How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons

[ColonelHardisson]

I disagree.

Note that I wrote that in reply to what I feel is an entirely too nebulous definition of "railroad." Do I feel that S1 is a railroad? No. But given the definition I was replying to, it could be classified as a railroad, which demonstrates the faultiness of that definition.

In my opinion, the original poster is trying to unfavorably compare 3e adventures with 1e adventures by use of the term "railroad." I also think that in trying to shoehorn 3e adventures into that classification, most other modules follow right along, regardless of edition.

 

[howandwhy99]

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...

Some folks run game worlds this way, others use Modules instead of Adventures. It's the difference between Disneyland and a playground. On the playground you're not lining up to go for a ride. You make your own fun or end up getting swept up in others (NPCs). I like to run a mix of both.

I'm not interested in edition warz. I play in OD&D and DM 3.5. Plenty of adventures can be modified to remove the goal and plot. I'd rather plots and goals were designed for the NPCs and not the PCs. To do otherwise is to presume too much. For my tastes anyway.

 

[The Shaman]

Queen of the Demonweb Pits - once you activated the iron rings, you were teleported to the Abyss and couldn't leave

...

There's [one of] eight 1e modules that are lockstep railroads from beginning to end.

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?

Total control of their actions, other than not being able to leave the dungeon you mean? :\

And yes, the adventurers could leave the Demonweb Pits, by any of several portals to other worlds, or by defeating Lolth - in fact, this was a great way to introduce a whole new campaign setting if the dungeon master desired, by simply substituting it for one of the existing destinations.

 

[tx7321]

I do not dictate the course of action for my players, thats up to them at all times (running a module or not). My definition relates more to my players. When they feel as if they are tied up in some thick plot (usually with a good bit of romance novel story line included) that drags them along (with little freedom to develop there own story), then I consider it railroading (because the players do). Players expect some bait to be cast for them to bite at (and that usually leads to the dungeon door). Its when they start feeling controlled that they speak up about feeling railroaded. If this is not the proper definition of railroading...oh well. Its the one I use.


And I don't consider adventuring inside dungeons as railroading (at least not from the early 1E period). Of course all dungeons are rooms with halls, and each has to be passed to reach the next. If you call that railroading great for you. But its not, its just the structure of a dungeon.


WIZ: "I would hazard that you're using a definition of railroading that is different than just about anyone else is using."

No arguement there, I don't expect those here to agree with my definition, after all, you guys have been in close contact here (for the most part)f for a long time, and share many definitions that I do not. That is to be expected. I also don't expect you to DM the same way I do.

WIZ: "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."

No, the DM does not dictate what the characters do. He dictates if its raining, or if certain creatures are present....period. Its up to the PCs to interact or ignore these situations and people/monsters and what have you. If the players are having fun and go for some suggested path good for them (thats not railroading thats free choice). If they go for something unexpected even better for them. Remember, in 1E, the DM creates a world, an ant farm, and the players are dropped into it. If the DM wants to say, "you wake up naked on an island" that is his perogative. He is God afterall. As a player you don't know what happened, perhaps the gods became angry or bored and did this. But after that situation occurs, the players do what ever they like on that island to survive and get back to where they came from. How these ants get off is up to them. And who knows, they might even find a way out that the writers didin't even think of.


WIZ: "Railroading isn't always a negative, but often is, especially when executed poorly or hamfistedly. " The term Railroading, (when I've heard it mentioned) has always been spoken of as a negative conotation. Its where the players become mere
actors in some plot and no longer create the story as they go. When the DM describes a situation, the players react however they like independently. What you guys are describing above is just Good DMing (hey, I've brought over some material I designed last night, want to use it?). Thats not the same as forcing every choice (by hook or by crook) so that the players can continue down the story path.

 

[RFisher]

D&D does not exist in a vacum. It has to deal with CRPG, other pen&paper RPG, miniatures, and even LARP. Evolve or die : OD&D can't survive in its original form if opposed to Diablo, Warhammer, Earthdown and the world of darkness. Thus, 3E.

Of course, that depends upon what you consider surviving.

There are plenty of people who find classic D&D, classic Traveller, & many other older games just as fun now as they were then. In some cases its because CRPGs, LARP, Diablo, &c., don't hold their interest. For others, it's because they get something out of a P&P RPG that they don't get from the others.

One mistake I often make, though--that I have to keep vigilant against in my own business ventures--is thinking that survival or even success is predicated on domination. A game doesn't have to rival D&D for marketshare to be fun. Just as D&D doesn't have to rival the marketshare of Yu-gi-oh--or whatever may be the big-thing these days--to be considered a success.

While they may not be raking in the dough that D&D does, the classic D&D PDFs, the AD&D PDFs, the Osric-based products, Hackmaster, the classic Traveller reprints, the TFT-in-all-but-name Dark City Games products, T&T, WHFRP, RuneQuest, Pendragon...people are buying them & having fun with them.

Although, when it comes to my hobbies, whether someone makes a profit off of it doesn't even enter into the equation for what I consider a success.

 

[gizmo33]

Note that I wrote that in reply to what I feel is an entirely too nebulous definition of "railroad." Do I feel that S1 is a railroad? No. But given the definition I was replying to, it could be classified as a railroad, which demonstrates the faultiness of that definition.

Ok, sorry about the confusion. However, I still disagree with what you said about S1 conforming to the OP's definition. IMO, here's the significant part:

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.

