Changes in good old roleplaying?

[soltakss]

I've read scenarios where it says something like "at this point the party have defeated the bandits and ...." so it assumes a particular course of action. If that course of action is not carried out then the scenario is completely derailed.

It takes a lot of work to pick up some scenarios after that point. Most GMs should be able to do it, but it isn't always easy.

[BigJackBrass]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I've read scenarios where it says something like "at this point the party have defeated the bandits and ...." so it assumes a particular course of action. If that course of action is not carried out then the scenario is completely derailed.

In the mid-eighties Pacesetter put out several quite innovative RPGs aiming particularly at getting over the initial difficulties of learning to play and run role-playing games. CHILL is perhaps the best remembered and it included an adventure designed to be played before reading the rules! Naturally it led the GM by the hand and the players by the nose, but it was a great introduction... until the bit that basically said "Don't let the characters go upstairs yet!" No suggestions on how to stop them, you understand, just an instruction that they shouldn't go.

I certainly agree that we've seen a fair few changes in how games are presented and played, but I'm not sure that I'd say that things like an anime influence and heavy railroading are key points. As has already been mentioned the heavily scripted, linear adventure goes right back to the early days. What I personally miss is the idea that a 48 page rulebook gives you everything you need to get going... sometimes it's just a bit much to try to read an epic when you want to run a one off.

[Atgxtg]

I think the "anime influence" is really overstated. Most Anime RPGs are really just RPGs with Manga artwork. A few have special rules designed to reflect anime, but that's no different than a fantasy RPG having rules to reflect magic, a Sci-FI game having rules for space travel, or a superhero game having rules for lifting heavy objects.

It's not the anime per sey, but the genre that a particular anime is part of. Something like Gundam or Macross have a lot in comon with non-anime Sci-Fi shows and RPGs.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Maybe I played other D&D modules than you, but I remember modules like "adventures in the wilderness" or "dangerous island" (or whatever the names has been) in which you could go whereever you want in a generic country/island drawn on hex paper. (ok, only 6 directions to be honest) This I would call non-linear.

There were some of those, but for the most part they weren't really modules; they were effectively small setting books that just contained a few encounters and situations, and they were far and away the less common, especially from TSR.

My GMs in those days never fudged. They let you die with an evil grin.

That might be, but I saw plenty of early GMs who fudged like crazy; enough so that most of them would admit it outright if talked to, GM to GM.

[soltakss]

What were the individual scenarios like?

A module can be quite open and yet have very closed scenarios.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Ken

Is railroading a facet of scenario construction/writing or is it a type of GMing style?

To me it's either and/or both. A scenario can be written either way, or at least to facilitate either style of play easiest. A GM can take either scenario style and run it either way, but it takes more effort to run a scenario different than it was designed.

Yes, players had choice to roam the dungeon at will but only after they had virtually been delivered to the entrance by Fed-Ex. In fact, Expert d&d acknowledged that it was more difficult to let the players do what they wanted by roaming wilderness areas, which is why it was introduced later and only on hex-maps.

I see those as two separate issues. Yes, the written adventures frequently gave very little information on how to get the players involved, but once the adventure started it was pretty much freeform. (I'd note that tournament modules by their very nature are railroaded and many of the early modules were exactly that.) I also don't think the early adventures are exempt from railroading, as you note. I just think it got worse later.

I dislike a scenario (and these are usually the published ones for obvious reasons) where everything is static unless interacted with by the PCs. Where the creatures operate in a limbo until 'spawned' by players. This is little more than power-gaming (or computer gaming) with a veneer of narrative painted over it. The PCs can see through this when badly implemented and therefore feel as though they are being manipulated, i.e railroaded.

