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

[bloodtide]

Here are some elements that fly in the face of modern adventure design:

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

If the game has any sort of plot or story, then things need to happen. It's a lot like the PCs need to meet the Quest Giver or whatever NPC starts the adventure.

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

Once you get passed low level, this should be common.

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

This is again part of the plot and story.

• 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.

Sounds a bit clumsy

• 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.”

This is just bad set up.....really all they need to say is "it will take two hits to vanquish the foe".

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

It is an adventure.

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

It is an adventure.

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?

Yes. Yes, never left myself. Yes. Maybe? Yes.

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)?

Yes...er, no, not exactly.

 

[pemerton]

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.

No. That's not the only other option.

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 mean, here's just one example. The betrayal can be used as a failure narration - just the same as the Orc kills you is normally used as a failure narration, rather than as a pre-scripted, rail-roaded "plot point".

The only time the direction taken makes no difference is when the PCs' starting location is completely surrounded by an enemy force

You are making an assumption here about the procedures of play, as per my reply upthread to @TiQuinn:

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;​

Then 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.

 

[pemerton]

If the game has any sort of plot or story, then things need to happen.

You last clause is ambiguous.

One reading: if the game has any sort of plot or story, then there is some particular thing/event X such that (i) X is part of the plot, and therefore (ii) X needs to happen.

That reading is false. If it were true, pre-scripted railroads would be the only way to get any sort of plot or story. But they're not.

A second reading: if the game has any sort of plot or story, then (i) something or other has to happen (let's call it X), and (ii) X, once it happens, will be a part of the plot.

That reading is true. It is possible to set up and adjudicate a RPG such that things happen which will, as they unfold, establish a plot or story, without pre-scripting. Those techniques began being put into print in the later part of the 1980s, have been readily available in print for the past 25 years or so, and these days are widely known (in their Apocalypse World-descended variant). As I've already posted upthread, AD&D can be approached using those sorts of techniques. And 4e D&D was widely approached using those sorts of techniques, as was discussed at length on these boards 10 to 15 years ago.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm kind of OK with that, truth be told.

Instead of just blindly trusting whoever they meet, I'd rather they take things with a grain of salt until over time they learn which NPCs they can trust and which ones they (maybe or certainly) can't.

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.

I don't see betrayal as being nearly as bad as those two comparitors. Never mind that often enough one or more PCs is quietly working against the rest of 'em anyway, depending on the specific party in play at the time.

 

[bloodtide]

You last clause is ambiguous.

One reading: if the game has any sort of plot or story, then there is some particular thing/event X such that (i) X is part of the plot, and therefore (ii) X needs to happen.

That reading is false. If it were true, pre-scripted railroads would be the only way to get any sort of plot or story. But they're not.

A second reading: if the game has any sort of plot or story, then (i) something or other has to happen (let's call it X), and (ii) X, once it happens, will be a part of the plot.

Is it though?

In the first one the players and characters must find the one ("right") spot where the treasure is hidden, who the murder is or any such plot.

In the second one, whatever random thing the players decide to do they will find the treasure or the murderer or whatever else?

So I guess you can call the second one a 'plot', but it seems like a stretch.

 

[Lanefan]

No. That's not the only other option.

I mean, here's just one example. The betrayal can be used as a failure narration - just the same as the Orc kills you is normally used as a failure narration, rather than as a pre-scripted, rail-roaded "plot point".

Which, while fine in some instances, takes away the GM's ability to plan ahead; and while this may be your intended outcome (that GMs can't plan ahead) as a GM I'd far rather have more control over my NPCs than that, and be able to make plans for them farther in advance than the immediate here-and-now.

In this case, their mentor or patron might have a hidden reason for wanting the PCs out of the way for a month and so sends them on a mission that'll involve lots of travel time. Or the mentor-patron wants them out of the way permanently and so sends them on (what was supposed to be) a suicide mission*. Or the mentor-patron for some reason can't do something and gets the stooges...er, PCs, to do it for him then scoops the spoils on their return**. Or etc.

EDIT to add: Further, if I-as-GM am unable to know ahead of time whether the mentor will betray them and instead have to wait until the point of failure that sparks the 'failure narration' you mention, how can I possibly foreshadow or telegraph any of it?

* - I've done this one and it worked out great - the supposed mentor was shocked to see them return from the first suicide mission and so sent them on another one, and part-way through that there was a "Wa-a-ait a minute" moment for the players/PCs as they slowly awakened to the fact they were being had over; this set off about a 15-adventure chain of events as the PCs decided to abandon the mentor and do other things until they were powerful enough to face him, meanwhile the mentor and associates continued with their Evil Plan to overthrow the monarchy, etc. etc.

** - I've done this one too and it didn't work out so well; but I'll cut myself some slack as it was only the second adventure I'd ever run.

 

[pemerton]

In the second one, whatever random thing the players decide to do they will find the treasure or the murderer or whatever else?

What RPG works like that? None I'm aware of.

 

[pemerton]

Which, while fine in some instances, takes away the GM's ability to plan ahead

Yes. That's the point. That's how one avoids railroading.

(I mean, in fact to say there is no planning ahead would be wrong. Apocalypse World set out a whole approach to planning ahead which conditions the introduction of the planned content on the making of GM moves, including the making of hard moves in response to failed rolls by the players. The approach is called "Fronts", and you can read an explanation of it for free in the Dungeon World SRD: Fronts – Dungeon World SRD.)

if I-as-GM am unable to know ahead of time whether the mentor will betray them and instead have to wait until the point of failure that sparks the 'failure narration' you mention, how can I possibly foreshadow or telegraph any of it?

Using the sorts of techniques that I, and other posters on these boards, have told you about in innumerable posts over the past 15+ years.

Maybe this time will be different? For instance, maybe you'll actually read the DW rules, which set out some relevant techniques.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

You're bouncing around a LOT between different editions and really making this more complicated than necessary, as well as picking and choosing which editions have limitations in particular areas. Yes, 2e's Magic Item Creation rules suck. They suck much more than 3e's creation rules. This feels like cherry picking.

Yes, there's more variability in how a DM chooses to allow players to find out if the path to the left leads to the ogres, and this is probably the crux of our disagreement. I think I'm finally getting where we diverge on things.

I believe that providing a way for the players to find this out is the more important point. However, there are DMs who will use different methods for revealing that information - i.e., the players need to find a sage who has that information versus the players roll a skill check to see if they know this information. IMO, there are best practices. DMs discuss what works well at various tables and eventually the community decides what is a best practice, and what likely isn't.

In 5e, the best practice is let the player roll a skill check of some sort. It could be a Perception check. "Hmmm...the air is foul in that direction, and smells of bad body odor. You can also faintly hear snoring and is that, something belching?" Or it could be a Survival check. "You find tracks leading in that direction. Humanoid footprints, but twice the size of any human foot." If the DM is unfamiliar with the rules, or just inclined to playing a different way, they could say "Well, you'll need to consult someone whose been here before." Does it work? Sure. Is it what I'd consider a best practice for 5e? No. Is it what I'd consider a best practice for any edition of D&D? No. Could someone disagree with that stance? Sure.

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.

I don't think that's a good example at all, and it isn't even down to context. There was a difference between the choices. I would never make it a 40% chance vs. a 50% chance because that's far too narrow, but if there's a 1 in 6 chance vs. a 50% chance of complication along with a speed element, there is a material difference. That's not a Quantum Ogre situation.

 

[bloodtide]

What RPG works like that? None I'm aware of.

I don't know the game, I'm talking about what everyone is posting about how the play the game.