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

[jayoungr]

I'm not sure how the players wouldn't know what happened. If I attempt an action and it fails, but trying it a second time works (with the same dice rolls,) that is strange.

How is the player prompted to try again after getting the feedback that the first attempt fails?

The module tells the DM to "Roll dice behind the screen and frown.” That is meant to imply to the players that the monster succeeded on some kind of secret saving throw, suggesting that it might fail on a future attempt (even with the same roll from the players).

Still, if the module writers really wanted this to work, the smart thing would have been to provide the DM with some text to explain what's going on. Or, even better, to build the explanation into the story.

If the story needs more than one attack for the pacing, why not construct the encounter to need more than one attack? Either say that two items are needed (as I mentioned previously,) or you need to use the item twice to fully defeat the target (perhaps the first attack induces a weakened state, and the second is the killing blow).

I don't disagree that those are more elegant and effective ways of handling the situation. Nor am I saying you're wrong to dislike this module's approach. I was really just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly bothered you about it.

Am I right in guessing you're the sort of player who also dislikes Quantum Ogres? Because this strikes me as a similar situation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

 

[Quickleaf]

Just getting into the theoretical view of adventure design, I'd suggest that some of the most highly regarded adventures in the RPG hobby are highly scripted - perhaps "railroads" by some.
Every Call of Cthulhu adventure is basically a "paint by numbers" mystery - especially "Masks of Nyarlahotep."
WFRP's "The Enemy Within" - it's a railroad.
Those classic TSR adventures that are anything more than a "monster hotel" - they're basically railroads too.
Am I wrong?

I think, perhaps, skipping over a lot of the nuance of what makes a linear adventure a "railroad" for the sake of a wholesale argument.

I have not run Mask of Nyarlathotep or The Enemy Within, but most of the classic D&D modules were linear - i.e. the structure has a clearly defined progression (as opposed to branching paths or a hub model).

However, the things you said about Web of Illusion in your OP make me fairly confident to say that it written as a railroad - i.e. if the players try to work outside the confines of the adventure or implement unorthodox solutions at a larger scale, the adventure/GM actively works to thwart that and pull them back into what's planned for.

 

[Stormonu]

Just getting into the theoretical view of adventure design, I'd suggest that some of the most highly regarded adventures in the RPG hobby are highly scripted - perhaps "railroads" by some.
Every Call of Cthulhu adventure is basically a "paint by numbers" mystery - especially "Masks of Nyarlahotep."
WFRP's "The Enemy Within" - it's a railroad.
Those classic TSR adventures that are anything more than a "monster hotel" - they're basically railroads too.
Am I wrong?

I'm only vaguely familiar with the The Enemy Within and Masks of Nyarlahotep.

Most of the pre-Dragonlance 1E adventures are sandboxes, with at best guard rails around the outer bounds. There may be an expected path, but players pretty much have free agency in how and/or if they will tackle the various encounters. Most of the time, the players have quite a bit of control of the order they will even approach certain encounters.

2E is really bad about (boxed text) scripted scenes where player agency is revoked. Some even go so far as to tell the players how their characters feel and react, without the player having any sort of control over the situation. There's not just bumpers to keep the players on track, there's a monorail underneath them forcing them into particular actions to tell a predetermined story. They're cut scenes without the button interplay, and usually pretty heavy-handed as well as poorly written for assuming how players will actually react (or what they could possibly do, especially with spells at the ready).

 

[SteveC]

I would say that the 2E era isn't one I'd look to for a lot of what it was like in the olden days. Those adventures specially introduced plots and stories (not all, but many of them) and that it the antithesis of a 1E adventure. I think of "old school" adventuring as a location that you encounter. There may be elements of a story there, but you're largely able to approach most of the game however you choose. Definitely different from 2E days.

And that represented a shift in gaming to a more story-centric approach. A lot of the early attempts were pretty clunky, and needed a good DM to alter things so they made sense for their campaign, but they were the beginnings of a different path.

I am not 100% sure where that path led us. Adventure Paths have to be somewhat linear, and I've seen examples of heavy-handed DMing in modern products. It does seem that there is at least an attempt to do something different. And then you have FitD and PbtA games where things are very different (and I'm thinking of the "draw maps, leave blanks," and "play to see what happens" here).

For myself, although I may be branded a heretic here, I still say, "if the railroad goes to Awesometown, get me onboard."

 

[Belen]

In no way was this my experience with 2e.

I ran a lot of modules and box sets back then too although I always used them as an outline to be fleshed out.

 

[Argyle King]

The module tells the DM to "Roll dice behind the screen and frown.” That is meant to imply to the players that the monster succeeded on some kind of secret saving throw, suggesting that it might fail on a future attempt (even with the same roll from the players).

Still, if the module writers really wanted this to work, the smart thing would have been to provide the DM with some text to explain what's going on. Or, even better, to build the explanation into the story.


