Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8337139" data-attributes="member: 59082">I've only read the first two posts, but like just about any such "controversies," I think there is a meta-question that should be asked before going into it any further:Is it fun? Meaning, is everyone at the table having fun? If the answer is a resounding "yes!" then it isn't bad or wrong for those at the table, which in the context of a tabletop RPG is all that matters (unless you care what others are doing in the privacy of their own homes/tables).Now of course there isn't always a resounding or consensual yes. Sometimes it is "yes, for the most part, but..." Or if some or all of the people aren't having fun, then something is wrong, and that's where all the complications lie (e.g. if one person isn't having fun and everyone else is, maybe it is a mismatch for that person and they're better off finding a different group or adjusting their expectations; if two or more aren't having fun, maybe something needs to shift in the group, etc etc). If a group has a strongly "railroady" style and everyone enjoys it, then I don't see the problem with continuing as-is. It doesn't matter what your pet RPG philosophy is, or what seems "true" in the abstract, it is always trumped by the Rule of Fun (or, we could say, the Rule of Consensual Fun).This also applies to just about any aspect of RPGs. If everyone enjoys killing things and taking their stuff, that's great. If everyone wants to focus on social-emotional role-playing situations, fine. That's one of the best things about RPGs: they can be infinitely customized to suit different styles of play, and different people.That said, of course railroading is a problem when a DM does it and multiple players don't like it. But if a DM railroads and the players are enjoying themselves, what's the problem? This may surprise the diehard game theorists of the world, but some players just like to show up and roll some dice, and even prefer it when there are clear tracks to follow before them. I find that most players tend to want some degree of freedom, but again this is calibrated around the specific players and group.I would also suggest that some of what people consider railroading is just the reality of hard choices. Sometimes we are faced with impossible choices: get the dream job, but lose the relationship; play D&D or hang out with significant other; eat ice cream, but get fat. Etc etc. I feel that some of the "anti-railroading" sentiment  is about avoiding such choices. But as is taught in jujitsu, there's always an escape. If DMs don't allow that, it is a problem. So while I will argue that the Rule of Fun trumps all, as a general rule, it generally is best facilitated by a "not too tight, not too loose" approach. Meaning, a game involving challenges, hard choices, but always a path through. Too tight, and players feel like they have no real choices; too loose, and it feels like their choices don't matter. Just right...well, that's where a good game lies, but it differs for every group, and is usually quite flexible, especially if the Rule of Fun is the primary barometer, vs this-or-that abstract element of game theory.</blockquote>

Verification