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

[Bedrockgames]

It’s sad that a lot of writers took Ravenloft in that direction but I’ve never ran it that way or looked at it in that perspective. At least, in no different way than if I had Vecna or Manshoon or some other major NPC as my BBEG, and if the players defeat them, there’s always the comic book logic that they can return some day. But for my players? Our campaign? Nah, they’re gone. If they ever come back, they’ll be someone else’s problem. And to be fair, how many times has the Forgotten Realms been blown up but then put right back to where it was with little real change?

On the one hand, I get it. Bringing Strahd back time and again fits with the vampire movie fiction. How many times did Christopher Lee die in the end of a Dracula movie only to come back in another one? Seven? Eight times? And of course, Ravenloft as a domain still remains the Domain of Dread. The PCs never are going to be able to change that most likely. But even actual Ravenloft modules give an ending where the domain dissipates without the anchor of the darklord it was built around.

It was entirely feasible by the setting rules to kill dark lord. I think the line protected a number of favorites in the fiction if I recall, but the big thing was domain lords each had unique ways they could really be destroyed (and all monsters really are a microcosm of this idea of each domain lord being a unique version of their type of monster, often with unique weaknesses and methods for being permanently laid to rest). But domain lords could be killed and if they were it was an open question what happened next, the could just be consumed by mists, it could welcome a new Domain Lord if someone sufficiently wicked is present in the domain, etc.

 

[TiQuinn]

It was entirely feasible by the setting rules to kill dark lord. I think the line protected a number of favorites in the fiction if I recall, but the big thing was domain lords each had unique ways they could really be destroyed (and all monsters really are a microcosm of this idea of each domain lord being a unique version of their type of monster, often with unique weaknesses and methods for being permanently laid to rest). But domain lords could be killed and if they were it was an open question what happened next, the could just be consumed by mists, it could welcome a new Domain Lord if someone sufficiently wicked is present in the domain, etc.

Which if you think about it is the meta rule of any popular NPC.

Are you ever really going to kill Strahd? Yes, but also no. Yes you can kill him. But no, he’s too awesome a villain to let stay dead.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which if you think about it is the meta rule of any popular NPC.

Are you ever really going to kill Strahd? Yes, but also no. Yes you can kill him. But no, he’s too awesome a villain to let stay dead.

My policy was always to let the Dark Lords they killed stay dead. One of the things I liked about how it approached killing Dark Lords was it required more investigation and effort so when they did kill them, it felt more like how it feels in a movie or book when the heroes kill Dracula. It also depended on the Dark Lord. Some were fairly easy to kill, others were nearly impossible.

I absolutely agree with your earlier point about agency. This is one of the reasons I have never really liked Ravenloft as a sandbox or exploration setting. You can still give players plenty of freedom within the context of a scenario but it is a setting built around things like fear, horror and powers checks; around villains having unexpected abilities and powers, around reality shifting around the players. Its priority isn't agency, its priority is the atmosphere of fear and horror. And that does require a certain amount of buy-in from players (if your players get angry when you tell them their character is in mental shock after a failed horror check, it isn't going to be a good fit). It isn't a 'but my character wouldn't react that way' kind of setting.

 

[TiQuinn]

I absolutely agree with your earlier point about agency. This is one of the reasons I have never really liked Ravenloft as a sandbox or exploration setting. You can still give players plenty of freedom within the context of a scenario but it is a setting built around things like fear, horror and powers checks; around villains having unexpected abilities and powers, around reality shifting around the players. Its priority isn't agency, its priority is the atmosphere of fear and horror. And that does require a certain amount of buy-in from players (if your players get angry when you tell them their character is in mental shock after a failed horror check, it isn't going to be a good fit). It isn't a 'but my character wouldn't react that way' kind of setting.

Yes, agency is important but there does need to be buy-in that you’re in a horror setting. It’s a balancing act. Superheroics are going to be tamped down because they’re antithetical to the setting.

 

[payn]

Not sure if I follow the question.
Bad guy is scrying in his palace and will cast mirror image before the party enters the throne room.
There's a chance they'll hit the wrong target. I'll do that roll openly. If they hit the right image, he dies. If not, well it's time to recover the magic bolt and try again.

It was a joke. I was wondering if you were using mirror image as a plausible explanation for the McGuffin failing on the first swing as the module suggests.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am going to very briefly pine in on the actual topic.

OD&D and AD&D (like 5e) can be run in a variety of ways- both from the RAW, as well as because there is a "tradition" or "culture" in D&D. One way that it can be run is, for lack of a better way of putting it, the "Strong Simbalist" approach. In other words, having the DM strongly script the narratives (whether through illusionism or meta-gaming buy in or other techniques) so that the players experience something resembling a narrative arc.

This is in contrast to another, old school (call it the "Strong Pulsipher" approach) where there is no thumb on the scale, and players can do what they want- and story or narrative is accidental and emergent.

This debate was already getting tired in the '70s, and it's a function of the hobby that it always circles around, continually, every year. Like taxes. And pumpkin spice.

I think we start to run into trouble when we assign blame to different playing styles, or if we start to use jargon to make pejorative statements. For example, some people use illusionism and/or railroading to describe selecting an adventure (a module, an AP). But is that a good thing to explore? Is the (insert jargon) or is that just buy in from the table?

Let's make that more concrete. Look, if you're playing BiTD (for example) and the players are decide that the characters don't want to do scores, don't want to be in Duskvol, and think heists are lame, you're going to run into problems. But because of the narrow(er) focus, we often overlook the necessary buy-in that has already occurred. No one would say that BiTD is railroading players into Duskvol, or heists, because that would be absurd, right?

