The Nature of Railroading

[Quertus]

if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading.

Can you clarify such a vague statment?

No, this is not a "vague" statement, this is an "absolute" statement, of the type only Sith Lords make.

What is the game physics anyway?

Pawns only move forward one space, or two unobstructed spaces on their first activation, or capture one space to either forward diagonal. That's game physics.

What is even a ''fact"? Or a ''game fact"?

I'm not really sure how to clarify the confusion here. Some Playgrounders focus on "established" facts. I feel that this ignores the effect that supposedly "unestablished" facts have on the consistency of the world. So, a fact is like an "established fact", except without the necessity of having been perceived as "established".

You talk a lot about rules....but rules only cover like 5% of an RPG...and mostly combat at that.

And (one form of) railroading involves the GM ignoring those rules.

Like lets take a typical ''no rules" railroad example: the DM makes a Tower of Traps, and whats the player characters to go through it.

Yes, rails first form in the GM's head, when they want something, without getting explicit buy-in.

Ok, note how there are no ''rules", or ''facts" or ''game physics" or anything like that in any of the above examples.

Because you are looking at the problem wrong. Or, at the very least, in a way that isn't conducive to seeing the things necessary to have that conversation.

All are railroading...to a third party that can see/know all. But each is only ''really" railroading In the game....if a player whines and cries about it like a baby.

No. If I murder someone, they're just as dead, whether someone finds the body or not, whether someone misses them or not, whether someone cries like a baby or not.

Whether railroading is perceived is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it has occurred.