How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons

[Rothe]

...One of the great things about AD&D is that because the rules are so obscure and convoluted (as written), the DM can choose to use the interpretation that works best for him and still be playing BTB (assuming they are logical interpretations). This personalization of the game is actually one of its strengths (though I doubt it was intended)....

I actually agree with you on this one, but unfortunately I don't think you'll find the same view on many pro-1e sites. Do you recall the editorial rants from the Dragon on how AD&D was clear as written and anyone who said otherwise was denegrated? Your view in most retrospective reconstructions is generally ascribed to OD&D; but since many the first to pick up AD&D in '78 came from OD&D the attitude carried, even if some tried to stamp it out.

 

[Crothian]

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.

But when done right the players never know they didn't determine their own destiney. As long as the illusion is never revealed the players won't know if it was a railroad. I think railroads are fine for adventures when done right. But like everything a bad DM can ruin it for players.

 

[Psion]

But when done right the players never know they didn't determine their own destiney. As long as the illusion is never revealed the players won't know if it was a railroad.

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.

Let's say a campaign relies upon the rise of a necromancer to power to hatch his sinister plot. The players kill him. All the sudden, the necromancer was merely a lackey, and it's his former apprentice rising to power that the PCs must contend with...

 

[Tarek]

I've noticed a lot of references to A3 -> A4.

Please remember that the Slavers series, like many of the 1st Edition official adventures, were GenCon Tournament modules.

That's why there's the railroaded events that take you from one module to the next in the A1-4 compilation. That's why even the original A3 ends with the Slave Lords instantly capturing the party. At the end of A3, the judges tallied up the scores and the 'winning' teams got to go on to the next round and play A4.

As a campaign setting, I'd strip out a lot of the scripted events/encounters, figuring that my players are going to follow up in their own way.

They usually do.

 

[cildarith]

I've noticed a lot of references to A3 -> A4.

Please remember that the Slavers series, like many of the 1st Edition official adventures, were GenCon Tournament modules.

That's why there's the railroaded events that take you from one module to the next in the A1-4 compilation. That's why even the original A3 ends with the Slave Lords instantly capturing the party. At the end of A3, the judges tallied up the scores and the 'winning' teams got to go on to the next round and play A4.

Now don't go confusing the issue with facts. That just will not do!

 

[Aaron L]

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

Maybe it was a thematic thing, then?

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Let's say a campaign relies upon the rise of a necromancer to power to hatch his sinister plot. The players kill him. All the sudden, the necromancer was merely a lackey, and it's his former apprentice rising to power that the PCs must contend with...

I'm just not down with that and I think many other players aren't either. I'm pretty up front about wanting control of my character's destiny. I'm not interested in playing one predetermined adventure after another. I want to make my own fun.

When I DM I don't build little schrodinger's into gameplay. I find describing the world accurately difficult enough. If I had to change the parts of the world I've already described so reality matches up with an entirely "new" reality (which under Illusionism was always there), it would be... well, the equivalent of devising some Einsteinian theory to cover all of Newton's laws. I find one reality is just easier.

 

[MerricB]

I've noticed a lot of references to A3 -> A4.

Please remember that the Slavers series, like many of the 1st Edition official adventures, were GenCon Tournament modules.

Certainly. However, the adventures were modified (twice) for publication. The railroad remains in both incarnations.

It actually changes in the A1-4 compilation, but remains as much a railroad.

Although the Dragonlance series is rightfully considered a big railroad, it uses that primarily for the transisition sections from adventure to adventure. Within the actual adventures, there are large freeform sections which are as good design as any other module. The biggest railroad is, unfortunately, at the start of DL 2: Dragons of Flame...

Another railroad comes at the start of the Curse of the Azure Bonds adventure.

And let's not talk about the Avatar trilogy...

Cheers!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I do agree that the most egregious examples of railroading were in 1e (*coff*Dragonlance*coff*),

In my estimation, Dragonlance is THE classic example of railroading. But, y'know, I bet if someone used Red Hand of Doom as inspiration, the Dragonlance series of modules could be rewritten into something decent.

Of d20 modules, the original Iron Kingdoms trilogy of adventures is rather railroady, in my opinion. Again, they could be rewritten (I haven't seen the big hardback collection) and made more open-ended and responsive to PC actions.

But when it comes to WotC's adventures for 3e/3.5, I just don't see the charge that they are railroads holding much water. I'll have to drag out Standing Stone again and give it a look-see.

 

[MerricB]

But when it comes to WotC's adventures for 3e/3.5, I just don't see the charge that they are railroads holding much water. I'll have to drag out Standing Stone again and give it a look-see.

[i[The Standing Stone[/i] is about as freeform as they come. Its one possible flaw is that you can't negotiate with the elves. Heck, there are three possible conclusions. Many of the encounters start with "At some point, this encounter may happen."

Cheers!