How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons

[MerricB]

Not even late 1e...

TX, what are your five favourite modules?

For me:
B2: Keep on the Borderlands
I3: Pharoah
Red Hand of Doom
DL1: Dragons of Despair
DL10: Dragons of Dreams

Cheers!

 

[S'mon]

If I start the module in media res and force motivations and choices on the players, that is railroading.

I hate these misdefinitions of railroading. Railroading is not about restricting PC freedom of action, it's about channeling the Players down a certain plot path _whatever they decide_.

The GM determining the start conditions of a module is not railroading. PCs can do whatever they want following the start.

A linear scenario (encounter X, then Y, then Z) is not railroading. PCs can succeed or fail in the encounters, depending on their own efforts.

Neither of those affects the ability of the players to make choices within the context of a module.

Railroading is when, whatever the PCs do or choose, the GM ensures that the same thing happens, fudging die rolls and imposing deus ex machina to ensure the result.

Not railroading: The scenario starts with PCs stripped naked in dungeon. PCs are then free to do whatever they want to attempt.

Railroading: PCs are sitting in Inn, when slavers burst in and, in game, subdue & capture them. No matter what the players do or attempt, the capture attempt WILL succeed.

Another classic 'railroad' is when the scenario has the arch-villain NPC show up and requires that whatever the PCs do, the NPC will escape to return later.

 

[MerricB]

Railroading: PCs are sitting in Inn, when slavers burst in and, in game, subdue & capture them. No matter what the players do or attempt, the capture attempt WILL succeed.

Within the context of the Slavers series, this is what happens. The transition from A3 to A4 is in this manner. Adventures used within campaigns also can have trouble with this.

Cheers!

 

[Numion]

Anyhow, when comparing periods in anything you have to look at the majority of work. The majority of early 1E period modules were not railroading, the majority of 2E era modules were. Same with 3E. And thats not to say there worse, there just different.

I have a bit of a deja-vu about this poster.

From time to time a new poster appears on ENWorld with a clear agenda to trump up another edition or system by veiled (or not so veiled) attacks on 3E. Usually this is executed by a string of emotional threads based on perceptions thru rose-colored glasses, "it's not a bug, it's a feature" arguments, or just plain old dismissal of reality (like in this post).

Sooner or later the ranting burns out, but the fireworks are worth watching, as always.

Just my two coppers.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Same with 3E.

Cite specific examples, because I'm not seeing that many railroads in 3e. Red Hand of Doom, for example, has a definite plot, but what happens is determined by PC actions (or inaction). That's not railroading.

 

[diaglo]

Cite specific examples, because I'm not seeing that many railroads in 3e. Red Hand of Doom, for example, has a definite plot, but what happens is determined by PC actions (or inaction). That's not railroading.

the only railroad adventures i've seen lately involve the first 2 Eberron ones.
edit: which ironically involve a lightning railroad

 

[Psion]

Hussar, Every dungeon has one path basically, (with one final big treasure at the end that must be found if you want to advance); dungeons, after all, are nothing more then a set of rooms and halls leading to a final showdown, and yes, many side paths are dangerous and trapped and are best avoided (as in your tomb of horrors example, which is more devilishly dangerous than most).

Incorrect. If you have access to the search feature, do a search for threads started by Melan. He has a very interesting analysis showing that linear is only one of the possible iterations and not a fastly adhered to one, either.

That said:

• Official 3e modules don't elude this construction pattern (Sunless citadel being pretty linear in construction despite winding passages.)
• If you look at that thread, you will see I disagree that linear dungeons are necessarily bad. If you want a meandering dungeon crawl of undetermined length, it's great. But if you want the dungeon crawl to be of known risk and duration, linear is good.
• Likewise, a meandering dungeon crawl can be made into linear adventures (I've ran many forays into 2e Ruins of Undermountain this way via use of guides and directed goals.)
• Finally, I disagree that linear dungeon crawls = railroads, though it certainly helps if you want to railroad.