So, what am I here to say? Well, people have different preferences when it comes to playing. And that's awesome! The issue is that D&D (and variants) doesn't really focus on mandating a particular style; so we often end up with various debates about the right way to play it- something that most more focused games don't have. And the answer, to me, is simple-

The right way to play it is the way that your tables enjoys playing it. Simple. If y'all like it, then that's the right way to play.

 

[payn]

I am going to very briefly pine in on the actual topic.

OD&D and AD&D (like 5e) can be run in a variety of ways- both from the RAW, as well as because there is a "tradition" or "culture" in D&D. One way that it can be run is, for lack of a better way of putting it, the "Strong Simbalist" approach. In other words, having the DM strongly script the narratives (whether through illusionism or meta-gaming buy in or other techniques) so that the players experience something resembling a narrative arc.

This is in contrast to another, old school (call it the "Strong Pulsipher" approach) where there is no thumb on the scale, and players can do what they want- and story or narrative is accidental and emergent.

This debate was already getting tired in the '70s, and it's a function of the hobby that it always circles around, continually, every year. Like taxes. And pumpkin spice.

I think we start to run into trouble when we assign blame to different playing styles, or if we start to use jargon to make pejorative statements. For example, some people use illusionism and/or railroading to describe selecting an adventure (a module, an AP). But is that a good thing to explore? Is the (insert jargon) or is that just buy in from the table?

Let's make that more concrete. Look, if you're playing BiTD (for example) and the players are decide that the characters don't want to do scores, don't want to be in Duskvol, and think heists are lame, you're going to run into problems. But because of the narrow(er) focus, we often overlook the necessary buy-in that has already occurred. No one would say that BiTD is railroading players into Duskvol, or heists, because that would be absurd, right?

So, what am I here to say? Well, people have different preferences when it comes to playing. And that's awesome! The issue is that D&D (and variants) doesn't really focus on mandating a particular style; so we often end up with various debates about the right way to play it- something that most more focused games don't have. And the answer, to me, is simple-

The right way to play it is the way that your tables enjoys playing it. Simple. If y'all like it, then that's the right way to play.

You really nailed it here. There is a lot of frustration with D&D's fantasy RPG kit nature. Its built to do a lot of things, but not necessarily anything in particular. Naturally, there is going to be a lot of different takes and ways to play it. With no finger pointing by the publisher some folks think its on the "community" The thing is, the community isnt a monolith. People didnt all play the same way in '74, then '84, into '94, etc...

 

[Velderan]

Let's make that more concrete. Look, if you're playing BiTD (for example) and the players are decide that the characters don't want to do scores, don't want to be in Duskvol, and think heists are lame, you're going to run into problems. But because of the narrow(er) focus, we often overlook the necessary buy-in that has already occurred. No one would say that BiTD is railroading players into Duskvol, or heists, because that would be absurd, right?

I feel like often people are misusing the term railroad to describe anything that isn't a complete and total "let's make it up as we go along" style of play.

For me, the AD&D Dragonlance modules feature some of the worst offenses of railroading. If a key NPC dies, no worries! Invoke the mysterious death option and that NPC will be back because of some flimsy reason like the body was never recovered and they somehow survived off-screen. Or if the PCs are at point A and are being directed to go to point B, but they REALLY want to check out point C first, send a patrol of enemies at them once per hour until they either get back on the track to point B or die. It's the main reason as much as I like the stories they told, when I ran them I used them as a loose guideline for where things happen and let the PCs figure it out from there. They skipped the point where they meet a key NPC or pick up a key item because they skipped point B and went to C? Guess they'll have 1 less ally later on! Did they manage to kill a key NPC that would be in an encounter later? Who is next in the Dragonarmy org chart? The modules would have been better if they provided advice on how to handle those situations instead of just forcing it at all costs.

Most of the recent Adventure Paths I've played or read have a structure and if the players want to be spoon fed the story that's a valid way to approach it. But there's plenty of flexibility in most of them, at least the ones I've played. Curse of Strahd and Descent into Avernus had plenty of room for the PCs to decide how to approach the land they find themselves in and I'm sure if you pay close attention there's a straightforward way to run them, but there's also a lot of space to just wander and investigate what sounds interesting. The current PF2e AP I'm running (Abomination Vaults) is a dungeon crawl, so that requires a certain level of willingness to want to engage with what's in the dungeon if your group agrees to play it. There's some flexibility in how they approach the dungeon, with multiple paths through it and a town with a bunch of NPCs with their own motives to interact with. But as with your BiTD example if that isn't interesting and the PCs decide this dungeon sucks and want to take the road out of town and see where that goes, that is fine. But then I'd question what about the AP do they not enjoy because we're no longer playing the AP.

 

[LordEntrails]

I have found that as a player that railroading and fudging only matters if as a player I figure out the DM is doing so. If I'm not aware of it, then it doesn't matter. But once I'm aware of it, then I feel like my decisions as a character don't matter. And if my decisions don't matter, then why don't I just read a book or watch a movie?

 

[Zardnaar]

I have found that as a player that railroading and fudging only matters if as a player I figure out the DM is doing so. If I'm not aware of it, then it doesn't matter. But once I'm aware of it, then I feel like my decisions as a character don't matter. And if my decisions don't matter, then why don't I just read a book or watch a movie?

I d9nt fudge dice. You die you die.

Railroad ingredients. Depends what counts. Sandbox is arguably rail roady but I'm assuming the players want to be in the sandbox.

Normally do a very loose design. I'll go find Carolinas adventures for a path all of which can be swapped out.
. There's no pre determined desired outcome and often not even a cleary defined villain. There's usually a goal. How they achieve that goal or get there mostly up to them.

Railroaded parts would be meeting key NPCs I suppose.