Changes in good old roleplaying?

[RMS]

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 would just note here that linear =/= dungeon, even a poorly designed or illogical one. As I noted above, a dungeon typically has choices. The choices are discrete, but at a typical junction the players can at least choose left, right, forward, or behind with no obvious pushing one way or the other. My example above of the famous Caves of Chaos is the classic case. The dungeon is packed to the brim with creatures, but there's no plot to it, no set plan for the characters. The players can easily choose one of the caves where their only choice is noncombat (in fact it's most likely for 1st level D&D characters). Many of the early TSR modules had this design: places with stat blocks but no preset notion of a plot. As I see it, the concept of linear adventures is pretty strongly linked with (bad) attempts to move from places to plots.

Btw, this isn't to defend illogical designs or dungeons. I'm not a fan of either, but I do think those are distinct issues from linear adventure (ie. railroading) type adventures.

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.

Interestingly, Shadowrun was the example I was thinking of. Those were the first prewritten adventures I played that really stuck out to me as being completely linear. It was like the writers tried so hard to have a story that they forgot that the players should be deciding their fates, not the story. This was one of the first games I ever played (vs. ran), so part of this was probably emphasized by that situation.

[Kyle Aaron]

RPGs have changed in the same way computer games have changed - there are more pretty pictures, but the gameplay is pretty much the same.

And almost everyone just plays D&D. That was true in 1978, and it's true in 2008.

[Atgxtg]

RPGs have changed in the same way computer games have changed - there are more pretty pictures, but the gameplay is pretty much the same.

I disagre. Gameplay has changed quite a bit over the years. Room/Monster/Treasure isn't the way people play or games sold anymore. At leasat not all of them. Compare the AD&D DMG with something newer and see where the emphaisis lies.

I haven't needed graph paper to play an RPG for quite some time.

[NickMiddleton]

I disagre. Gameplay has changed quite a bit over the years. Room/Monster/Treasure isn't the way people play or games sold anymore. At leasat not all of them. Compare the AD&D DMG with something newer and see where the emphaisis lies.

Compare the AD&D DMG with the D&D 3.5 DMG and notice the similarities. Yes, there are other gaming paradigms now, and even D&D acknowledges them. But the most popular table top RPG by some considerable margin is STILL D&D, and its STILL mostly about killing things and taking their stuff...

I haven't needed graph paper to play an RPG for quite some time.

I haven't needed any since I switched to using a dry wipe battlemat, and although D&D (which I occasionally DO play) is the only time detailed mapping is remotely relevant, I use the battlemat a lot, even in Cthulhu (where it serves as a sketch board we can all see, albeit my sketching talents aren't very good...). But I doubt either of us is typical, and the commercial viability of things like Dundjinni rather reinforces the point that the majority of gamers are still dungeon crawling much as they ever were...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[TrippyHippy]

I disagre. Gameplay has changed quite a bit over the years. Room/Monster/Treasure isn't the way people play or games sold anymore. At leasat not all of them. Compare the AD&D DMG with something newer and see where the emphaisis lies.

I haven't needed graph paper to play an RPG for quite some time.

What makes you think that everybody played Room/Monster/Treasure back then (whenever 'then' was!)?

[Ars Mysteriorum]

What makes you think that everybody played Room/Monster/Treasure back then (whenever 'then' was!)?

I think it's fair to say atgxtg was making a dramatic exaggeration.

However, I can count myself among those that didn't really ever do dungeon crawls as well as a kid playing AD&D 2nd Ed. Yes, I'm probably one of the youngest posters here

Our games usually involved incredibly convoluted multi-dimensional threats with highly epic narrative battles where the dice rolls were more subjective than the system recommended. We still quiver at the mention of the Darkness campaign, where everyone with a good alignment in the multiverse was effectively destroyed by an unstoppable tide of writhing darkness and all the characters we had ever created with good alignments were the only "good" characters in existence and were faced with a reality that strongly disliked them. In my adulthood the idea of alignments grates on me, but as a kid this idea was "freakin' awesome."

