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

[Zardnaar]

I think folks get lost in the idea of total agency. I'd expect a set piece battle in a module, particularly one with a memorable foe. Its in that set up and encounter execution that will determine if its a success or not.

Seems like stock villain stuff...

Sounds like a good strategy.

Seems like an extra layer of force, but a tried and true trope I suppose.

I've run a module by Paizo that had an element sort of like this. Instead of an item that needs to land a single die roll, you make it part of the encounter. A series of events need to pass in order to one shot kill the baddie. This turns the typical beat the HP to zero shuffle into an entirely new and interesting dance. Perfect for the end of a module, IMO.

Modern design definitely isnt point a to b to c with no variation. This typically should be avoided, but a lot of the determining factor is going to be in the writing and GM execution. Frankly, a lot of players dont mind a scripted railroad like this. Which is why you see it from time to time.

Yeah, this is where player's campaign guides come in and gives players a reason to care about the adventure in front of them. Some players and GMs prefer that wander around doing something entirely different and unconnected every session. Those types should probably avoid modules and use campaign setting books and rando tables instead.

Personally, I dig games more when they are built up. I don't care about a PC that has wings or laser eyes or lightning fingers. I want a grand setting with lots of moving parts and factions with agendas. I want to be able to be a mover and shaker on the grand scheme. Seeing my PC take action that makes a difference in the entire setting is what im after.

So, im all aboard the Hickman revolution. I think modern adventure writers have, generally, learned really good lessons from the above. How to write an adventure that has set piece battles, and narrative components, that dont force the players down a single path. Fully embrace those lessons and learn to execute at the highest level you can.

OSR products are meat grinders. The purpose is less grand and the narrative is thin. The point of an OSR game is to engage the game portion and survive through skill play. It would, rightly, be cheating to fudge dice results for such an experience.

I think its not a good idea to think of things in "proper" one way terms. I think the proper answer is what you like and prefer. The good news is, there is a plethora of both modern and old school systems, products, and modules out there.

OSR can be a meat grinder but for the most part it's not.

And I've been running old modules. Some modules are but it doesn't have to be.

2-5 encounters are more typical.

 

[Zardnaar]

This video shows how I imagine that playing out:

Heh I remember that. One of the greatest promos of all time.

 

[Zardnaar]

In no way was this my experience with 2e.

I ran a lot of modules and box sets back then too although I always used them as an outline to be fleshed out.

2Es not really an old school game and can be played very close to modern D&D in style. It's very much how the DM ran it more so than 1E or BECMI.

 

[Zardnaar]

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



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.

This.

 

[GrimCo]

One of the core principles of Ravenloft is removal of player agency. What makes it truly dreadful is that in the end, what ever you decided or did, ulitmatley doesn't matter. You killed Darklord? Every domain is in essence personal version of hell for it's Darklord. They are Darklords, they rule over their prison, but it's still their prison, non the less. So Dark Powers just resurrect them.

As such, it requires player buy in.

People talk about railroads as a bad thing. It can be. But you know what is also railroad? A roller coaster. And people love roller coasters. To turn railroad adventure from boring transiberian railway journey in winter into fun ride on Blue Tornado in Gardaland, it needs player buy in, their fate in DM to make journey fun and exciting, and some skill on the DM part. But, like all roller coasters, it's best done in small doses. One shots or short adventures ( i usually keep it on 4-6 sessions).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm only vaguely familiar with the The Enemy Within and Masks of Nyarlahotep.

I read Masks back in the day. It's basically a breadcumb trail of clues that take the party from one location to the next. As @Quickleaf says, linear, rather than a railroad. There is nothing to prevent the PCs giving up and going home, apart from the world will end some time later (and they don't know this).

 

[TiQuinn]

One of the core principles of Ravenloft is removal of player agency. What makes it truly dreadful is that in the end, what ever you decided or did, ulitmatley doesn't matter. You killed Darklord? Every domain is in essence personal version of hell for it's Darklord. They are Darklords, they rule over their prison, but it's still their prison, non the less. So Dark Powers just resurrect them.

As such, it requires player buy in.

