural) rights to play-derived, authentic outcomes and trajectory are subordinated.You might as well complain that basketball is a railroad-fest because it doesn't allow for changing court dimensions and subbing in face-punching for basket-scoring.[HR][/HR]All that being said, there is, in fact, a well-known concept of &quot;Rug Pull&quot; where GMs absolutely can railroad around premise.&nbsp; But it is a very different kettle of fish.&nbsp; It's when the participants have already agreed upon the constraints of a play-space (via premise) and suddenly, midway (for all values of &quot;mid&quot;) through a game, the (pretty much exclusively) GM goes &quot;HAHAHA, WE WERE PLAYING x RULESET FEATURING y PREMISE...NOT ANYMORE...SUDDENLY, n HAPPENS AND NOW RULESET AND PREMISE CHANGES.&quot;&nbsp; Everyone has some exposure to this.&nbsp; You're playing traditional fantasy D&amp;D and something contrived happens to whisk you off to a no-PC attachment sci-fi setting and you're now playing post-apoc science fantasy with Gamma World or something.&nbsp; Or whatever.Interestingly, probably the most potent protection against this is an actual agreed upon firm premise for play at the outset so a GM's ability to Rug Pull is completely shut down.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9509045, member: 6696971"] It needs to be said again and again that the idea of games (any of them) being "railroads via (the play-space constraints of) premise" is just such an absurd concept that it cannot be taken seriously and anyone who puts it forward is undermining their credibility as a thinker on the design and play of games (any of them). If you accept that absurd framing of "railroad via premise", what we are left with is the reductive position that only the most rudderless, wandering play featuring the most diffuse premise and the most infinite play-space is a non-railroad. Please. Just stop. Railroading is not and cannot be about premise. Premise is "the lines necessary to play games at all." It is the "boundaries of the play-space, court/mat, etc" so to speak. Railroading is what happens between those lines, within that play-space. It is the frequency and magnitude of instances of Force (typically GM, but it could absolutely be player-side, possibly facilitated by system) whereby the possible outcomes and attendant trajectories of play (within that play-space that premise constructs) are sufficiently undermined/controlled such that "all roads lead to a participant-desired Rome". Consequently, "system's say" and the other participants (singular or plural) rights to play-derived, authentic outcomes and trajectory are subordinated. You might as well complain that basketball is a railroad-fest because it doesn't allow for changing court dimensions and subbing in face-punching for basket-scoring. [HR][/HR] All that being said, there is, in fact, a well-known concept of "Rug Pull" where GMs absolutely can railroad around premise. But it is a very different kettle of fish. It's when the participants have already agreed upon the constraints of a play-space (via premise) and suddenly, midway (for all values of "mid") through a game, the (pretty much exclusively) GM goes "HAHAHA, WE WERE PLAYING x RULESET FEATURING y PREMISE...NOT ANYMORE...SUDDENLY, n HAPPENS AND NOW RULESET AND PREMISE CHANGES." Everyone has some exposure to this. You're playing traditional fantasy D&D and something contrived happens to whisk you off to a no-PC attachment sci-fi setting and you're now playing post-apoc science fantasy with Gamma World or something. Or whatever. Interestingly, probably the most potent protection against this is an actual agreed upon firm premise for play at the outset so a GM's ability to Rug Pull is completely shut down. [/QUOTE]

Verification