tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post7539902623402300902..comments2023-05-12T05:10:20.941-04:00Comments on Raven Crowking's Nest: On Theory (Re)Defined, Railroad (Part IV)ravencrowkinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-9917033744986181362013-03-30T08:54:18.970-04:002013-03-30T08:54:18.970-04:00Very well put. #3, in particular, seems to be som...Very well put. #3, in particular, seems to be something -C is either unaware of or chooses to ignore. A lot of people coming into gaming after rpgs spawned their computer simulations seem to think that the two are equivalent....including game designers!<br /><br />They are not.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-88004573941469810292013-03-16T14:22:03.802-04:002013-03-16T14:22:03.802-04:00I've only just come in on this, having been lu...I've only just come in on this, having been lurking on your excellent blog. If I'm understanding the issue correctly, the question concerns whether DMs (or GMs if you prefer) ought to forcibly manipulate players into the scenarios that they have designed. The analogy this person -C is drawing is to the programming of a computer game. There are several things that come to mind:<br /><br />1. If a given scenario is interesting enough and has enough options, players will not have to be "railroaded." They'll be engaged on their own.<br /><br />2. The mark of a good scenario is one that works within the rules to create a situation which the players have to their creative knowledge of the game rules in order to resolve--NOT a riddle that has a single solution (or even a set of multiple predetermined solutions). Gaming sessions that are satisfying for DM and players alike are those in which players devise solutions to problems that the DM didn't anticipate but which work nonetheless.<br /><br />3. The purpose of the rules in an rpg session (as opposed to a computer game) is to adjudicate the actions that players freely choose, not to decide which actions they can undertake and which they cannot. RPG judges should not try to simulate the action of a computer game--rather computer games will improve insofar as they simulate live roleplaying.<br /><br />4. The clear difference between live roleplaying and computer simulated "rpg" is the focus on genuine interaction in live roleplaying. Because the DM, as a "programmer" is actually present at the gaming situation, whatever "rules" he or she draws on are in a constant state of evolution due to the interaction with his or her players. In other words, most sophisticated DMs will pass the Turing Test, while computer simulations will not. This last point is so self-evident as to hardly bear emphasis, but it's difficult not to at least mention it when there are so many people out there who seem determined to turn their games into exercises in conformity.<br /><br />I am reminded of Tolkien's oft-quoted preference for "history real or feigned" over allegory. But as he pointed out, the experience of one resides in the freedom of the reader, the other "in the purposed domination of the writer."<br /><br />John Henry hasn't been beaten by the machine quite yet.DM McMazzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07512433600250438882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-75145364840657407912013-03-05T22:25:52.627-05:002013-03-05T22:25:52.627-05:00Interesting reading here: http://monstersandmanua...Interesting reading here: http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.ca/2013/03/gm-as-auteur-and-its-my-party-and-ill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+MonstersAndManuals+(Monsters+and+Manuals)<br /><br />Note especially the comment of James Wintergreen (5 March 2013 20:03). Smart guy.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-21185320591695020962013-03-05T22:19:12.217-05:002013-03-05T22:19:12.217-05:00If you are familiar with the philosophy of science...If you are familiar with the philosophy of science, you will know that it is impossible to eliminate all subjectivity. And I am leery of "certain aspects of it can be analysed and debated scientifically" without qualifying what those aspects are.<br /><br />That aside, determining if railroading is occurring requires three questions to be asked and answered:<br /><br />(1) Given the role assumed, and the logic of the game milieu (which is certainly influenced by, but is not limited to, the game rules), is it rational to assume that a character can make choice X?<br /><br />(2) Can the player have the character make choice X?<br /><br />(3) Do the limitations of choices within the milieu make sense within the context of the milieu itself?<br /><br />If the answers to the first two questions are, respectively, Yes and No, then some railroading is occurring. The degree of railroading, naturally, depends upon the significance of being able to make/not make choice X (and Y, and Z, etc.) within the context of the game. The point at which "too much" railroading is going on is subjective, because "too much" is a subjective valuation.<br /><br />There is also subjectivity in answering (1) and (2).<br /><br />If the answer to (3) is No, then there is some railroading going on. Determining how much depends upon understanding how choices are being limited by the milieu in a way that does not make sense within the milieu's framework. Obviously, because the GM has more information than the players, what appears to make no sense from the players' perspective may in fact make perfect sense from the GM's.<br /><br />Perspective is important, though. There may be a good reason why Rick, in The Walking Dead, doesn't know about a prison less than a day's drive from the town where he is sheriff, but if we aren't let in on the reason, the writing appears implausible.