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

[pemerton]

PCs can do whatever it was reasonable that their characters could do. They don't have to wait for the GM to present them with a list of options like some computer game.

I'm not sure what you mean. It's not as if the players can oblige the GM to say stuff the GM doesn't want to say.

So if the GM is ready to run Masks of Nyarlathotep, and the players tell the GM that their PCs get off the train in Chicago so they can try their hand instead at trading in bootleg booze, what happens? The fact that, in principle, the players have infinite choice won't tell us anything about what is going to happen at this table.

And in Masks, choosing to do nothing and not follow up the next clue is a perfectly reasonable option. Unlike many of those 2nd edition Ravenloft adventures, with their doomclocks forcing the PCs to keep going down the rails. Whist Masks technically does have a doomclock, the PCs are not aware of it until near the end, so they are not forced to do anything.

But again, what actually happens at the table when the players declare actions for their PCs that aren't about doing stuff the GM is presenting to them from the module? New fiction won't magically write itself. Does the GM go along with the players? Or does the game grind to a halt? We can't answer that question a priori. And so we can't assert, a priori, that the players have the option not to have their PCs do Mask-y stuff.

 

[pemerton]

Define pre script?

The sort of stuff Retreater talked about in the OP and in post 120.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So if the GM is ready to run Masks of Nyarlathotep, and the players tell the GM that their PCs get off the train in Chicago so they can try their hand instead at trading in bootleg booze, what happens?

Then they try to get into bootleg booze. There are no rails on this adventure, so the GM has no option but to wing it. This sort of thing happens in RPGs, and often leads to the most interesting games, because it's player-led.

 

[TiQuinn]

So I think you are wrong to say that I am "locked into a dungeon only paradigm". What I am locked into are the questions of who decides what is at stake and who decides what the goals of play are and who decides what counts as success/failure. The various approaches that I've described all provide answers to those questions that are not just "the GM decides".

That’s fine but I feel like your issue is esoteric enough that few others will vibe with that definition of “railroading.”

I have seen many adventures where NPCs secretly betray the PCs, although the adventure - and the GM in narrating the fiction to the players - the PC as an ally or quest-giver or similar.

I have seen, on these boards, the assertion that it would matter for the GM to decide that an ogre is encountered to the West, if the players decide to go west, or to the East, if the players decide to go east, although the players themselves don't know anything about what is west or what is east.

These are just simple examples of secret stakes. Many more could be given - for instance, the players have their PCs kill a NPC and the GM - relying on their own secret notes about that NPC and the relationships that NPC is part of - then determines consequences that follow from that killing, which then come back to ramify upon the PCs' circumstances. Or the GM deciding that the NPCs do such-and-such a thing, which ramifies upon the PCs' circumstances, because a certain amount of in-game time has passed without the NPCs being stopped.

Secret stakes are incredibly common, and very widely advocated - often using the language of "consequences" and/or "living, breath world".

Everyone has seen examples of “poor DMing”. The point is there is general agreement that this is poor adventure design - and that the DM didn’t prepare or can’t handle the choice. Is that a fault of the game or the DM? It’s a bit of both, IMO. But there is enough knowledge now about how to avoid traps like Quantum Ogres without requiring the DM to join an improv group to boost their skills.

What is the "what" in No matter what? And what is the "there" in "the quantum ogre is still there"?

If the direction the players choose is just colour - so if they choose to go west the GM will describe setting suns and ocean shores, while if they choose to go east the GM will describe rising suns and rolling hills - then what does it matter that the GM has decided to frame an ogre either way?

Because then the DM is simply narrating a story and we might as well be playing a standard board game or possibly just watching a movie together, not playing a TTRPG. Bring on our AI DM Overlords if that is the case, because you don’t need a human being to create that interaction.

Conversely, suppose the players declare an action to steer clear of ogres (eg suppose that they seek out information about ogre-populated locales; or suppose they use divination magic; etc) and succeed: then it is ignoring the players' success at action resolution for the GM to frame the PCs into a conflict with an ogre, and the "there" really has nothing to do with it.

Now if we take as a premise that play follows the following procedure:

* The GM draws up and keys a map, and writes up encounter tables etc to supplement the key;​

​

* The players are supposed to make choices about where their PCs go on the map, and those choices are then supposed to interact with the key and the encounter tables to determine what it is the PCs encounter;​

The the GM should not be using "quantum ogres". Because that would violate the procedures of play. But (i) I don't think many people who use "quantum ogres" are purporting to use the procedures of play that I've described; and (ii) the procedures of play that I've described will tend to make for pretty low-agency play unless there is the possibility of the players learning the contents of the key and the tables other than by way of triggering encounters (and D&D tends to lack that possibility outside of the dungeon context). Hence why I find most complaints about "quantum ogres" to be unpersuasive - they are manifestations of an aesthetic preference (ie for play that follows the procedure I've outlined) but don't really connect very much to player agency or railroading.