Now I would say our plots were... well... a little ridiculous. But back then, through the eyes of an over-imaginative child, they were the stuff epics were made of.

I would say that a majority of gamers did grow up with dungeon crawls, but not a vast and overpowering majority.

[Atgxtg]

What makes you think that everybody played Room/Monster/Treasure back then (whenever 'then' was!)?

Beaucase "back then" that was all there was. Back then 90% of the "Alternate" RPGs out there were variantions of D&D, and the biggest differences in gaming style was iver XP awards. I recall seeing pages and pages of people's pet theories as to what was a better formula for working out XP awards.

The majoirty of the adventures were in the 6 parapgraph long room descrtions that were rather stupid, since the GM would read through the entire desciption and point out every nook, cranny, and item in the room, before having the 30 orcs charge.

All the adventures from that era were written that way (Room/Minster/Treasure) and that is what I saw at the gaming tables and at the early conventions.

Despite years of claims by D&Ders that they are role-playing, I've yet to see it. Nine times out of ten it still a dungeon crawl. The tenth time its a "Storm the fortress".

[Atgxtg]

I haven't needed any since I switched to using a dry wipe battlemat, and although D&D (which I occasionally DO play) is the only time detailed mapping is remotely relevant, I use the battlemat a lot, even in Cthulhu (where it serves as a sketch board we can all see, albeit my sketching talents aren't very good...). But I doubt either of us is typical, and the commercial viability of things like Dundjinni rather reinforces the point that the majority of gamers are still dungeon crawling much as they ever were...

I remeber the old days where the group had to map it's way or we could get lost in the dungeoun. It always amazed me how some artitech would design and build this inrecdibly complex lberynth, with twisting corridors, magical traps, an undetectable ventilation system, and then turn it over to a dragon, 60 orcs, 4 rust monster, an orche jelly, 2 orgres, 8 striges, etc. Allof whom somehow, despire being horrid monsters, managed to live together with the good sense not to open each other's doors.

One big change that I've seen is that, and this probably doesn't apply to the D&D crowd, monsters and opponents are not transparently obstacles for the PCs. I run my monsters/foes thinking that they are more that just something to wear down a PCs hit points.

[Ars Mysteriorum]

Beaucase "back then" that was all there was. Back then 90% of the "Alternate" RPGs out there were variantions of D&D, and the biggest differences in gaming style was iver XP awards. I recall seeing pages and pages of people's pet theories as to what was a better formula for working out XP awards.

The majoirty of the adventures were in the 6 parapgraph long room descrtions that were rather stupid, since the GM would read through the entire desciption and point out every nook, cranny, and item in the room, before having the 30 orcs charge.

All the adventures from that era were written that way (Room/Minster/Treasure) and that is what I saw at the gaming tables and at the early conventions.

Despite years of claims by D&Ders that they are role-playing, I've yet to see it. Nine times out of ten it still a dungeon crawl. The tenth time its a "Storm the fortress".

I must say I resent your claims. Please be wary of who you tread on when stating your opinions.

[Nightshade]

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.

TSR had a few, but then, back in that period, they weren't particularly common in general. WOTC I won't speak of, but then, WOTC doesn't do that amny in general. And I still can't agree with the premise for reasons I've mentioned earlier; the worst cases I _ever_ saw were associated with games I'd have least expected it on.

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'm just not convinced its _ever_ been that different for most pre-written scenario.

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.

Except I'd argue that's not unique to D&D of any edition, but is true of most adventures written for most games. Its the easy, lazy way to do it, and as such, it gets done that way all too often unless there's good editorial control to avoid it.

[Nightshade]

Interestingly, Shadowrun was the example I was thinking of. Those were the first prewritten adventures I played that really stuck out to me as being completely linear. It was like the writers tried so hard to have a story that they forgot that the players should be deciding their fates, not the story. This was one of the first games I ever played (vs. ran), so part of this was probably emphasized by that situation.

