TSR How Did I Survive AD&D? Fudging and Railroads, Apparently

[EzekielRaiden]

For myself, although I may be branded a heretic here, I still say, "if the railroad goes to Awesometown, get me onboard."

As noted above: I don't really consider it a "railroad" if it's a linear adventure that, at every step of the way, you did the "right"/"correct" thing because that was what was most reasonable, entertaining, or interesting to you. Linearity is not the enemy. The false impression of openness, when the adventure is actually closed, is what is really the enemy.

The false impression of openness is what allows a linear adventure to pretend to be a nonlinear/multi-linear adventure, and so linearity is one factor. But it, by itself, is no more offensive than wandering monster tables, or milestone XP, or a variety of other DMing tools. Hence why every thread I've ever commented in about railroading and fudging has emphasized the false impression, deception, or trickery stuff. Because that's where the real problem has always lain.

 

[SteveC]

As noted above: I don't really consider it a "railroad" if it's a linear adventure that, at every step of the way, you did the "right"/"correct" thing because that was what was most reasonable, entertaining, or interesting to you. Linearity is not the enemy. The false impression of openness, when the adventure is actually closed, is what is really the enemy.

I think this is a really good point. The most common thing I've seen when people talk about railroading in an adventure, they're really saying they didn't want to engage with the premise of the adventure. Don't get me wrong: there are DMs who almost put people in a white room where the course of the adventure is literally the only thing they can do. That is just bad DMing. The "you're turned around and end up back in the room" as a response to the players going in a different direction is something that you really need an objection to.

And yet, when we think of an adventure like Ravenloft, when you're in Barovia, you're locked in until the adventure ends. I have seen situations where getting out of there ruined the whole campaign. If you're playing Ravenloft, you have to buy into the game at least that much. Of course, I find that kind of ironic because, with something like Curse of Strahd, you have a big opening railroad but then have some of the most freedom you'll ever see in a published adventure.

But you're talking about Illusionism here. I guess I'll say that if all the choices I make made for a fun evening, how much does it matter that I was going to fight ogres no matter which way I turned? If the ogres were interesting, I'll take it. But I'll give a huge caveat: an adventure like this is akin to going to a magic show. You know magic is just sleight of hand, but you'll enjoy the show a lot more if you don't deconstruct each trick.

And of course, everyone's milage may vary here: I 100% get why you might disagree with this opinion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah. I'm sure there are better ones. But I'm running this specific one because it was the "one" that we never finished back in the day. It's a way to complete the stories of these characters that have been sitting in limbo since the mid-1990s.

That one is pretty notorious. I feel like I remember it having some good ideas and just the way it was done always felt hard for me to pull off. I guess the question is really what are you hoping to get out of this? If you are particularly concerned about the session you probably ought to revise it a bit and make adjustments. But if the players want to experience it as it was intended, maybe go in a mindset where you won't be disappointed

 

[Retreater]

That one is pretty notorious. I feel like I remember it having some good ideas and just the way it was done always felt hard for me to pull off. I guess the question is really what are you hoping to get out of this? If you are particularly concerned about the session you probably ought to revise it a bit and make adjustments. But if the players want to experience it as it was intended, maybe go in a mindset where you won't be disappointed

My old-time gaming buddy is running this group. They normally play a Castles & Crusades game he is "writing" - I mean, he has major "story beats" planned out. Like "I'm going to have this PC die and the party will have to go to the underworld to raise her so she can become the new queen of the realm." That kind of stuff.
So I don't expect they'll have much of a problem with a linear adventure, especially if it's just a one-shot designed to get them into a climactic battle with a big boss at the end of 3-4 hours. I'll somehow change the "you can't possibly let the villain die in one shot." He's an illusionist, so I'll probably have him cast mirror image before the battle so at least there's a miss chance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My old-time gaming buddy is running this group. They normally play a Castles & Crusades game he is "writing" - I mean, he has major "story beats" planned out. Like "I'm going to have this PC die and the party will have to go to the underworld to raise her so she can become the new queen of the realm." That kind of stuff.
So I don't expect they'll have much of a problem with a linear adventure, especially if it's just a one-shot designed to get them into a climactic battle with a big boss at the end of 3-4 hours. I'll somehow change the "you can't possibly let the villain die in one shot." He's an illusionist, so I'll probably have him cast mirror image before the battle so at least there's a miss chance.

If it is a group with story beats planned out, I think a lot of these old Ravneloft modules will be just fine, maybe with minor tweaks here or there if needed.

