Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8335601" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, I'm sorry, but the &quot;there's no other choice&quot; bit is a tad circular.&nbsp; Why is there no other choice?&nbsp; The GM says so, because that's how the GM put this challenge together.&nbsp; At least, that's how D&amp;D works, where the GM is the only source of this kind of fiction.&nbsp; Other systems may get there a different way, and avoid this issue.So, your argument is that some kinds of GM limiting of choice is okay, because, well, it's okay, but other kinds, &quot;meaningful&quot; kinds, aren't.&nbsp; And the way to tell them apart is....Mostly agree, but this isn't a special form of play, it's a degenerate form of the exact same thing you posted above -- above, though, the constraints on player choice have been sold to the players and are accepted.&nbsp; The difference, really, between your above limitations and ones that result in railroading are going to be specific to a table because they're exactly the same things, just in different places/strengths.I'm 100% good with railroading being a degenerate play, but it degenerates from linear play; it's not some different animal.I'm not sure why failure is somehow special here -- you can have a railroad and still fail.&nbsp; There's nothing about a railroad that prevents failure, in fact, many horror stories featuring railroads result in TPKs and total failure because the GM forces that outcome.&nbsp; This isn't an argument that does anything.Railroading is just a degenerate form of linear play.&nbsp; It's where you do linear play wrong -- you put the wrong constraints on or you constrain to heavily or you don't get player buy-in to the constraints.&nbsp; One of my my memorable 3.x games as a player was pitched as a railroad -- it was a linear story and we were told that if we buy into the premise and follow it, the promise was that it would be an exciting ride.&nbsp; We did, and it was, and I wouldn't quite call it a railroad (even if the GM pitched it that way).&nbsp; It was no more of a railroad than any WotC AP for 5e, at least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8335601, member: 16814"] No, I'm sorry, but the "there's no other choice" bit is a tad circular. Why is there no other choice? The GM says so, because that's how the GM put this challenge together. At least, that's how D&D works, where the GM is the only source of this kind of fiction. Other systems may get there a different way, and avoid this issue. So, your argument is that some kinds of GM limiting of choice is okay, because, well, it's okay, but other kinds, "meaningful" kinds, aren't. And the way to tell them apart is.... Mostly agree, but this isn't a special form of play, it's a degenerate form of the exact same thing you posted above -- above, though, the constraints on player choice have been sold to the players and are accepted. The difference, really, between your above limitations and ones that result in railroading are going to be specific to a table because they're exactly the same things, just in different places/strengths. I'm 100% good with railroading being a degenerate play, but it degenerates from linear play; it's not some different animal. I'm not sure why failure is somehow special here -- you can have a railroad and still fail. There's nothing about a railroad that prevents failure, in fact, many horror stories featuring railroads result in TPKs and total failure because the GM forces that outcome. This isn't an argument that does anything. Railroading is just a degenerate form of linear play. It's where you do linear play wrong -- you put the wrong constraints on or you constrain to heavily or you don't get player buy-in to the constraints. One of my my memorable 3.x games as a player was pitched as a railroad -- it was a linear story and we were told that if we buy into the premise and follow it, the promise was that it would be an exciting ride. We did, and it was, and I wouldn't quite call it a railroad (even if the GM pitched it that way). It was no more of a railroad than any WotC AP for 5e, at least. [/QUOTE]

Verification