Its why I take attempts to blame this on the return of D&D with a grain of salt; its not unique to D&D, nor was D&D even the worst case of it, though it was easy to make linear D&D adventures.

[Nightshade]

Beaucase "back then" that was all there was. Back then 90% of the "Alternate" RPGs out there were variantions of D&D, and the biggest differences in gaming style was iver XP awards. I recall seeing pages and pages of people's pet theories as to what was a better formula for working out XP awards.

A, as someone who considers you a friend on here, I've got to tell you you're _really_ showing your biases here, both in how you assume all D&D was played, and in separating it from other games that came after. Even in 1975 when I first got into D&D there was more than dungeon crawls. Admittedly, there were a _lot_ of dungeon crawls, but people were running big, epic fantasy games almost from the moment that D&D hit the deck; they just weren't getting much system help from it. And the change from the D&D paradigm didn't initially make that much difference in this; the people who liked dungeon crawls were doing it with RQ or Traveller too, just in a different context.

So while that was a common style, it wasn't even a given with the game that most supported it.

Despite years of claims by D&Ders that they are role-playing, I've yet to see it. Nine times out of ten it still a dungeon crawl. The tenth time its a "Storm the fortress".

And you're really showing your prejudices in this paragraph. With the most respect, you really need to get over this.

[Atgxtg]

A, as someone who considers you a friend on here, I've got to tell you you're _really_ showing your biases here, both in how you assume all D&D was played, and in separating it from other games that came after. Even in 1975 when I first got into D&D there was more than dungeon crawls. Admittedly, there were a _lot_ of dungeon crawls, but people were running big, epic fantasy games almost from the moment that D&D hit the deck; they just weren't getting much system help from it. And the change from the D&D paradigm didn't initially make that much difference in this; the people who liked dungeon crawls were doing it with RQ or Traveller too, just in a different context.

So while that was a common style, it wasn't even a given with the game that most supported it.

People can, and have done nearly anything with any RPG. It's not really the point. I do think that you get a good idea of how a game is expected to be played by the supplments. If a game system publishes a lot of linear adventures, that is what gets taught to the majority of players.

You example of RQ and Traveler dungeon crawlers supports that. People did that because that was how they were taught to play.

There are a lot of gaming concepts that come from system rather than sense, and players who are experienced in one game tend to bring those preconceived ideas with them.

I've seen more D&D players die in other RPGs because they dragged along dungeon crawler mentalaity with them. The soruce of that mentality was the system.

AD&D was written with the idea that character would be adventuring in a dungeon, with monsters of a certain HD conviently cohabitating on the same level, ensuring that 1st level OPCs didn't face 8HD monsters.

THe whole linear thing was enforced by the GM instructions.

Modern RPGs aren't structured the same way. We don't get big blocks of rules about designing an undergrown laberyth as the centeral focus of the campaign. Well, with one exception, and even that game has de-emphasized the imprtance of the dungeon.

As for my biases. Well, I've heard a lot of people claim to role-play, but generally see them only pay lip service to it. And yet, with the various players and groups I have encountered, I've never seen a "pure" D&Der who actually role-played.

Come to think of it, with all the allegations that have been made against D&D, warping minds, devil worship, etc. I surprised it has never been accused of communism. THe emphasis of the party over everything else would support it.

And you're really showing your prejudices in this paragraph. With the most respect, you really need to get over this.

No. We are discussing changes in gaming. And one point was that linear adventures are a new change. I'd say they have been around from the start and that D&D has been the primary factor behind them. I also think the evidence, such as the near total sdomination of the D&D module by the linar fomat supports this.

Oh, BTW, I do consider dungeon claws to be lineral adventures. While, yes, the players can hace a choise of tunnels to take, since the typical dungeon claw sends the PCs into the dungeon for a reason there is really no change in the overall course of the adventure. If the PCs are snet into the dugenon to retreive the McGuffin, then that is linerar. All the other stuff that hapepns in the dungeon has no impact on the adventure. It's just beginning, semi-random obstacle-big fight-finish. How the PCs accomplish the goal is also preset.

