Quote from: James J SkachOf course it makes it better - for a sub-set of "gamers."  If there is an in-game reason it's valid that the character is struggling. The fact that the player doesn't know about it heightens the tension for many players - helps them keep in the headspace of the character, helps them because they, too, are clueless as to what forces are moving against the character. As long as the GM is not abusing the power, many gamers are fine with the valid in-game reasons (the abuse/power/trust issue is an entirely different thing).

I suppose it depends what criteria you apply to decide whether a particular in-game reason is "valid". If said in-game factors were in play before the player even attempted to take the course of action which has been stonewalled, then in my view it's valid; if the GM made them up on the spot, on the other hand, they're usually less valid in my eyes.

Of course, a reason which seems valid and reasonable and well-thought-through but was in fact thought up on the spot can be equally acceptable to me as a player - after all, if the reason seems sensible to me OOC I'm not likely to be fussed about it.

Quote from: WarthurI suppose it depends what criteria you apply to decide whether a particular in-game reason is "valid". If said in-game factors were in play before the player even attempted to take the course of action which has been stonewalled, then in my view it's valid; if the GM made them up on the spot, on the other hand, they're usually less valid in my eyes.

Of course, a reason which seems valid and reasonable and well-thought-through but was in fact thought up on the spot can be equally acceptable to me as a player - after all, if the reason seems sensible to me OOC I'm not likely to be fussed about it.

This is where the issues of abuse/trust/etc come into play.  I could see the same person having a problem with a made-up-on-the-spot reason with one GM ("Who does Joe think he is? He's always trying to control characters!"), but letting it pass with another ("hey, I know Jane - she's got something rocking in store for me!").

Which is why I'm not focusing on what is or is not valid, per se. My point is that Tony's response seems to indicate that to some gamers, it's a binary response.  And I'm trying to get a better understanding of that approach.

Well, I think you're sort of missing the context I was asking in:  We've been asked (in the first post) to assume that the reason for the obstacles is that the GM is planning something else, and won't let his plans be disturbed.  "Suppose that..." and like that.  It's part of the hypothetical that Jong is asking us to discuss.

I guess what I'm asking is, once we've assumed (as per the first post) that the GM is railroading, does an in-game justification make that better?

And, to be clear:  I don't even think railroading is bad.  But if it's okay then it's okay, however it's explained in the fiction.  I find it odd to hear someone say that railroading without in-game justification is terrible, but once you dress it up in in-game props it all becomes fine.  That strikes me as an odd place to draw the line.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I think you're sort of missing the context I was asking in:  We've been asked (in the first post) to assume that the reason for the obstacles is that the GM is planning something else, and won't let his plans be disturbed.  "Suppose that..." and like that.  It's part of the hypothetical that Jong is asking us to discuss.

I guess what I'm asking is, once we've assumed (as per the first post) that the GM is railroading, does an in-game justification make that better?

And, to be clear:  I don't even think railroading is bad.  But if it's okay then it's okay, however it's explained in the fiction.  I find it odd to hear someone say that railroading without in-game justification is terrible, but once you dress it up in in-game props it all becomes fine.  That strikes me as an odd place to draw the line.

Ahhh...sorry 'bout that, Tony.

I read it a little differently - perhaps being too kind in my reading.  I didn't read GM's plans differ as railroading, just that the machinations he set up ran counter to the players goals.

Quote from: James J SkachAhhh...sorry 'bout that, Tony.

I read it a little differently - perhaps being too kind in my reading.  I didn't read GM's plans differ as railroading, just that the machinations he set up ran counter to the players goals.

That's the way I was reading it too.

-clash

Quote from: James J SkachI read it a little differently - perhaps being too kind in my reading.  I didn't read GM's plans differ as railroading, just that the machinations he set up ran counter to the players goals.

Makes sense.  And, like I said, I'm not against the GM having an input.

If the GM has plans, and he stops you from disturbing his plans ... that's a thing.  I'm not actually making judgment on that thing.  Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

But does the in-game stuff have anything to do with whether it's good or bad?

Quote from: TonyLBMakes sense.  And, like I said, I'm not against the GM having an input.

If the GM has plans, and he stops you from disturbing his plans ... that's a thing.  I'm not actually making judgment on that thing.  Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

But does the in-game stuff have anything to do with whether it's good or bad?

Yes. It's the simulation thang, Tony. We like simulation.

-clash

For no apparent reason, i've just realised that Tony comes from Saturn.

"Greetings traveller! I have no need for coloured beads just now thanks! Here, try a beer!"

Quote from: flyingmiceYes. It's the simulation thang, Tony. We like simulation.

:idunno: Guess I'm a Cheetoist at heart.  I look at it and I say "Man, this is about the people at the table first, not what's happening in the fiction."

Quote from: SettembriniTwo €s this is about Pundit´s Superhero Legion campaign.

I don't play that campaign.

Maybe I should have added that it is a historical campaign that I'm talking about. Something didn't happen, perhaps because it could have threatened the campaign's "timeline." It's a tricky situation, different from standard railroading: the GM isn't obsessed with a particular plot of his, but wants to keep the game within certain "historical" boundaries.

Here's a summary of the situation:

Spoiler

It happened on Immortal Rome campaign. My character, who is secretly a Christian, adopted a (very smart) 10-years old kid but couldn't convert him, despite his efforts. Marcus, a.k.a. Verissimus, was legally adopted a second time when he was 17, this time by the new emperor Antoninus Pius.

I don't think I'll leave the campaign, as I greatly enjoy it for the most part, but yesterday's outcome disappointed me on a certain level. I don't think this was an inescapable, Hari Seldon-like historical event that was meant to be. :shrug:

IMO if the GM is running a very strict historical campaign, it's the GM's responsibility to let the players know before the campaign that their actions are constricted by history.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RIMO if the GM is running a very strict historical campaign, it's the GM's responsibility to let the players know before the campaign that their actions are constricted by history.

Regards,
David R

Agreed, and I'd never run an historical campaign that was like that, but each to his own tastes...

-clash

Quote from: TonyLB:idunno: Guess I'm a Cheetoist at heart. I look at it and I say "Man, this is about the people at the table first, not what's happening in the fiction."

And I'm not. I like and respect Kyle immensely, and agree that the social aspects of play are often given too little thought, but we ultimately play for very different reasons.

That doesn't mean we can't play together! It just means we have different priorities. I had a rocking time with Kyle when he was playing in my IHW IRC campaign, and was really let down when he had to quit when we changed times. Time zones suck!

-clash

Quote from: TonyLB:idunno: Guess I'm a Cheetoist at heart.  I look at it and I say "Man, this is about the people at the table first, not what's happening in the fiction."

See, Tony, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  I think if the people at the table play like you seem to be advocating, then those kinds of machinations, whether valid in-game or not, are probably not a good idea. Others play another way.

And, frankly, it's a bit insulting to insinuate that people who play this way are not taking into account the people that are at the table. Can you see how it would be?

Quote from: James J SkachSee, Tony, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  I think if the people at the table play like you seem to be advocating, then those kinds of machinations, whether valid in-game or not, are probably not a good idea. Others play another way.

And, frankly, it's a bit insulting to insinuate that people who play this way are not taking into account the people that are at the table. Can you see how it would be?

I'm going to have to add "What James J Skatch Said!" to my sig if this keeps up!



-clash