I don't disagree that those are more elegant and effective ways of handling the situation. Nor am I saying you're wrong to dislike this module's approach. I was really just trying to get to the bottom of what exactly bothered you about it.

Am I right in guessing you're the sort of player who also dislikes Quantum Ogres? Because this strikes me as a similar situation.

I have some dislike of Quantum Ogres, but I would find them more palatable than what is being suggested for this module.

I feel that what the module is doing is multiple degrees worse than Quantum Ogres because the module is instructing the gaming group that an action should be taken -only for the module to then inflict failure for taking that same action.

I also typically prefer to make most rolls in the open. The exception being when rolls involve something that the player character would not know or rolls for something they are not able to observe so that they might know.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are a lot of times that its possible to have linear adventures that you don't have to "railroad" the players to follow... if the players' most logical next set of actions take them in the direction the module expected them to go. A DM doesn't have to force their players down a specific path if the players just decide to follow that path on their own.

Especially in a one-shot adventure where everyone knows that this story is going to wrap up in like 3 hours... when a clue or signpost is put in front of the players they usually will reach for it because it makes the most sense to do so. After all... if they didn't want to follow the breadcrumbs given in an established module, they should have told the DM beforehand that they wanted to just "walk around" and then get random encounters plopped in front of them. But the fact that you are running a pre-written module... when the PCs search a room and the only thing of note they find is a map, following that map to another location is the next logical step for the PCs to take.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But (and here’s the big question) … should we do it? Should we go back to this style of game?

No.

Would our games feel more epic if we did?

Only until the curtain is pulled back and people realize that the experience was hollow all along. Then it all comes crashing down. That's the critical downfall of this approach. It is a deception. A "noble lie," one might say. As long as the noble lie remains unquestioned, you get to reap all the benefits as if it were true, despite not doing the work to actually make it true. That's sort of the ideal state with lies, regardless of their intent. It is having one's cake and eating it too.

If they were better curated, more narrative, etc.?

Ah, see, here you have made a critical mistake. You have assumed that the only way to make "better curated, more narrative" games is to deceive the players into thinking that their choices matter, that they're driving the story forward, that things could have gone differently, etc., all while actually doing none of those things and putting in continuous labor to ensure the players never find out. Perhaps I simply run my game for unusually intelligent people, but I can tell you, after having run a game for over six years now, there's no way in hell I could have kept up a deception like that for six+ years.

Instead...do the work to ACTUALLY make this true. It's hard! It's a lot of work, and requires that you either keep copious notes or be very, very good at remembering details you've articulated over time. (I admit I don't do enough of the former and am not quite as good as I'd like at the latter.) You have to work and adjust and think ahead and restrain yourself from over-committing and do all sorts of other things that make it oh-so-tempting to fudge just this one time so things play out "right", to railroad just a little so it works out "correctly" for the "satisfying conclusion". You'll put in more labor as DM. But, IMO, that labor is absolutely worth it because...

Would campaigns feel more satisfying?

...yes, they would be more satisfying, if it is not a deception but genuinely true.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are a lot of times that its possible to have linear adventures that you don't have to "railroad" the players to follow... if the players' most logical next set of actions take them in the direction the module expected them to go. A DM doesn't have to force their players down a specific path if the players just decide to follow that path on their own.

Especially in a one-shot adventure where everyone knows that this story is going to wrap up in like 3 hours... when a clue or signpost is put in front of the players they usually will reach for it because it makes the most sense to do so. After all... if they didn't want to follow the breadcrumbs given in an established module, they should have told the DM beforehand that they wanted to just "walk around" and then get random encounters plopped in front of them. But the fact that you are running a pre-written module... when the PCs search a room and the only thing of note they find is a map, following that map to another location is the next logical step for the PCs to take.

Entirely correct. "Railroading" is only strictly when you are making the players follow the required path. There can be times--as you say, very short adventures, or very obvious adventures, or linking bits where the players are already eager to move on and have an inkling of what needs to happen--where there's only one prepared path, and that path is genuinely all the players need.

Railroading proper only happens when there is the false pretense that the players COULD do many different things (perhaps do almost anything!), but in truth there is only one thing they'll be allowed to do, and any of their entirely-reasonable efforts will be either thwarted or invisibly redirected to the "correct" choice, depending on whether the DM is doing it ham-fistedly or with relative subtlety.

Generally, I find the thing that most clearly distinguishes the first thing (players only need route A->B) from the second (players are made to think they can choose anything between A and Q, but only B will actually work/happen) is the degree to which the DM embraces embellishment. It's not a foolproof test, but it's pretty reliable--because the natural reflex of the serial railroader is to keep everything cleanly on track so as to avoid future efforts to curtail deviation. Embellishment invites new plot threads/holes/detritus that will have to be wrapped up, filled, or cleared away at some point.