[drohem]

Come to think of it, with all the allegations that have been made against D&D, warping minds, devil worship, etc. I surprised it has never been accused of communism. THe emphasis of the party over everything else would support it.

Does your depravity know no bounds, my friend?

[Nightshade]

People can, and have done nearly anything with any RPG. It's not really the point. I do think that you get a good idea of how a game is expected to be played by the supplments. If a game system publishes a lot of linear adventures, that is what gets taught to the majority of players.

This ignores all the people who never even saw published adventures, and that was the case for a lot of people for some years after OD&D came out. They're going to do what they think they should with it, and while dungeon crawling was one of those, the cited sources encouraged belief it was more than that. It wasn't until the time of AD&D that you really started seeing the module as a common case.

You example of RQ and Traveler dungeon crawlers supports that. People did that because that was how they were taught to play.

I saw the same behavior among people who had never played D&D. It happened because that kind of game is easy to put together for groups, and has some cinematic precedent.

As for my biases. Well, I've heard a lot of people claim to role-play, but generally see them only pay lip service to it. And yet, with the various players and groups I have encountered, I've never seen a "pure" D&Der who actually role-played.

And I have. Further, I've seen plenty of people in other games who give no more effort to roleplay than most D&D people do. Truth is, most peoople in gaming don't bother to roleplay, whether in D&D, Shadowrun, or Champions; they're their to kick ass and blow stuff up, and any roleplaying is, at best, incidental.

And that's just as true of people who didn't start gaming with D&D as with those that did. For most people the only roleplaying in many games is assuming character, and past that its all about doing things, not being someone.

[Atgxtg]

Does your depravity know no bounds, my friend?

What you want to be bound? Talk about depravity. :D

[drohem]

What you want to be bound? Talk about depravity. :D

Funny that was the first connotation of the word that you thought of,

J' accuse Sir!

I meant:

bound (bo̵und)

noun

a boundary; limit

[Atgxtg]

This ignores all the people who never even saw published adventures, and that was the case for a lot of people for some years after OD&D came out. They're going to do what they think they should with it, and while dungeon crawling was one of those, the cited sources encouraged belief it was more than that. It wasn't until the time of AD&D that you really started seeing the module as a common case.

Valid point. Original D&D was a lot freer animal. I could even be argued that the modular-linear approach could be due to Gygax's desired to take control over the game.

I saw the same behavior among people who had never played D&D. It happened because that kind of game is easy to put together for groups, and has some cinematic precedent.

It also works well with the original wargaming in a personal scale approach that was D&D origins.

Still It does show that linear adventures are not new. It also shows that D&D is the biggest culprit siply because most published adventures are written for D&D and most D&D adventures are linear.

So chances are a fledging DM will pick up linear adventures and use them as the model for his own adventures.

And I have. Further, I've seen plenty of people in other games who give no more effort to roleplay than most D&D people do. Truth is, most peoople in gaming don't bother to roleplay, whether in D&D, Shadowrun, or Champions; they're their to kick ass and blow stuff up, and any roleplaying is, at best, incidental.

Alos true. But since most peole in gaming play D&D and start with D&D, the question is where did they learn to do such. Most on-line RPGs are similar,. Very little role-playing, lots of fighting. But a lot of this is simply because that is what people were taught to expect.

I've had a lot of players who started off with D&D hack & slash, developed into roleplayers once they understood that there were more options available. And that it wasn't some evil plot by the GM to get at thier character.

And that's just as true of people who didn't start gaming with D&D as with those that did. For most people the only roleplaying in many games is assuming character, and past that its all about doing things, not being someone.

I disagree. I think that with those who started with other games, depending on the nature of the games they started with, you'll see differences.

