Greg Stolze, who I hold in great esteem as a fine writer and mechanics monkey, had a recent thread on RPG.net posting the results of a poll he did about the most annoying habits of GM's and players.

You can find it here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=184072

I found it interesting reading, and also interesting in its utter lack of any theoretical approach to problems of play.

Particularly his comments about railroading were interesting:

Railroading: We’re now getting into the heavyweight category of GM abuses, and railroading – that is, having a plot planned out from beginning to end, and punishing or restricting any character that deviates from its progression – ranks very high indeed. Why is railroading so tempting to GMs? My guess is, because it works sometimes. If your plot is obvious and exciting and compelling, players may follow it happily. Furthermore, even when a railroad plot does annoy the players, it’s a huge security blanket for the GM. After all, when he’s got the tracks laid down, he knows where the game is going to go! He can prepare! He feels ready for anything! Anything except the player who says, “Can’t someone else save the world? I’m just a second-level fighter pulling guard duty at the palace, I can’t walk away from that just because some weird-beard wizard says I’m ‘the Mighty One’! I’ve got responsibilities!” Is there a cure for railroading? If you have several different tracks, it feels much less like railroading while still allowing the GM some safe-zone of preparation. Many GMs just aren’t going to be happy showing up at a session and saying, “You guys do whatever you want an’ I’ll riff off it.” For that matter, many players want more guidance than that. Once again, the key seems to be recognizing what your group wants, more than identifying some Platonic ideal balance between prep and spontaneity.

Yeah, that is something I've noticed all over the place since I started thinking about gaming in Forge-inspired terms. Sure, there are things I could quibble about in the Big Model and the way it's been articulated. But when I go back to read discussions on RPG.net or GM Advice articles in something like Pyramid, and even discussions from someone like Stolze (whose work I love love love) - it's just, wow. Without some critical tools, without some dedicated language, it's really really hard to say anything more interesting than "communication is good" and "some people like this, some people like that."

That thread reminded me of Robin's Laws. You know, the whole "this is how roleplayers are, and here's a bunch of techniques to make them think they're happy." (That's not a good feeling -- I reread Robin's Laws last month and it just felt...creepy.)

Also notable in that thread were how many people piped up and said "Oh yeah, there's a couple of those I should talk to my group about." But they're all so obvious that it's hard to see how they could be a revelation.

Andrew Norris wrote: Also notable in that thread were how many people piped up and said "Oh yeah, there's a couple of those I should talk to my group about." But they're all so obvious that it's hard to see how they could be a revelation.

When I read this bit:

Why is railroading so tempting to GMs? My guess is, because it works sometimes. If your plot is obvious and exciting and compelling, players may follow it happily. Furthermore, even when a railroad plot does annoy the players, it’s a huge security blanket for the GM. After all, when he’s got the tracks laid down, he knows where the game is going to go!

Now that's just crazy talk Em...someone might get the wrong idea and start thinking that system matters.