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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5179709" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, now that brings us full circle to the the satire that infuriated you.Amerigov is clearly satirizing the consequence of assuming that movie making makes a good analogy for RPGs.  So, he comically imagines a game that has an actual script and an actual director and thereby shows that whole analogy of movie making to RPGs falls down.And your response, stripped of its sarcasm, was this:But Amerigov wasn't in fact saying that any scripting was akin to railroading.  Nor was he asserting that any preparation constituted railroading.  He was only asserting that a literal script constituted something other than a RPG.  The various sorts of preparations a DM might make for play however don't constitute a literal script, but rather something that is analogous to a script but which differs from a script in various fashions by having features that scripts don't have and by not having features that scripts do have.  Granted, the module can contain literal scripts as elements, but generally speaking, this scripts ought to represent a small fraction of the content of a module, otherwise the players probably will feel 'railroaded'.  Containg a script or elements of script does not however make a module a script.The only way I can see that you get from Amerigov's satire to your satirical response if you think of modules as literal scripts or if you didn't read what he wrote very closely at all and instead responded based on preconcieved notions of what the argument was about (namely, the 'sandboxing' versus 'railroading' flamewar that has been sweeping other threads).</blockquote>

Verification