|
>>
|
904d48.jpg
Orange Feather Sugar
904d48
>>32
What you describe is certainly reasonable; the only problem lies in how one is to define a railroad. For example, the train analogy considers point A as the beginning and B as the destination. Whilst the train may stop to take on more passengers on the way, change the scenery surrounding the trip, or create a social environment for the passengers, the destination remains the same. Meaning, it is impossible to move in any direction other than forward by virtue of the railroad. Further, I, as the passenger, can suggest to the conductor how fast or slow the train is to move; I cannot make the train move unless I am the conductor.
However, that is a pretty rigid analogy. Basically, if I, as the conductor, can make the train move in any direction I desire based on the pre-existing rail system, the train will make its way to point B eventually; however, I can also take it to any other point, C, D, E, and such, within the context of where I would like to travel. Essentially, I can still make the train go slower, faster, or stop entirely as the conductor based on what others tell me. If I am biased, I can pick or ignore what the passengers tell me because I am the one that moves the train. If I am biased and particularly experienced, they won't even know that I am doing it. As such, the train will continue moving in the direction I desire short of someone else hijacking it.
That is basic approach I take in regard to the topic – there is a lot more to it and the above analogy probably falls short of properly explaining the concept – but I digress.
I think some degree of railroading is necessary for good narrative. Free form roleplaying is the counterpoint; because there is lack of power balance, there is also a lack of structure. Such games usually do not have a good narrative because no-one is able to control the action of the players other than the
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
|