For example, those who started with RQ don't have "party loyalty" with the same conviction as D&Ders. On the other hand, such players are probably care a lot more about mythos and religion in the game than those who started with the generic cleric.

Likewise someone who starts with a game like SotC is going to have to have a different outlook and priorities that someone looking to rack up XP.

[Nightshade]

Valid point. Original D&D was a lot freer animal. I could even be argued that the modular-linear approach could be due to Gygax's desired to take control over the game.

And by the time AD&D was the dominant game, you might have a point. I'm just noting there were already a lot of RPGers in the wild by that time.

It also works well with the original wargaming in a personal scale approach that was D&D origins.

Yeah, and given most early RPGers were a mix of folks from the SF fandom and wargame fandom hobbies (and some with a leg in each)...

Still It does show that linear adventures are not new. It also shows that D&D is the biggest culprit siply because most published adventures are written for D&D and most D&D adventures are linear.

The only thing I'm arguing here is that I don't have much sign that D&D adventures are that much more linear than most of those produced from other games. If you didn't ever see those Shadowrun adventures I and Drohem were referencing, we really weren't kidding; most dungeon run modules were less on rails than those things.

So chances are a fledging DM will pick up linear adventures and use them as the model for his own adventures.

That's quite true; my point was that's likely true even if he's not playing D&D.

Alos true. But since most peole in gaming play D&D and start with D&D, the question is where did they learn to do such. Most on-line RPGs are similar,. Very little role-playing, lots of fighting. But a lot of this is simply because that is what people were taught to expect.

I think there's other reasons for that, but I don't know that its useful to get into that argument with you again.

I disagree. I think that with those who started with other games, depending on the nature of the games they started with, you'll see differences.

All I can say is its not supported in my experience; I've seen plenty of people who never played D&D in their lives who fit the mold.

For example, those who started with RQ don't have "party loyalty" with the same conviction as D&Ders. On the other hand, such players are probably care a lot more about mythos and religion in the game than those who started with the generic cleric.

I never saw a bit less party loyalty with RQers, since the fundamental reasons for that are metagame in the first place, and just as true there.

Likewise someone who starts with a game like SotC is going to have to have a different outlook and priorities that someone looking to rack up XP.

I suspect someone with the tendencies I'm describing simply wouldn't play a game like SotC for long; its not serving his wants.

That's the bottom line: chicken or egg? I think its more a case that people migrate to the games that do what they want, rather than the games telling them to expect something they don't.

[Atgxtg]

Funny that was the first connotation of the word that you thought of,

J' accuse Sir!

I meant:

bound (bo̵und)

noun

a boundary; limit

What makes you think it was the first connonation that I thought of?

Bounder!

[Ken]

Wow guys, Its got a bit heated since I last looked in this thread!!!

I mean it's a BRP forum, shouldn't we be able to knock D&D in here without fear of retribution. (God knows their currently crucifying Cthulhu over at RPG.net).

(JOKING)

When I sift through the memories of my beginnings in the hobby, (and I may accept that I'm remembering through Gloranthan or Lovecraft coloured spectacles), I remember the types of books that were informing my RPGing at the time. At around 14/16 my friends and I were really into David Eddings, Raymond Feist, Terry Pratchett etc.

I think that for us, and we picked up RQ2 first luckily, what we wanted to do was play in the worlds that we were reading about rather than go dungeon bashing. We were aware of course (back in the heady days of a UK only Games Workshop that sold all kinds of gaming products) of D&D but after playing BRP other systems never seemed to come up to scratch.

Now I don't mean for this to sound too sycophantic or fan boy, but our prejudice came from the idea that, to us, a percentage system of game mechanic was transparent and it allowed much more freedom for the player to get into the story / background of the world. It may have just been the order that I was exposed to different gaming systems, but I recall (I think) that Glorantha and CoC existed before a coherent world campaign setting for (A)D&D. (Which I think was Greyhawk, but I may be wrong).