That is the other thing about Ravenloft, there was usually run as a one shot weekend in hell. I personally ran it as full campaigns (it was the main setting I used to run). So I had the advantage of the players were already buying into the concept and were meeting the style of the modules halfway anyways

 

[payn]

My old-time gaming buddy is running this group. They normally play a Castles & Crusades game he is "writing" - I mean, he has major "story beats" planned out. Like "I'm going to have this PC die and the party will have to go to the underworld to raise her so she can become the new queen of the realm." That kind of stuff.
So I don't expect they'll have much of a problem with a linear adventure, especially if it's just a one-shot designed to get them into a climactic battle with a big boss at the end of 3-4 hours. I'll somehow change the "you can't possibly let the villain die in one shot." He's an illusionist, so I'll probably have him cast mirror image before the battle so at least there's a miss chance.

You know whats coming next... Do you intend to use mirror image as a second chance against the McGuffin, or are you using it as an excuse why it didnt work on the first turn???

 

[Umbran]

I am not reading the six or so pages of responses yet. I want to get a few ideas of my own down first...

Was this the “proper” way of playing back in the day? Is this why OSR products are considered meat grinders? Because we were all cheating (by today’s standards)?

Bah. The only "proper" way to play is the way that the entire group has a reasonable amount of fun doing it - for their own definitions of "fun". Railroad is proper. Sandbox is proper. Indiscriminate hack and slash is proper. Heavy emotional plot is proper. It's all valid play.

For myself, I've noted a pretty clear path of change over the earlier years of play, for me.

I think of the main measure of what games are about by the "war stories" we tell among ourselves after the fact. When we say, "Remember that time when..." what are we talking about?

For the vast majority of my 1e and 2e D&D play, those war stories are about tactical moments - victories and defeats in fights, and the mechanics behind those moments.

But for play in the same general era, but in different games - "Faserip" Marvel Super Heroes, Shadowrun, D6 Star Wars, World of Darkness - the war stories are pretty much all about story beats and emotional moments of play.

And from the 3e era on, whatever game I'm playing, war stories are almost always always about the story and emotional beats. Sometimes those align with major tactical combat moments, but just as often they don't align.

 

[Lanefan]

I think this is a really good point. The most common thing I've seen when people talk about railroading in an adventure, they're really saying they didn't want to engage with the premise of the adventure. Don't get me wrong: there are DMs who almost put people in a white room where the course of the adventure is literally the only thing they can do. That is just bad DMing. The "you're turned around and end up back in the room" as a response to the players going in a different direction is something that you really need an objection to.

It's bad DMing if you do it all the time but if done just once or twice over the course of a long campaign it can simply provide a different type of problem for the players/PCs to solve; namely "Just how the hell do we get out of here?!".

Take Castle Amber, for example. That adventure loses all its point and purpose if on arrival the PCs can just turn around and walk out the door. They're stuck there, and have to go through the different stages of the adventure in order to get out.

Most if not all players IME are fine with this sort of thing as long as it's not done too often.

 

[Lanefan]

For myself, I've noted a pretty clear path of change over the earlier years of play, for me.

I think of the main measure of what games are about by the "war stories" we tell among ourselves after the fact. When we say, "Remember that time when..." what are we talking about?

This is very well put. Permission to pull it out as a quote when I'm trying to make the same point elsewhere?

For the vast majority of my 1e and 2e D&D play, those war stories are about tactical moments - victories and defeats in fights, and the mechanics behind those moments.

But for play in the same general era, but in different games - "Faserip" Marvel Super Heroes, Shadowrun, D6 Star Wars, World of Darkness - the war stories are pretty much all about story beats and emotional moments of play.

And from the 3e era on, whatever game I'm playing, war stories are almost always always about the story and emotional beats. Sometimes those align with major tactical combat moments, but just as often they don't align.

For us the war stories are often about a) the goofy moments of hilarity and-or the characters/situations/events that caused them, or in older days b) pranks, fights and battles within the party.

 

[Retreater]

You know whats coming next... Do you intend to use mirror image as a second chance against the McGuffin, or are you using it as an excuse why it didnt work on the first turn???

Not sure if I follow the question.
Bad guy is scrying in his palace and will cast mirror image before the party enters the throne room.
There's a chance they'll hit the wrong target. I'll do that roll openly. If they hit the right image, he dies. If not, well it's time to recover the magic bolt and try again.