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

[EzekielRaiden]

I second this motion. All in favour?

Flip side: it's also fun when sometimes (but not too often) a seeming cakewalk somehow ends up proving to be a major headache for them.

Sure. As with many things, the particular mix will vary, but yes. In general, I find "this ended up harder than we expected" is a pretty common event for most players though.

The key (and IME close-to-unachievable) piece here is "together"; that the players decided in-character that the same thing mattered to all of them rather than the more usual where each decides that a different thing matters and they end up trying to pull the party in five directions at once (or, taken to the extreme, the party splits up to pursue different goals; I've seen this a few times).

I personally don't think it needs to be everyone 100% on board for everyone else's goals all the time. Instead, they need to care about supporting one another as players, and their characters, even if they don't "get along" in a friendship kind of way, need to act as a team when it's needed.

In other words, you need some in-character esprit de corps, or better yet, genuine camaraderie and friendship (since that's much more reliable), and out-of-character, you need players who actually...y'know...like and respect each other and want one another to have the best possible time they can.

This is a big part of why I discourage PVP and gross (as in severe) immaturity. The occasional puerile joke is no problem, but if players are genuinely spoiling one another's fun because they're too lackadasical or too selfish to care about their fellow players, they're never going to be able to enjoy an experience like this. It's simply not compatible with that level of....well, for lack of a better term, pettiness. If the players cannot show respect to one another, they'll never be able to build this kind of experience, and they probably should be kept on a railroad, as they can't actually be trusted to behave themselves.

That, and my goal is rarely if ever to get things to either a Dark Ending or a Golden Ending, mostly because I'm not looking for any kind of ending. Better for me would be a Dark Continuation or a Golden Continuation; as one arc finishes another one or two or three arcs that have been lurking in the background for a while rise to take its place.

Many, I'd argue the vast majority, of us do not have the luxury of "we will keep gaming for the next 2-3 decades." Some day, the campaign must end. It might take years. But sooner or later, it ends, and when it does, the conclusion needs to be reasonably satisfying. Naturally, until it's time to wrap things up for the final time, you want to keep the ball rolling. The seeds of the next plot are planted during the flowering of the current one--that's just good storytelling.

But there really is such a thing as excessively delayed gratification. Narrative blue balls, if you like. World of Warcraft suffered that particular problem very badly. The TV show Lost had the same problem; they built up tension and the promise of major reveals over and over and over...and did so well past any real ability to draw it to a real conclusion, so that when it finally dropped, it was a bitter disappointment to fans.

For the majority of players who don't have the luxury of "the adventure continues...", there's a real need for slowly but surely building toward various final conclusions.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, my players are great, but the do suffer from terrible decision paralysis if they don't have a clear objective.

I think the best diagetic way to handle this is a trustworthy NPC who can give clear direction if the PCs want it. Eg the Clerics know they can go to the Temple for a mission. I think Skyrim is a good model for how to run this. If the player is stuck for choice, there's always someone to give them a quest.

 

[S'mon]

Or who are at least willing to engage with the setting material enough to look at the maps, listen to the rumours, pick a mission or decide on a place to explore, and get after it.

Yes. But you only need one.

 

[S'mon]

Many, I'd argue the vast majority, of us do not have the luxury of "we will keep gaming for the next 2-3 decades." Some day, the campaign must end. It might take years. But sooner or later, it ends, and when it does, the conclusion needs to be reasonably satisfying.

I've been running my Wilderlands setting since 2006, off and on but mostly on. What I tend to do is run a "campaign" for a few years, maybe 1, maybe 3 or 7, then there's a break and a new campaign with new PCs. Usually in an adjacent area to the previous campaign, so that the effects of the old campaign are felt, but you're not sitting in someone else's dirty bathwater.

 

[Lanefan]

I personally don't think it needs to be everyone 100% on board for everyone else's goals all the time. Instead, they need to care about supporting one another as players, and their characters, even if they don't "get along" in a friendship kind of way, need to act as a team when it's needed.

In other words, you need some in-character esprit de corps, or better yet, genuine camaraderie and friendship (since that's much more reliable), and out-of-character, you need players who actually...y'know...like and respect each other and want one another to have the best possible time they can.

This is a big part of why I discourage PVP and gross (as in severe) immaturity.

PvP can rock with the right group. Immaturity - well, growing up is vastly overrated IMO; if I ever grew up I'd probably stop playing the game.

Many, I'd argue the vast majority, of us do not have the luxury of "we will keep gaming for the next 2-3 decades."

If you're under 60 and at least vaguely healthy you've probably got those 2-3 decades. Game on!

Some day, the campaign must end. It might take years. But sooner or later, it ends, and when it does, the conclusion needs to be reasonably satisfying.