CoC was a revelation to us and is a credit to the gaming fraternity as a whole because when first viewed it seemed an odd (even if visionary) setting. IMO having such a transparent mechanic on such a non-typical setting helped move the gaming community forward to accept that there were many, many more worlds out there that could be explored.

It was unfortunate for our little band of players that our prejudice for D&D remained. It did though, and we went through phases of MERP and WHFRP just to avoid the D20 mechanic. (I have most of the published scenarios for (A)D&D and I admit now that I still don't like their style of dungeon bashing).

However if you look at the sheer volume of stuff published for (A)D&D it is obvious that there has been real effort for some time in bringing background and setting to a game that many people enjoy.

For choice it's fairly clear where I stand, but, if I'm really honest I have enjoyed the odd bash at D&D just for the sheer scale of the magic item list and to 'grind' a monster so I can see what it's left me . I have enjoyed this type of gaming occasionally but have gone back to other favorites when I've desired more story lead scenarios. Certainly to our discredit at the time (and to some other peoples now) I need not have slagged off a game where people could get both types of gaming from one system when I preferred to get different things out of different games.

I will repeat what has been said by someone else though, in my experience, loyal (A)D&D players have tended towards the magic-find dungeon bash. That might lead to a question, (which I hope could be answered dispassionately), if it is it a common enough experience to be a cliche, why is it one?

Since 'Pool of Radiance' I've been playing computer RPG's. Everything from Knights of the Old Republic to Diablo (2) and WoW. These games have filled me with the fix for item hording and dungeon bashing while my love for the interactive story-telling of being sat round a table with friends gives me a different 'high'.

So I end my little rant about the BRP/(A)D&D fight. Please guys, feel free to check out the facts regarding coherent campaign settings for (A)D&D as opposed to those found native in RQ2 and COC, I may just have encountered them at different times.

So, I'm doing to don my +4 Chaotic-Good, Int 17, vorpal Hat-stand with cast 3 Cure-light-wounds/day, my Box of Bopping Noise and my Anti-Gravity Mithril Plate-mail to see if I can find myself a Browny-Orangy-Beige Dragon and trounce it......LARGE.

Ken.

[drohem]

Ok, there is some serious Dungeons & Dragons bashing going down here. :deadhorse: (hehe, I just want to use that emoticon).

Dungeons & Dragons has gone through many changes over the years; just like any of the other early game systems that are still around.

I have played D&D in most of its incarnations (1.0, 2.0, 2.5 AD&D, 3.0, 3.5 D&D), and I am currently playing 3.5 D&D. I am also playing d20 Modern currently.

There have been some serious blanket statements made about D&D players, which do have a kernel of validity but not to the point of every single person who has played D&D.

D&D was the start of it all, and looking back on it with hindsight of course you're going to find flaws.

Sure it was linear for a while, but I had some of my most memorable gaming moments in some of those linear dungeon crawls.

"Can't we all get along?"

[RMS]

I think you and I are seriously misfiring on semantics issues here, but I'll try again here.

AD&D was written with the idea that character would be adventuring in a dungeon, with monsters of a certain HD conviently cohabitating on the same level, ensuring that 1st level OPCs didn't face 8HD monsters.

I'd just note that this came a little later in my experience. I think when D&D tried to broaden it's base with the introduction of BD&D that one of the ways to make the game simpler for new DMs to run was to limit choices and a dungeon environment was one way of doing this. I don't think it was actually as common in earlier games.

THe whole linear thing was enforced by the GM instructions.

Yeah, but linear =/= dungeon. A linear adventure is one with a preplanned plot that the PCs must follow along or it breaks down. A dungeon is just a location that limits choices a bit. Generally a dungeon has no plot. Skipping room A has no affect on room B. There are no plot elements to miss that throw the game off. Once again, I'm not a big fan of dungeon crawls, but they are far from linear inherently.

