Snoweel
First Post
I think the likelihood of railroading is ultimately up to the whim of the DM and the malleability of the players.
I mean, sure there can be little comparative railroading in a site-based module (of which most 3.x modules are), but there doesn't *have* to be railroading in a story-based adventure.
The 'back to the dungeon' focus of 3.x, along with the ease of levelling to 20th is supposedly to make the PCs the heroes, in a way reducing the likelihood of NPCs being the movers and shakers in the campaign, and the site-based 3.x modules *do* give the impression that the PCs are the only ones who can make anything happen in the world, but on the same note, it seems that unlike the old 2e modules, nothing happens if the PCs don't do anything.
On the other hand, I played my last campaign starting with the 2e Slavers module modified to fit my 3e campaign (I actually bought the module after the release of 3e), and while the PCs took the early bait, they soon tired of fighting the new Slavelords and wanted to do other stuff.
No problem.
The module provided the backdrop for the rest of the campaign as other groups went after the Slavelords (and mostly failed) while the PCs did their own thing (inspired by elements in the module).
End result - no railroading, but the old 2e module was far more inspiring than anything I'd found for 3e and I didn't even need to come up with an interesting campaign background.
I mean, I can't run 3e modules as-is anyway, given how extensively house-ruled my homebrew is, so 2e modules aren't any more dificult to play anyhow.
But they are far more creatively stimulating by virtue of them being a "better read".
And sorry about the long sentences - I'm doped up on 'flu medication.
I mean, sure there can be little comparative railroading in a site-based module (of which most 3.x modules are), but there doesn't *have* to be railroading in a story-based adventure.
The 'back to the dungeon' focus of 3.x, along with the ease of levelling to 20th is supposedly to make the PCs the heroes, in a way reducing the likelihood of NPCs being the movers and shakers in the campaign, and the site-based 3.x modules *do* give the impression that the PCs are the only ones who can make anything happen in the world, but on the same note, it seems that unlike the old 2e modules, nothing happens if the PCs don't do anything.
On the other hand, I played my last campaign starting with the 2e Slavers module modified to fit my 3e campaign (I actually bought the module after the release of 3e), and while the PCs took the early bait, they soon tired of fighting the new Slavelords and wanted to do other stuff.
No problem.
The module provided the backdrop for the rest of the campaign as other groups went after the Slavelords (and mostly failed) while the PCs did their own thing (inspired by elements in the module).
End result - no railroading, but the old 2e module was far more inspiring than anything I'd found for 3e and I didn't even need to come up with an interesting campaign background.
I mean, I can't run 3e modules as-is anyway, given how extensively house-ruled my homebrew is, so 2e modules aren't any more dificult to play anyhow.
But they are far more creatively stimulating by virtue of them being a "better read".
And sorry about the long sentences - I'm doped up on 'flu medication.