On this I actually agree. Thing is, I don't want to end a campaign if it's still got more stories to tell, in part because designing a new one to tell those stories (or, more accurately, designing the new setting to go with it) is so much bloody work; and for all I know the stories it tells might - as in highly likely will - be completely different.

Naturally, until it's time to wrap things up for the final time, you want to keep the ball rolling. The seeds of the next plot are planted during the flowering of the current one--that's just good storytelling.

Ayup.

But there really is such a thing as excessively delayed gratification. Narrative blue balls, if you like. World of Warcraft suffered that particular problem very badly. The TV show Lost had the same problem; they built up tension and the promise of major reveals over and over and over...and did so well past any real ability to draw it to a real conclusion, so that when it finally dropped, it was a bitter disappointment to fans.

Both of those examples are lost on me; I've never done WoW and never watched Lost.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. But you only need one.

I think you need all of 'em, at least to some extent. Otherwise what happens is one player drives the bus all the time and the rest just become passengers.

 

[S'mon]

I think you need all of 'em, at least to some extent. Otherwise what happens is one player drives the bus all the time and the rest just become passengers.

That works ok. Passenger/Wallflower players provide useful ballast to a campaign. Ideal I find is probably 2-3 proactive but cooperative players and 2-3 wallflowers for ballast.

One danger is the very active player who sees the campaign as "his" and seeks to exercise tight control of the other players. This can be ok if the others are all wallflowers, but is a sure recipe for OOC conflict when you have multiple active players. I remember Chris frothing with rage OOC when my young son Bill's PC first roused a sleeping dragon that destroyed a village, then later nicked its treasure before Chris's PC (having slain the dragon) could get to it. Chris who had been playing the "main character" for some time ragequit the game twice in short order!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which led to the other problem, were players romped around the demiplane trying to see how many dark lords they could off.

That is entirely up to the GM though. I never ran Ravenloft that way. If others ran it as dark lord hunt, I don't necessarily think it was problem. Not really how I see Ravenloft though. Still it would be very hard to do in a lot of cases.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To what extent do you set this up, by dropping potentially epic stuff into the sandbox for the players to find?

I am not sure how S'mon runs things, but I run pretty a lot of sandboxes and it isn't about setting up dramatic or fantastic moments for them to find. It is about those kinds of things emerging organically through the players interplay with setting, NPC and the roll of the dice. If you insert an epic moment for the party to find in this style of game, that is generally regarded as feeling artificial by players inclined towards this play style

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. As with many things, the particular mix will vary, but yes. In general, I find "this ended up harder than we expected" is a pretty common event for most players though.


I personally don't think it needs to be everyone 100% on board for everyone else's goals all the time. Instead, they need to care about supporting one another as players, and their characters, even if they don't "get along" in a friendship kind of way, need to act as a team when it's needed.

In other words, you need some in-character esprit de corps, or better yet, genuine camaraderie and friendship (since that's much more reliable), and out-of-character, you need players who actually...y'know...like and respect each other and want one another to have the best possible time they can.

This is a big part of why I discourage PVP and gross (as in severe) immaturity. The occasional puerile joke is no problem, but if players are genuinely spoiling one another's fun because they're too lackadasical or too selfish to care about their fellow players, they're never going to be able to enjoy an experience like this. It's simply not compatible with that level of....well, for lack of a better term, pettiness. If the players cannot show respect to one another, they'll never be able to build this kind of experience, and they probably should be kept on a railroad, as they can't actually be trusted to behave themselves.


Many, I'd argue the vast majority, of us do not have the luxury of "we will keep gaming for the next 2-3 decades." Some day, the campaign must end. It might take years. But sooner or later, it ends, and when it does, the conclusion needs to be reasonably satisfying. Naturally, until it's time to wrap things up for the final time, you want to keep the ball rolling. The seeds of the next plot are planted during the flowering of the current one--that's just good storytelling.

But there really is such a thing as excessively delayed gratification. Narrative blue balls, if you like. World of Warcraft suffered that particular problem very badly. The TV show Lost had the same problem; they built up tension and the promise of major reveals over and over and over...and did so well past any real ability to draw it to a real conclusion, so that when it finally dropped, it was a bitter disappointment to fans.

For the majority of players who don't have the luxury of "the adventure continues...", there's a real need for slowly but surely building toward various final conclusions.

My campaigns tend to taper off around level 7-10. Players or DM get bored or both.

We completed Strahd at 10. DM didn't like level 10. One campaign ended level 7 was planned for 12. Other ones planned to 8 with one more adventure after that to wrap up. Currently level 4-6 (OSR varies by class).

New 5E game level 10-12 goal, playtest homebrew won't go above 5. Covid lockdowns killed 2.