I do agree that the most egregious examples of railroading were in 1e (*coff*Dragonlance*coff*), but again 3e is not blameless. I found Standing Stone pretty railroady.

 

[WizarDru]

Not railroading: The scenario starts with PCs stripped naked in dungeon. PCs are then free to do whatever they want to attempt.

Railroading: PCs are sitting in Inn, when slavers burst in and, in game, subdue & capture them. No matter what the players do or attempt, the capture attempt WILL succeed.

I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction, here. Are you saying that if it happens purely in the beginning, it's not railroading, but if I get five minutes in to the adventure and the same event happens, it is?

In the context of the Slaver series, you finish A3 as fairly competent and powerful character. The DM reaches the end of A3 and suddenly it's all for naught. You finish the module as a prisoner and start A4 without any spells, equipment and such. As 7th level characters under AD&D, that's pretty significant. I suppose if you accept the arbitrary cut-off point, that might not bother you. I've never played with anyone who wouldn't, in some capacity, find that annoying. How annoying varies from person to person, but being suddenly told that you were captured, stripped naked and tossed in a pen after having gone toe-to-toe with a Flesh Golem, Minotaur, Gelatinous cube, Hellhound and Shambling Mounds and lived to tell the tale...that's fine for a tournament, but for an ongoing campaign, I don't think it ever flew that well. In fact, it sounds like your arguing for what I already described, which is that no matter what choices or preparations the players make in Slavers, when they hit a certain point in the module, they are forced into being slaves. Isn't that exactly what you were describing?

Another classic 'railroad' is when the scenario has the arch-villain NPC show up and requires that whatever the PCs do, the NPC will escape to return later.

True and 'Whisper of the Vampire's Blade' is very guilty of this as it's prime plot element. It's potentially bad design...unless it's in something like Mutants and Masterminds, where the player actually is compensated for such an event (in the form of Hero Points).

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction, here. Are you saying that if it happens purely in the beginning, it's not railroading, but if I get five minutes in to the adventure and the same event happens, it is?

That's right.

I'm not saying that the "Slavers" type thing is necessarily acceptable, but that really depends on the player-GM contract. It depends on whether the GM is 'allowed' to do things to the PCs outside the rules, or if all harmful actions regarding the PCs must be determined via the rules. Either approach is ok - a hard-Simulationist game is probably best with "rules resolution only", whereas a Drama-based game (eg the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG) should be fine with going outside the rules. Indeed BTVS even has a mechanic to deal with this - whenever the GM breaks the rules he gives the PCs a Drama Point. I did the same when I ran the Conan RPG, awarding a Fate Point for 'screwed over by fate' events like being captured by slavers at the start of the scenario. That kind of thing really helps mollify the players!

For a Gamist game like 1e AD&D, as long as both players & GM are on the same page, either approach is fine.

Now, with railroading the GM is maintaining the illusion of player choice, while ensuring that the players' choices have no real impact. This can be ok if done really subtly, but not to the extent of "NPC X must survive this encounter". Dragonlance was really the progenitor of the Railroad style. Maybe some players are ok with it, but for me it makes the game into a theme-park ride; not much fun compared to determining your own destiny.

 

[S'mon]

True and 'Whisper of the Vampire's Blade' is very guilty of this as it's prime plot element. It's potentially bad design...unless it's in something like Mutants and Masterminds, where the player actually is compensated for such an event (in the form of Hero Points).

Yup - I don't think we're that far apart in our approach to adventure design & GMing, it's just a question of definition. What you've called Railroading is fine either for a game emulating pulp fiction genres, like Buffy & Conan - "You're knocked out and wake up in X" - and is ok in a Gamist game where the focus is on "Beat the Scenario", like the Slavers tournament modules. But in a Gamist game where the focus is on building up PC power continuously over a campaign - "beat the campaign" rather than "beat the scenario" - it can seem like the GM is cheating. Certainly in standard Monte Cook style 3e gaming I'd be very reluctant to use such a device mid-campaign.