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

[S'mon]

Personally, once I've finished my current game, I will want something truly new myself. Wipe the slate clean and do something genuinely novel, explore a completely different milieu and set of themes. Strongly considering a PbtA version of Shadowrun.

I ran Cyberpunk Red for several months earlier this year. That was a lot of fun!

 

[pemerton]

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.

I said "don't know, and aren't expected to know". That second clause in my statement is doing work.

What counts as "aren't expected to know" is going to be context sensitive. An example I've discussed in the past, which I don't think counts as "aren't expected to know", is an example skill challenge set-up in the 4e DMG. In that example, there is a NPC who can't be intimidated by the PCs - they have no credible threat to bring against him, and he will just be annoyed at such an attempt. The notes to the set-up state that the players (and their PCs) can learn that the NPC will respond poorly to threats if they make a successful Insight check.

As I said, I don't think that counts as "aren't expected to know", as the information is readily available via a pretty transparent and well-understood mechanic (the Insight check) that can be readily deployed during the course of resolution at relatively low cost/risk to the players. It's the social equivalent of a hidden foe on the battlefield, who is detectable by declaring an appropriate action during combat. It's also comparable to a concealed or secret door in map-based exploration-oriented play - again, that is something learnable by the players, that it is expected they will (or at least are likely to) come to know during the course of their play.

An example that I would contrast with those in my previous two paragraphs is how to make a magic item in 2nd ed AD&D. The player will not know the recipe from the outset, and it is not readily learnable by a fairly straightforward action declaration. The process of discovery is itself likely to take one or more session to play out, is heavily subject to GM fiat at every stage, and will mean that there is a considerable period of play which is not about making the magic item at all, but rather is about doing whatever it is that the GM has deemed necessary to enable the desired play (of making a magic item) to take place.

To relate this to the path A/path B example. If learning what is down Path A vs Path B is about (say) declaring and succeeding at some sort of knowledge or research check that is readily performable in situ or as part of the prep in a preceding downtime phase; or is easily done in situ, say by a single successful Stealth check to scout; or via a successful social interaction with a guardian at the entrance from which A and B fork; then I wouldn't say the players are not expected to know. The knowledge is easily within their grasp, without play detouring off into something wholly different.

But if learning what is down Path A vs Path B is more like the magic item creation example, and (eg) requires the players to have whole other adventures tracking down and dealing with sages, or questing to find ancient maps or journal entries, or something of that sort - action which itself will have stakes and consequences that are quite divorced from the expedition to the dragon's lair - then I think that it's fair to say that the Path A vs Path B distinction isn't that meaningful at all: if the players don't get the information, the choice of which path is essentially arbitrary and so doesn't matter; and if the players set out to obtain the information, they are committing to a different adventure, and so Path A vs Path B has paled into relative insignificance for the moment - the GM would be better off waiting to find out the consequence of that subsequent adventure, and then prepare the dragon's lair scenario down the track to fit in with whatever the fallout of the other, info-quest adventure is.

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

For the reasons I've given, I don't agree. The whole thing depends very much on further context.

There are further reasons too. Consider: it is very common for a FRPG to permit multiple pathways to get from settlement A to settlement B - eg the shorter path via the mountains and the longer path via the lowlands. Suppose the players make a choice about which path they take based on their best estimate of the arduousness of the travel (whether the game calculates that via distance and travel time, or some other means like the obstacle required for a successful travelling check) together with their chance of enduring that arduousness (eg the PCs include a ranger who is at home in the mountains, and so can reduce the default arduousness of travel there, getting the benefit of the shorter path without incurring all the risks that are concomitants of mountain travel).

So maybe the chance of a complication is 40% via the mountains, vs 50% via the lowlands. The GM might have decided that, if the travel is attended by complication, that complication will be some pursuers catching up with the PCs. It doesn't undo the meaningfulness of the players' choice to have their PCs take the mountain path, if they suffer an unlucky roll and so fail to avoid a complication, that the GM frames them into the same encounter as the GM would have used had the journey been via the lowlands and had the players also got unlucky in their roll for that journey.

On the other hand, suppose that the players have their PCs choose the mountains because they have good reason to believe that their pursuers can't follow them there (eg the mountains are cold, and the pursuers are known not to have access to furs and blankets). Then it probably would be poor GMing to use the same encounter regardless of the players' choice of path for their journey, because that would essentially mean running roughshod over the stakes the players reasonably regard themselves as having established by their choice.

Or we could have yet another example: the players might choose the mountains over the lowlands because one of the PCs has a special ability to call on the spirits of the mountains in a crisis. In that case, it again wouldn't matter that the GM uses the same encounter either way: what matters is that, when the encounter happens, if the PCs are in the mountains then the GM respects the subsequent decision by the player of the relevant PC to use their special ability.