Modern RPGs aren't structured the same way. We don't get big blocks of rules about designing an undergrown laberyth as the centeral focus of the campaign. Well, with one exception, and even that game has de-emphasized the imprtance of the dungeon.

As noted above, I actually think the "dungeon" concept was a short lived one, that was emphasized when the business model at TSR was to go after a younger crowd. It was successful at bringing a lot of people in, so it's no surprise that a lot of people remember it as early RPGing, but I actually think it was more of a hump than a ramp down from "lots of dungeons". Either way though, I still contend that dungeons, or not, has zero to do with linear adventure design.

As for my biases. Well, I've heard a lot of people claim to role-play, but generally see them only pay lip service to it. And yet, with the various players and groups I have encountered, I've never seen a "pure" D&Der who actually role-played.

That could well be, but (I'm sounding like a broken record here) "roleplaying" has nothing to do with linear design either. Early games were much more about challenging the players with puzzles (with is not roleplaying since it's the player and not the character solving things, even if it's fun), but those contribute to linear design only tangentially.

No. We are discussing changes in gaming. And one point was that linear adventures are a new change. I'd say they have been around from the start and that D&D has been the primary factor behind them. I also think the evidence, such as the near total sdomination of the D&D module by the linar fomat supports this.

I'm pretty sure I made the original claim and I stand by it. However, it's clear that you are reading something far different into linear than I meant by that statement. As mentioned before, most Shadowrun adventures (at least early ones I played) were incredibly linear. I saw a lot of this in the late 80s to mid 90s as games tried to put adventure plots together, which almost inevitably lead to linear adventures: do part A before proceding to part B where you meet contact C who give you information to procede to location D, etc. That's completely different from the classic D&D dungeon: here's a bunch of creatures, dubiously thrown together, a short synaps of how they interact, stat blocks, and a list of what the own, now do whatever you want with it. The first is highly linear, though it can easily involve a complicated plot, no killing, etc. The second is nonlinear, though at lowest common denominator it involves essentially killing everything and taking their stuff.

However if run at the right level (IMO) "killing everything" becomes impossible (and was in most early D&D modules), so characters have to find other avenues to defeat the dungeon. As I mentioned before, even a new group of middle schoolers on their first adventure in the infamous Caves of Chaos knew they couldn't kill everything in sight. They wanted to "defeat" the caves and take everything, but had to ally themselves with some groups, pay off others, and destroy groups one-by-one. A similar thing happens in the famous G and D series of AD&D modules. It's impossible to wander through a kill everything (if the DM is even semicompetent), and is actively encourages that the players find indirect ways of dealing with the giants, and underground inhabitants. None of that is written out, but its no more encouraged to wade through than to talk to creatures. That's totally up to the players. My point is that it doesn't matter how the players deal with it. The very fact that they can deal with it in an variety of ways, that all have a chance of working, it's not linear. It becomes linear only when there is only one way, or a very limited number of ways, to tackle the overall adventure.

Oh, BTW, I do consider dungeon claws to be lineral adventures. While, yes, the players can hace a choise of tunnels to take, since the typical dungeon claw sends the PCs into the dungeon for a reason there is really no change in the overall course of the adventure. If the PCs are snet into the dugenon to retreive the McGuffin, then that is linerar. All the other stuff that hapepns in the dungeon has no impact on the adventure. It's just beginning, semi-random obstacle-big fight-finish. How the PCs accomplish the goal is also preset.

I disagree. The adventure is everything that happens during the dungeon crawl. They can typically choose several different routes and options for taking posession of said McGuffin, which can involve killing things, negotiating with things, taking path A over path B, playing groups off against each other, sneaking in and sneaking out, etc. It's all up to the players approach. Of course, a dungeon can be a series of linear encounters, but it most certainly doesn't have to be. Just like a high brow "non-combat" plot in any other game can be completely linear. Linearity has to do with the player's (character's?) choices on how to procede. Anything with a prescripted plot has to straddle the line of being linear if it's not linear. Most adventures with no prescripted plot are inherently nonlinear: the plot only comes out of play with what the characters choose to do in the setting.