(EDITed to fix some quote problems.)

I can’t follow your example here so I’m not sure whether I’m restating what you said or if there’s some nuance I’m missing.

I think most groups have a map with keyed encounters, i .e. a dungeon. A well designed map allows the PCs to take multiple routes and have different sets of encounters. A linear map is just that…it’s a set path and the encounters are also linear. The problem is when path 1 and path 2 both lead to a single room. You created a linear path but gave an illusion of choice.

As for information gathering on the party’s part, it is better for the party to be able to deduce through whatever means that going left will lead to an ogre, and if they want to avoid it, they can go right. Going right should have some different encounter or feature of the dungeon. That’s it. That’s the ideal.

 

[S'mon]

As you know, I'm not really into the sandbox style.

But I agree that it is quite doable to have epic and memorable stuff, quite frequently, without having to pre-script. Avoiding boring stuff is an excellent start, in scene-frame-y play as much as in sandbox play.

Yes, totally. Pacing is the most important GM skill. Don't frame a boring scene! Don't let players do it either! "OK after half an hour of gossip with the blacksmith, you buy your new armour and join the others at the inn, where..."

 

[pemerton]

the GM has no option but to wing it

But the GM does have a very obvious alternative option - to stop GMing, if the players won't do Mask-y things.

 

[SteveC]

So if the GM is ready to run Masks of Nyarlathotep, and the players tell the GM that their PCs get off the train in Chicago so they can try their hand instead at trading in bootleg booze, what happens? The fact that, in principle, the players have infinite choice won't tell us anything about what is going to happen at this table.

This is sort of a weird example, but when we ran Masks for the first time, it was such a meat grinder that we did something very similar to this. The GM ended up narrating what happened ... right up until the world ended. We picked up with a different game afterwards.

That's what ultimately happens if the players won't engage with a campaign's premise. But that also presumes the campaign has a premise. Some of them have only the most basic ideas, like "get rich or die trying." Compare that with Strahd, where it's "kill the devil, Strahd!!!" ... or something like that. If you don't want to kill Strahd, you're going to have a bad time.

 

[pemerton]

Everyone has seen examples of “poor DMing”.

Many people regard at least some of the examples I gave as good GMing.

There's no uniform opinion here.

I think most groups have a map with keyed encounters, i .e. a dungeon. A well designed map allows the PCs to take multiple routes and have different sets of encounters. A linear map is just that…it’s a set path and the encounters are also linear. The problem is when path 1 and path 2 both lead to a single room. You created a linear path but gave an illusion of choice.

If there are two paths, but the players don't know where they go, and aren't expected to know, then I don't think it matters whether the paths lead to the same place or not.

Which goes back to secret stakes.

As for information gathering on the party’s part, it is better for the party to be able to deduce through whatever means that going left will lead to an ogre, and if they want to avoid it, they can go right. Going right should have some different encounter or feature of the dungeon. That’s it. That’s the ideal.

That's one ideal. It pushes towards skilled play.

Another ideal is where the players establish priorities and (overarching) stakes, and the GM frames scenes having regard to those priorities. This pushes towards player-driven thematic play.

 

[TiQuinn]

If there are two paths, but the players don't know where they go, and aren't expected to know, then I don't think it matters whether the paths lead to the same place or not.

Which goes back to secret stakes.

Okay, I fundamentally disagree with that. I don't think that every instance of players not knowing what to find in a given direction means the stakes of the game are being kept from them. The players know they are going into a dragon's lair. They could be going to raid the hoard. They could be going to rescue somebody. They could be going to kill the dragon. That's up to them. What they may not know is what's down Path A versus Path B. If they want to spend the time, they can gather information to help enlighten them to their choice. That's not keeping stakes from them, IMO.

As a DM, if I'm resorting to paths leading to the same encounter, I messed up.

 

[payn]

One reason I have generally disliked the term sandbox, just as a matter of terminology, not as a matter of concept, is it implies a static box filled with objects the GM places down. I think this is especially the case if it starts to feel like there are adventure set down, locked and loaded, ready to go when the PCs stumble upon them. But I think it is very important to remember the setting is a dynamic place and the GM has to continue being creative and thoughtful as the players interact with it. The GMs ability to adapt when the players go in directions you didn't prepare for in a sandbox is still important, the GMs ability to improvise and flow with the players is important, the GMs ability to run NPCs and groups as consistent, living and breathing entities is important, etc.

Thats not what sandbox means its...

The whole point of a sandbox is to build things with the sand! Players & GM both.

..this. Almost ninja'd.