<br /><br />And note that "rail shooter" is not the milieu; the fictional environment wherein the shooting takes place is the milieu. The game is not "about" fundamental choices to interact with the milieu, but removal of those choices do put it on rails. Hence "rail shooter". It might still be a great game. You might still have a lot of options about what you do on the tracks. It is still a railroad.<br /><br />A player interacts with the fictional milieu through his character. Making choices for that character are how the player affects the milieu. Being able to do so is the core strength, IMHO, and the defining attribute of role-playing games. ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-1095502540702574912013-03-05T17:26:59.753-05:002013-03-05T17:26:59.753-05:00I am aware of how disproving claims; I only figure...I am aware of how disproving claims; I only figured if you put so much energy into these posts you, by now, must have come up with a definition of yours. I suppose it is a reasonable expectation :P<br /><br />To speak seriously, I am rather amateurish concerning law issues (especially because I am more into Hungarian laws), but I strongly in favour of not using any subjectivity regarding scientific matters. Albeit game design is not a science (well, it's debatable, but let me continue), certain aspects of it can be analysed and debated scientifically, hence my concerns about objectivity vs. subjectivity.<br /><br />From what "reasonable expectations" follow?Ynas Midgardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972628887096890642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-82205767136323010812013-03-05T14:28:21.402-05:002013-03-05T14:28:21.402-05:00A demonstration that X is wrong is not dependent u...A demonstration that X is wrong is not dependent upon proving that Y is right.<br /><br />If I claim that aliens have taken over the US government, you need not supply proof that something else has done so to disprove me; you need only show that what I am claiming is wrong.<br /><br />This series is not about supplying a definition of railroading, it is about demonstrating the problems associated with accepting -C's definition of the same.<br /><br />If there is call for it, I can (of course) do a post (or series of posts) about what railroading is and how to avoid it. However, any successful definition of the term is going to have a subjective component, because railroading refers to the removal of expected agency, and a useful definition would require that expectation to meet a standard of reasonableness.<br /><br />(We should note that, although "reasonable expectation" causes a subjective element to enter the definition, we use "reasonable expectation" in many other fields with success, including law. It also has the benefit of allowing for a subjective understanding that is more accurate than -C's proposed "objective" standard.)ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-83694306227308520562013-03-05T14:17:17.567-05:002013-03-05T14:17:17.567-05:00Ouch, this is a pretty long text... So long that i...Ouch, this is a pretty long text... So long that it's quite hard to find your distilled definition of railroading...Ynas Midgardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972628887096890642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-43808161690495342382013-03-03T11:14:29.961-05:002013-03-03T11:14:29.961-05:00"Impenetrable Wall of Text" has my best ..."Impenetrable Wall of Text" has my best Mercurial Magic result (98 - Natural Born Talent), so I try to use it as often as possible. Once in a while, though, I suffer corruption or patron taint.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-38427348250633946532013-03-03T10:21:46.641-05:002013-03-03T10:21:46.641-05:00My opinion on the thread:
1. -C is wrong about ra...My opinion on the thread:<br /><br />1. -C is wrong about railroading, and handled the argument poorly.<br />2. You've spent more effort responding to him than is worthwhile; somebody's always wrong somewhere on the Internet.<br />3. In trying to be absolutely clear in your responses, you've instead ended up casting "Impenetrable Wall of Text".<br />Tom Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14295247089905712338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-66936874158650218392013-03-02T19:39:54.258-05:002013-03-02T19:39:54.258-05:00Thank you. The real danger here is that some well-...Thank you. The real danger here is that some well-meaning individual, starting out a GMing career, is going to take -C's argument at face value. Then, when players are complaining about railroading, he's going to believe that it is THEIR problem, because either (1) he is playing with a ruleset that needs modification to enhance player agency (because he falls for that "rules can't railroad" BS), or (2) while not giving players agency, neither is he actively taking it away.<br /><br />Trying to make it sound like Jason Alexander agrees with him, when Mr. Alexander is a real heavyweight in terms of considering rpg design and the ramifications of the same, extends this risk to others who are more experienced with GMing, but perhaps less experienced with parsing out the actual evidenciary value of the arguments presented.ravencrowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09315630554847698555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1801483473113363785.post-48758770123659046442013-03-02T18:44:02.214-05:002013-03-02T18:44:02.214-05:00I absolutely agree with you—and I have noticed som...I absolutely agree with you—and I have noticed some similar tomfoolery on –C's behalf before. Not that he's a villain or a fool, but he does seem to have some issues with argumentation.JDG Perldeinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632961831809544262noreply@blogger.com