It’s sad that a lot of writers took Ravenloft in that direction but I’ve never ran it that way or looked at it in that perspective. At least, in no different way than if I had Vecna or Manshoon or some other major NPC as my BBEG, and if the players defeat them, there’s always the comic book logic that they can return some day. But for my players? Our campaign? Nah, they’re gone. If they ever come back, they’ll be someone else’s problem. And to be fair, how many times has the Forgotten Realms been blown up but then put right back to where it was with little real change?

On the one hand, I get it. Bringing Strahd back time and again fits with the vampire movie fiction. How many times did Christopher Lee die in the end of a Dracula movie only to come back in another one? Seven? Eight times? And of course, Ravenloft as a domain still remains the Domain of Dread. The PCs never are going to be able to change that most likely. But even actual Ravenloft modules give an ending where the domain dissipates without the anchor of the darklord it was built around.

 

[Scott Christian]

No matter what the party does, they will have this planned encounter scene with this monster.

I think a lot of campaigns start off this way. A singular, and hopefully, very specific planned encounter that helps incorporate mood, tone, and setting. Heck, as there are often little quests inside the primary story arc, I think several of them start off the same way too.
Of course, this can still be done even with all the players having freedom of choice.

The villain can see the party’s abilities within his lair and will send easy encounters at them to “play with them.”

This seems very reasonable. The villain can (and in some DMs' minds - should) have abilities the PCs cannot.

Keep throwing enemies at the party until they’re weak enough to be forced into joining forces with the NPC organization.

While this is like using a blunt rubber hammer to drive in a nail, I can see an adventure setup that will use its properties. If you look at encounter design in the 2014 DMG, they offer ideas that are very similar.

Convince the party their characters have an incurable disease so they have no choice but to go on the quest for the NPC organization to get the cure.

This type of tricker sounds like a Mercer villain to be honest. I would include several "if statements" in any adventure I wrote were the group to not buy in. But for a villain to try it - sure.

The party gets a MacGuffin that can kill the overpowered boss enemy with one hit. But whatever you do, the DM can’t let the first hit land, because that’s too easy. “Roll dice behind the screen and frown.”

Boo! I can't stand fudging on a personal level. I DMed most of our adventures in 2nd edition, and never fudged. Can't stand it. Boo!

Here are Scenes 1-13. Make sure these play out basically in order.

This sound a bit like many adventure paths. Granted, they try to make one section of them a bit more sandbox. But, there are parts that are linear. And, not to start a divergent argument, but players using an adventure path signed up for that. So it is just as fine a way to play as any other.

If the party tries to leave the adventure, magic fog keeps re-routing them to the right path.

Like not being able to leave Barovia? I feel like many adventure paths run off this premise. Heck, we're playing infinite staircase right now, and are trapped because our magic portal won't open. So we're trapped to play out the mini-quest's adventure if we want to get back to the staircase. This seems like a forceful tactic, but with the right group, it is just fine.

 

[Zardnaar]

Way my PCs survived level 1 somewhat recently........

I did a hexcrawl and they got xp for the hexes explored and landmarks. Thanks Pathfinder Kingmaker.

Very little combat. They did get depleted and had to return to town.

 

[Bedrockgames]

One of the core principles of Ravenloft is removal of player agency. What makes it truly dreadful is that in the end, what ever you decided or did, ulitmatley doesn't matter. You killed Darklord? Every domain is in essence personal version of hell for it's Darklord. They are Darklords, they rule over their prison, but it's still their prison, non the less. So Dark Powers just resurrect them.

As such, it requires player buy in.

People talk about railroads as a bad thing. It can be. But you know what is also railroad? A roller coaster. And people love roller coasters. To turn railroad adventure from boring transiberian railway journey in winter into fun ride on Blue Tornado in Gardaland, it needs player buy in, their fate in DM to make journey fun and exciting, and some skill on the DM part. But, like all roller coasters, it's best done in small doses. One shots or short adventures ( i usually keep it on 4-6 sessions).

Dark Lords could be killed. I agree Ravenlloft was less about character agency and more about having their sense of power, even reality taken away, but killing a dark lord was hard. It wasn't like just killing a normal vampire. However it was still possible to do. Could the dark powers resurrect them? Sure, but the standard was more to have either the domain disappear or a new dark lord take their place