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

[TiQuinn]

Yes, well, how could they? The people who write the setting don't know what happens at your table, and cannot change the setting in response to the specifics of your agency - your own GM has to do that.

True, but while they sometimes advance timelines, they keep the setting in relative stasis. I remember that Ravenloft had a timeline that directly tied into the events of I6 Ravenloft and said “A party of well armed adventurers make their way into Castle Ravenloft and are destroyed by Count Strahd.”

They could actually advance the setting based on whatever canonical ending they want to use, but will always default to the one that doesn’t really change anything. That’s why Greyhawk is being rolled back to being at war, rather than a post war setting.

 

[Umbran]

True, but while they sometimes advance timelines, they keep the setting in relative stasis.

I think that's a different critique, which doesn't have a lot to do with the subject of the thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have read only Ravenloft campaign setting and Domains of dread, Van Richten guides plus some novels from TSR era. Black box? You mean Ravenloft box set?

Black box is the Realm of Terror boxed set, the first boxed set campaign setting for Ravenloft (red box is the second campaign setting boxed and I think called Ravenloft Campaign Setting). I like all three from the 90s: Black Box, Red Box and Domains of Dread. I have a soft spot for the black box though as I picked it out when it came out. I generally prefer the pre-grand conjunction core (though I understand why a lot of people would prefer post)

Personally, i like 2ed Ravenloft. It's solid world building. Sure better than sorry excuse we got in 5e (VR guide to Ravenloft is pure drek).

I agree. I think 2E Ravenloft is filled with wonderful and evocative world building, it captures the gothic and classic vibe really well but does so in a way that still preserves core D&D mechanics. I wasn't into the 3E version and the 5E version just isn't what I want from Ravenloft.

 

[Bedrockgames]

True, but while they sometimes advance timelines, they keep the setting in relative stasis. I remember that Ravenloft had a timeline that directly tied into the events of I6 Ravenloft and said “A party of well armed adventurers make their way into Castle Ravenloft and are destroyed by Count Strahd.”

They could actually advance the setting based on whatever canonical ending they want to use, but will always default to the one that doesn’t really change anything. That’s why Greyhawk is being rolled back to being at war, rather than a post war setting.

The grand conjunction moved things forward considerably. They removed, moved and merged whole domains. One of the great things about Ravenloft is its nature allows for all kinds of change. You can take out Strahd even and it will still feel like Ravenloft if done right (don't think taking him out would be wise for the line itself because he is so notable but easy enough to do in your own campaign).

 

[Bedrockgames]

It really struck me yesterday listening to a podcast, but Ravenloft's default setting is one where evil is the dominant force, and so the heroes are fighting an uphill battle, but in reality, none of the official D&D settings ever evolve in such a way that demonstrates the impact of player agency.

Ravenloft may consistently reset itself, but so does Forgotten Realms. So does Greyhawk, whose default state is to perpetually be on the brink of war. So does Eberron. In fact, we want these things set in these unmoving states and when designers have tried to advanced timelines and materially change the tone of the setting, they generally are not well received as in the case of the Greyhawk Wars, or the various catastrophes that hit Forgotten Realms and are eventually undone.

Grand Conjunction was pretty well received in its time. SO were a number of the metaplots in other settings. I think where people have objected to changes with the newer version of Ravenloft is stuff that fundamentally alters the feel (i.e. shifting to multi-genre horror, reconceptualizing it as everything being more like an island of dread, etc). For me I ran Ravenloft 2E through all the 90s and into the 3E era using the Sword and Sorcery stuff. I found it didn't run as well for me with the 3E system and the more white wolf vibe of the d20 material. But all three iterations of 2E Ravenloft were good. I like the broad stroke and simple approach that the black box set uses so that is my preferred, but I am still running it with DoD at the able sometimes and I can appreciate the value it brings (one thing I didn't like about DoD was its shift back towards heroic fantasy----some people did like that, but the thing I loved about the first two setting books for Ravenloft was that heavy gothic tone the art and setting material struck, sometimes to the point of feeling well outside normal D&D time frames (which I quite liked). In fairness though, DoD did in some ways lean into this by including cultural levels so some domains could be further advanced and others more medieval. Personally I liked how Ravenloft didn't feel like standard Medieval Fantasy

 

[TiQuinn]

I think that's a different critique, which doesn't have a lot to do with the subject of the thread.

The subject had shifted. Or are you in your official capacity now.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The subject had shifted. Or are you in your official capacity now.

As a general aside, our moderators participate like the rest of us. If they need to moderate, they make it clear (usually by starting the statement with "Mod Note" or something similar and coloring the text yellow or red).

 

[Umbran]

The subject had shifted. Or are you in your official capacity now.

Nothing official. Just not desiring to add to that shift.

 

[Theory of Games]

So, yes, this is likely an extreme example of railroading from a product line that’s already known for taking away player agency. But (and here’s the big question) … should we do it? Should we go back to this style of game? Would our games feel more epic if we did? If they were better curated, more narrative, etc.? Would campaigns feel more satisfying?

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)?

If by "we" you mean your gaming group, I suggest you ask them. If by "we" you mean the entire ttrpg community, "we'll" play the games the way we enjoy most. Whether a game is "epic" or terrible is 100% subjective and each member of any group will have their own opinion. Some gamers are passive and prefer a little railroading. Some want to be left alone in a big open setting. Different gamers have different ideas of what is "satisfying". IME there was no "proper" way of playing "back in the day" (whenever that was), unless a gamer was involved in organized play events. IME "meat-grinder" adventures were filled with deadly monsters and even deadlier traps that killed a lot of characters - but all OSR/old-school modules were not that deadly. Looks like you had a DM who put on kid gloves for your games and in your own words you enjoyed it. 99.9% of the time we play games to enjoy ourselves, right?

Where's the problem?

 

[Retreater]

Where's the problem?

I think that it hit me, after looking behind the curtain, that my core memories were all artificial. Every epic moment was scripted by some dude at TSR.
It might be a "no duh" moment for many of you, but it's really shattered my rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.
I've been asking myself for over 20 years, "why can't I run a good, memorable campaign?" Apparently, it's because I'm following standards of player agency, "playing to find out," etc.