How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons

[Mark CMG]

In my estimation, Dragonlance is THE classic example of railroading.

Agreed. A group of us, all gamers who had begun in the mid-70s, played through these while avoiding any of the novels, so we would be coming at them fresh. The DM wasn't even reading the novels and it still felt like a total railroad job to all of us. As I recall, we stuck it out but quickly got into some freeform homebrew campaign right afterward.

 

[tx7321]

OK, I see the problem, I'm using a different definition of what railroading is then some of you. I don't limit it to only when a group is forced into one outcome no matter what. I consider it when a module is written in such a way that the DM will naturally want the players to follow a sequence and this sequence dominates the game. Though players can do other things, the DM (who's read this module already) will want to push them on.
Anyhow, I see the disconnect.

 

[Maggan]

Yep.

A friend of mine likened this to "the magician's choice", the old card trick where the illusionist asks you to pick a card without telling you what he is going to do with that card once chosen... it appears you have a choice, but everything is truly determined.

I call it "the interactive illusion". It's the basic principle behind every computer game ever created, and most roleplaying adventures. Give the player the illusion of interactivity by letting them do everything they want to do ... but using tools to make them want to do what you have prepared for.

/M

 

[Hussar]

OK, I see the problem, I'm using a different definition of what railroading is then some of you. I don't limit it to only when a group is forced into one outcome no matter what. I consider it when a module is written in such a way that the DM will naturally want the players to follow a sequence and this sequence dominates the game. Though players can do other things, the DM (who's read this module already) will want to push them on.
Anyhow, I see the disconnect.

Then how can you consider Tomb of Horrors not a railroad? If the players step off the bread crumb trail even a little, they die. Not, they fight, and perhaps die, not, they might suffer some, they die. Never mind that the adventure is completely linear as well. Two false entrances (both of which have a fairly high chance of killing you) and a bleeding path to lead you down the proper entrance.

B2 Keep on the Borderlands, I fully agree, is not a railroad and is more of a mini-campaign than a dungeon. Heck, it's more like 10 small dungeons with a common starting point. For a truly free module, I don't think you can beat X1 Isle of Dread. That adventure isn't really an adventure at all, just a very large location with lots of goodies. Again, a mini-campaign rather than a strict single adventure.

But, point to later modules and saying that they are mostly railroads while early modules weren't is pattently untrue. I've already outlined 5 very early modules that were complete railroads.

No, you don't have to start a module in medias res. In fact, looking at many Dungeon modules, you see that they have five or six hooks for attracting the players to the adventures, all depending on what the group may or may not want to do. Even the first of the Savage Tide AP modules allows the party to deal with the main villain in any number of ways including joining her.

You want a module that doesn't railroad, try the World's Largest Dungeon. Beyond the initial entrance where you cannot leave, the actual exploration of the WLD is entirely up to the party. An entire campaign where the players are in total control of their actions. How's that for the antithesis of railroading?

 

[diaglo]

Agreed.

agreeing with the crowd.

DL is the Chattanooga CHoo Choo of its time. but 1985 was the end of all that was good from TSR.

releasing UA and T1-4 proved that.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

OK, I see the problem, I'm using a different definition of what railroading is then some of you. I don't limit it to only when a group is forced into one outcome no matter what. I consider it when a module is written in such a way that the DM will naturally want the players to follow a sequence and this sequence dominates the game. Though players can do other things, the DM (who's read this module already) will want to push them on.
Anyhow, I see the disconnect.

By that definition, then most of the classic modules of 1e would be railroads - especially the GDQ series, but the same holds for S1, as Hussar pointed out. As I think about your definition, I'm hard pressed to think of more than a few modules, ever, that don't fall under the railroading umbrella. I think you're trying to redefine railroading so as to be able to label 3e modules with it, but the conclusion is that it ends up being an umbrella that covers most modules from any era. That essentially renders the term pointless.

Again, specific examples - specific modules and parts of modules - would be good for this line of discourse.

 

[Maggan]

By that definition, then most of the classic modules of 1e would be railroads ...

I will go so far as to say that by that definition, every single module which has anything resembling a predetermined goal or setting, such as "defeat the dungeon" or "find the treasure" or even "this here city that I prepared" or "this is a dungeon I stocked" is a railroad.

Even the simple "lets use this material that I prepared" becomes a railroad.

/M

 

[WizarDru]

OK, I see the problem, I'm using a different definition of what railroading is then some of you.