I agree completely. I never ran adventures that way, even if written that way. In fact, when I was young(er) I really pissed off a group of players once because after they pulled back to recharge, I had the inhabitants of the (prewritten) scenario set up defenses, hire help (from the treasure the PC's wanted), equip with the magic items in the treasure, etc. It just made sense to me. To me, this is a lot like the above. In the hands of the right GM, the scenario works perfectly fine, but if it was written explicitly to make the inhabitants active, rather than static, it'd be a better adventure and would take much less GM effort to run well.

To me, the world has always been a dynamic place that moves along with things happening, even if the PCs don't get involved. Of course, the PCs can make their mark on the world, but if they sit home, the rest of the world doesn't wait on them. If they choose one path, the other may still be there later, but it most likely has changed significantly. I'm pretty sure I'm considered a die-hard simulationist, so I'm more interested in running a coherent, "realistic" world for the character to react against. The story is what the players do in that world, but I don't stage things directly around them. That's up to them: I have been lucky to generally have very proactice players who seize the initiative and push for their own agendas in the world. (I'd like to thing my GMing encourages this, but I may have just been lucky.)

[Atgxtg]

I think we are mostly in agreement here. I never liked the old dungeons where the party would have a massive fight in a room, only to open the net door and surprise the (apparently) deaf monsters who had faired to notice all the clashing steal, shouts, and bloodcurdling screams of the battle.

So I'd say linear "pulled around by the nose" adventures are really a relic of the old days, not a new wrinkle. I think the problem is that as a certain RPG that is noted for linear adventures has had a resurgence, so has some aspects of that game that were better left in the dustbin.

That the linear module approach is the easiest to write and run has a lot to do with it's longevity. Especially when you consider that a large percentage of DMs don't write adventures but prefer to buy something pre-written.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think we are mostly in agreement here. I never liked the old dungeons where the party would have a massive fight in a room, only to open the net door and surprise the (apparently) deaf monsters who had faired to notice all the clashing steal, shouts, and bloodcurdling screams of the battle.

So I'd say linear "pulled around by the nose" adventures are really a relic of the old days, not a new wrinkle. I think the problem is that as a certain RPG that is noted for linear adventures has had a resurgence, so has some aspects of that game that were better left in the dustbin.

That the linear module approach is the easiest to write and run has a lot to do with it's longevity. Especially when you consider that a large percentage of DMs don't write adventures but prefer to buy something pre-written.

I think blaming it on 3e is misplaced; different companies just tend to have different tendencies in this department, usually dictated by editorial policy. For example, when FASA was still around, almost every scenario they ever put out for Shadowrun was notoriously linear, and often seemed to expect results that weren't the likely ones given typical PC abilities to boot. At most I think some of the more story-oriented game systems may lull scenario writers into thinking that's appropriate there, when its not any more true there than it is with a typical hack-and-slash game.

[Shiba Homer]

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

Wrote some really interesting stuff.

I enjoyed reading this, you have even made me think about getting WH! Are we really sure this is the same people that do the miniatures thing, the mind boggles.

PS didn't seem like a rant to me.

Adrian

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I think blaming it on 3e is misplaced; different companies just tend to have different tendencies in this department, usually dictated by editorial policy. For example, when FASA was still around, almost every scenario they ever put out for Shadowrun was notoriously linear, and often seemed to expect results that weren't the likely ones given typical PC abilities to boot. At most I think some of the more story-oriented game systems may lull scenario writers into thinking that's appropriate there, when its not any more true there than it is with a typical hack-and-slash game.

I disagree. If you look at the trend to towards lead by the nose adventures, you will see that it goes hand in hand with certain games. I haven't seen many, if any D&D adventures that weren't linerar. Nothing by TSR, nor by WotC. FASA adventures for any of their RPGS were very linear, too.
Probably the majority of RPG sceanrios are.

Some companies did put notes about running things differently, but there were (and still) are the minority. But I don't see linear adventures as a change in "good old gaming", more like the resurgence of "bad old gaming".

I'll point the finger at D&D more that other RPGs because there is so much stuff out for it, and practically all of it is linear. If most of the D&D stuff is linerar then by default most adventures are linear.