These are, therefore, further illustrations of how it all depends on context. And to go back to my earlier post, if the choice between A and B is essentially colour, but nothing more - that is, it is not any sort of reasonable attempt by the players to establish the stakes of their choice - then it doesn't matter at all how the GM responds, other than by incorporating appropriate colour into their narration.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well...I can't speak for everyone. But I can definitely say my players aren't bored, nor am I. And we're 6 years in now. Probably five continuous years if you cut out the "no session this week, I'm sick/I have things to do/it's my birthday" type breaks.

Nothing wrong with that. Generally I do a campaign over a year or so.

Average one lasts 6 sessions apparently.

 

[niklinna]

After the Altani barbarian Varek Tigerclaw had finally fallen in his doomed last stand holding the bridge at Bisgen, and Crowfinger had taken his soul, Varek's player Jasper shook my hand and told me what an awesome campaign it had been. So satisfying for him, anyway. He even learned some things about life and grew as a person during that game, I think - which is uncommon but I've seen it a few times. He saw how his own decisions, Varek's hubris and hatred of the Nerathi, had led him to that point.

I was asking in relation to the closing statement, not the particular example. But thanks for the info!

 

[Lanefan]

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 game's ballast is another game's anchor.

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!

That's where separating in-character from out-of-character becomes paramount. In-character, that sort of thing is priceless and can lead to all kinds of story down the road.

 

[Lanefan]

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

The mentor-ally-as-hidden-enemy is a trope as old as time. Using that trope is solidly inside the GM's boundaries, I'd think.

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.

This, conversely, is bad. If the Ogres are to the west and the PCs go east, then no Ogre encounter today. Instead, they'll encounter whatever lies to the east (if anything), which they wouldn't have met had they gone any other direction.

The only time the direction taken makes no difference is when the PCs' starting location is completely surrounded by an enemy force, in which case they've probably got bigger problems.

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".

And are you saying this is a bad thing?

I ask because the other option is that the PCs always know everything about everything, which seems way over the top.

 

[Zardnaar]

The mentor-ally-as-hidden-enemy is a trope as old as time. Using that trope is solidly inside the GM's boundaries, I'd think.

This, conversely, is bad. If the Ogres are to the west and the PCs go east, then no Ogre encounter today. Instead, they'll encounter whatever lies to the east (if anything), which they wouldn't have met had they gone any other direction.

The only time the direction taken makes no difference is when the PCs' starting location is completely surrounded by an enemy force, in which case they've probably got bigger problems.

And are you saying this is a bad thing?

I ask because the other option is that the PCs always know everything about everything, which seems way over the top.

Way I do it is non combat encounters that matter PCs will encounter them regardless of the direction they go in.

Unless they're taking precautions to avoid them.

I don't pull the regardless of what direction here's your red dragon gotcha.

Normally I plan the social encounters but ad hoc where and when they happen if they're not keyed to a specific location.

Travel times are usually hand waved unless its part of the adventure.

If the pull something unexpected you ad hoc it or pull a social encountervto buy time. Red herring mysterious stranger works. Eg old man with 7 canaries.

 

[overgeeked]

The mentor-ally-as-hidden-enemy is a trope as old as time. Using that trope is solidly inside the GM's boundaries, I'd think.

Yeah, and because it's old as time it's really crap at this point. It's also the fastest way to make sure your players never trust another NPC ever again. Not just this campaign but any future ones as well. It's one of those "you can, but you really, really shouldn't" things like rocks fall, everyone dies and infinite dragons.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, and because it's old as time it's really crap at this point. It's also the fastest way to make sure your players never trust another NPC ever again. Not just this campaign but any future ones as well. It's one of those "you can, but you really, really shouldn't" things like rocks fall, everyone dies and infinite dragons.

It's fine just don't over use it like I did very early on for the exact reason you gave.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think the NPC who betrays them is the problem. That can work, provided they are also meeting plenty of trustworthy people in the setting. Also if you have someone act with betrayal I think it is very important to be as fair as possible in terms of giving players chances to perceive it at various points and not just be driven by a desire for a dramatic reveal.

This also depends heavily on setting and genre. I do a lot of kung fu and wuxia campaigns and the master who betrays his disciples is a pretty standard trope. Tropes being old and common, doesn't mean you shouldn't use them (in fact I think throwing away established tropes in a genre can be more of a problem). You just need to handle certain ones with care, not over do them, etc. It is like the family member in peril. If the players family only exist to serve as plot devices, of course they will hate it when their father gets abducted by the villain. But if that kind of thing is rare and balanced out with family generally being more helpful and more like real world family it can work well (i.e. they are people the players may be able to go to for information, support, nepotism, etc).

I have one NPC in my setting who betrays just about everyone. The first time it was a surprise. But the players have almost grown to enjoy his shenanigans (he has almost become like Doctor Smith). And yet they still put their trust in him and don't get angry when he inevitably betrays them (and the last time they were still surprised by his betrayal because they thought they had a winning angle). That is an extreme example, but I would say these things generally work if you aren't overdoing them and so long as you do them in the right way. It just has to be balanced with all the other tropes