I would hazard that you're using a definition of railroading that is different than just about anyone else is using. As others have noted, your definition is so overbroad as to apply virtually anywhere. The DM is always going to dictate some aspect of the story....that doesn't generally qualify as railroading in most gamer's minds.

Railroading isn't always a negative, but often is, especially when executed poorly or hamfistedly. Some railroading is even necessary at times, if only for the necessity of getting a game rolling. The classic 'you all meet in a tavern' excuse for many a game in days past is an example of this. This isn't railroading per se, but often a party may be formed for something of the flimsiest of reasons that is never really examined in detail afterwards, because it really wasn't the focus of the game. A DM expecting players to at least make an effort to have their player participate in an adventure isn't the same thing as the DM imposing choices and actions on a player.

For example: in my last campaign, which began using the Sunless Citadel, the players were told straight-up that they had been hired individually by a wealthy merchant in the city of Greyhawk to find a magical fruit for his daughter. It was made clear that he had hired several such groups, and the players were the least of these. Everyone nodded, and we got one with the adventure. Nothing from that point on was certain.

It isn't considered a railroad in the general understanding that most I know have of the term that because there was a fruit at the end of the module guarded by an evil druid that they were being railroaded when they reached it and fought him. The actual line where railroading begins and DM discretion ends may blur or be at a different location for each person...but plot elements, even linear ones, aren't railroading simply by the fact of being linear or plot elements.

Case in point: the players delve the Sunless Citadel, probe it's secrets and reach the druid. But this doesn't mean that they didn't choose how to reach the end point. Ask any group about Meepo, and see what they say about him. You'll find many different answers to that question. When my group reached the druid, they negotiated with him. They wanted the fruit, and really weren't all that concerned about whatever plans the druid had. Had I told them "No, you don't haggle with evil druids: you draw your swords and attack.", that would be one kind of railroading. If I told the players, "Well, yes, you do offer him power, gold and even that you'll serve him forever more in return for the fruit, but he still says 'No' because he hates the color red and you're wearing something red and OK, you do try to charm him, but umm...he has an anti-charming bracelet that only works for evil druids named Stan and his frog must be stoneskinned or something because he doesn't take any damage and roll for init and take five hit points because even though you were looking you could possibly see the rogue sneak up to you but your rogue was spotted easily by the toad because he has magic super toad eyes and....umm...roll for init!" is the more egregious kind.

Saying that player being given a story that he chooses to follow because the DM presented it to him and expects, in a player-DM contract, that he will involve himself in the story is no more railroading than expecting a person playing checkers to stay on the board.

 

[gizmo33]

By that definition, then most of the classic modules of 1e would be railroads - especially the GDQ series, but the same holds for S1, as Hussar pointed out.

I disagree. I think S1 has a vareity of different outcomes. Plus the important thing is that S1 doesn't innately encourage a plot railroad by, for example, setting up a "scene" later in the module that requires certain NPCs to be alive or whatever - making it unusable if things didn't follow the plot. S1 is site-based, and I think any site-based adventure that basically gives PCs the choice of doing whatever they want isn't railroady.

Of course that relies on a definition of "railroady" that's useful, and IMO useful is one that emphasises player choice. There are 99+ ways to die in S1, but the way you die is pretty much up to the player.

And you can't rule out the role that a DM has in interpreting the material and making it more or less railroady. The GDQ series of adventures is extremely open-ended depending on what you're willing to do to expand it, but there aren't sections that suddenly become completely unusable just because the PCs decided to take a detour or a key NPC got killed or whatever. That's not the case with Dragonlance or any other module or module series that I would use the term "railroady" for.

Again, specific examples - specific modules and parts of modules - would be good for this line of discourse.

Most 3E adventures I've seen have been in Dungeon magazine and those, by far, are all site-based which I think by definition is about as un-railroady as you can get. The "adventure paths", by nature, lean more towards the Dragonlance side of things, but there are usually large pieces of the adventure that are site based and useable if you don't follow the plot.

 

[cildarith]

I will go so far as to say that by that definition, every single module which has anything resembling a predetermined goal or setting, such as "defeat the dungeon" or "find the treasure" or even "this here city that I prepared" or "this is a dungeon I stocked" is a railroad.

Even the simple "lets use this material that I prepared" becomes a railroad.

/M

This is true. The best you can hope for is a variety of modules that the players can chose from. At least in that case they get choose which train they want to ride today...