So the question IMO is "does the module's design make the DM want to follow a certain sequence." Of course this seems like it depends on the individual DM running the module, and his prep time (which has been my experience). I don't find that to be the case with S1 or GDQ at all. I do find that to be the case with other modules - it usually comes down to how many parts of the module assume some prior set of events or conditions (ex. that an NPC encountered earlier survives a battle, or that only a certain amount of time has passed between encounters)

In my opinion, the original poster is trying to unfavorably compare 3e adventures with 1e adventures by use of the term "railroad." I also think that in trying to shoehorn 3e adventures into that classification, most other modules follow right along, regardless of edition.

I don't find a lot of difference in 1E and 3E. I think the prize for "railroadiest" modules would go to 2E, I recall some obscure Forgotten Realms modules that were extremely (and intentionally, I think) linear and novel-like.

(Edit: Also - I should emphasize the part about "it depends on the DM". There are modules/adventures in Dungeon that I've run that have been extremely railroady in the way they are written but because of the unique circumstances of my campaign (choices that I knew the players would make) they were a natural fit for a very open-ended campaign. So I think it also greatly depends on how the DM adapts the material to the campaign.)

 

[Lanefan]

(Edit: Also - I should emphasize the part about "it depends on the DM". There are modules/adventures in Dungeon that I've run that have been extremely railroady in the way they are written but because of the unique circumstances of my campaign (choices that I knew the players would make) they were a natural fit for a very open-ended campaign. So I think it also greatly depends on how the DM adapts the material to the campaign.)

It also depends on the characters, as sometimes a party will in effect railroad itself: "We've taken on this mission, and we're honour-bound to keep going even though any sane person would have long since found better and safer things to do..." The game I play in tonight has this problem at the moment; we're getting slowly and effectively slaughtered, but can't in good conscience abandon the mission.

And this can happen in any edition.

As for Q1, a point-of-no-return choice (in this case, jumping into the Abyss) hardly qualifies as a railroad...

Lanefan

 

[gizmo33]

It also depends on the characters, as sometimes a party will in effect railroad itself.

I wouldn't call this a useful definition of railroading though. Maybe I'd offer this for a definition of "not railroady":
1. The player's choice of actions is not based on a guilt trip from the DM.
2. The events that occur arise with a "reasonable" amount of impartiality from the DM. For example: a random encounter that occurs at a random time during the day is relatively unrailroady. A set encounter that planned to occur at a fixed time is not.
3. Dice rolling is not manipulated (ie. fudging) to produce a pre-determined conclusion that affects player choice later on.
4. Players get to make important decisions for themselves, based on their character vision.

So what you're calling railroading (ie. PCs not deviating from a path that leads to their destruction) doesn't fit my definition because AFAICT:
1. The DM isn't leaning on you guys to do what you're doing.
2. The DM isn't inflicting unrandom encounters on you to coax your decision.
3. The DM isn't fudging dice to coax your decision.
4. Your groups choice to be suicidal is their own, and the DM is just letting the dice fall.

The railroad metaphor IMO relies on a force external to your PC group keeping it "on the path". If you guys have chosen to walk a certain route, then no railroad is really in effect, you're simply choosing (perhaps stubbornly) a certain path.

 

[tx7321]

Gizmo, I agree with everything you just said. And check out your post number 777!

Q: "I don't find a lot of difference in 1E and 3E. I think the prize for "railroadiest" modules would go to 2E, I recall some obscure Forgotten Realms modules that were extremely (and intentionally, I think) linear and novel-like."

I agree, and I didn't mean to say 3E was heavily railroady (compared to 2E), sorry if it came off that way . But 3E modules are different from 1E, with longer plots and story based encounters, when compared to the 1E half page of story before you reach the door of the dungeon. As Gizmo said, if they choose to follow the course of the module, thats not railroading. Its railroading when they deveate from the course (maybe go straight to the dungeon, or kill the people there supposed to be helping or getting assistance from etc.) and the DM is lost (due to the dungeon design that requires a series of tied in events).


What was nice about 1E was that the story could be completely ignored often. You could just start at the door of the dungeon and go. How the PCs find and get to the dungeon could be completely made up by the DM and players. Perhaps they follow another group out, or find a map. Or, "strange lights" have been seen near that area at night". Thats not always as easy in 3E, where plots within the dungeon often tie to outside. As MerricB stated earlier, its moved from long megadungeons to shorter dungeons with goals that relate to one another. That "tie in" aspect could be problematic for a DM wanting to go it alone.

 

[Psion]

Q: "I don't find a lot of difference in 1E and 3E. I think the prize for "railroadiest" modules would go to 2E, I recall some obscure Forgotten Realms modules that were extremely (and intentionally, I think) linear and novel-like."

I agree, and I didn't mean to say 3E was heavily railroady (compared to 2E), sorry if it came off that way . But 3E modules are different from 1E, with longer plots and story based encounters, when compared to the 1E half page of story before you reach the door of the dungeon.
(...)
What was nice about 1E was that the story could be completely ignored often. You could just start at the door of the dungeon and go. How the PCs find and get to the dungeon could be completely made up by the DM and players. Perhaps they follow another group out, or find a map. Or, "strange lights" have been seen near that area at night". Thats not always as easy in 3E, where plots within the dungeon often tie to outside. As MerricB stated earlier, its moved from long megadungeons to shorter dungeons with goals that relate to one another. That "tie in" aspect could be problematic for a DM wanting to go it alone.

This seems like an awful big generalization. I'd be curious to hear specific 3e you base this on. Are you basing this on the adventure path modules, Dungeon adventures, various third party adventures, what?

Not that if it's true I consider it a bad thing. I like some grounding for my adventures. There's room for basic dungeons, but after a while, without some texture, they can seem a bit bland. There's a place for basic dungeons and for more story driven affairs. Though I've found some with stories I haven't found adaptable, there were plenty that were plenty adaptable. So I'd be curious to hear your exact experiences here, or if you are just making a supposition.