Does that make sense?

[RMS]

Ok, there is some serious Dungeons & Dragons bashing going down here. :deadhorse: (hehe, I just want to use that emoticon).

The irony is that I am not a D&D fan at all, but have put myself in the place of defending early D&D. I just love the internet! Oh, :deadhorse: I like it too.

Dungeons & Dragons has gone through many changes over the years; just like any of the other early game systems that are still around.

I have played D&D in most of its incarnations (1.0, 2.0, 2.5 AD&D, 3.0, 3.5 D&D), and I am currently playing 3.5 D&D. I am also playing d20 Modern currently.

I haven't played D&D of any sort since there were only 6 books available for AD&D: DMG, PHB, MM1, MM2, FF, and DD...and MM2 came out after I was pretty much done. I'm a die hard "no levels, no classes, no XP" snob, though it's eased in recent years. I've played a bit of T&T over the last few years and had a blast. I also want to play Mazes & Minotaurs, but haven't found anyone to try it out on.

"Can't we all get along?"

That wouldn't be any fun.

[Atgxtg]

I think you and I are seriously misfiring on semantics issues here, but I'll try again here.

Could be.

I'd just note that this came a little later in my experience. I think when D&D tried to broaden it's base with the introduction of BD&D that one of the ways to make the game simpler for new DMs to run was to limit choices and a dungeon environment was one way of doing this. I don't think it was actually as common in earlier games.

Oh, I'd say it was around by AD&D that a bit before the BD&D revamp. original D&D wasn't so linear mostly because the game was still evolving.

Yeah, but linear =/= dungeon. A linear adventure is one with a preplanned plot that the PCs must follow along or it breaks down. A dungeon is just a location that limits choices a bit. Generally a dungeon has no plot. Skipping room A has no affect on room B. There are no plot elements to miss that throw the game off. Once again, I'm not a big fan of dungeon crawls, but they are far from linear inherently.

Generally most dungeons I saw did have a plot. It was just that they threw a bunch of meaningless encounters/obstacles in the way. Basically a limited story will filler.

As noted above, I actually think the "dungeon" concept was a short lived one, that was emphasized when the business model at TSR was to go after a younger crowd. It was successful at bringing a lot of people in, so it's no surprise that a lot of people remember it as early RPGing, but I actually think it was more of a hump than a ramp down from "lots of dungeons". Either way though, I still contend that dungeons, or not, has zero to do with linear adventure design.

I'd say it was the model for a good decade or two. Not so short lived.

That could well be, but (I'm sounding like a broken record here) "roleplaying" has nothing to do with linear design either. Early games were much more about challenging the players with puzzles (with is not roleplaying since it's the player and not the character solving things, even if it's fun), but those contribute to linear design only tangentially.

True. But sometimes a tangent isn't. If someone goes to the trouble to create a puzzle for the players to solve, then yes the players will encounter that puzzle and it will be necessary to continue along to the next part of the plot. That is linear. So while it is possible to put a puzzle in an adventure, they won't be there for not reason.

I'm pretty sure I made the original claim and I stand by it. However, it's clear that you are reading something far different into linear than I meant by that statement. As mentioned before, most Shadowrun adventures (at least early ones I played) were incredibly linear. I saw a lot of this in the late 80s to mid 90s as games tried to put adventure plots together, which almost inevitably lead to linear adventures: do part A before proceding to part B where you meet contact C who give you information to procede to location D, etc. That's completely different from the classic D&D dungeon: here's a bunch of creatures, dubiously thrown together, a short synaps of how they interact, stat blocks, and a list of what the own, now do whatever you want with it. The first is highly linear, though it can easily involve a complicated plot, no killing, etc. The second is nonlinear, though at lowest common denominator it involves essentially killing everything and taking their stuff.

Not completely different at all. Go to dugeon A, defeat monster B, work out puzzle C and slay Dragon D. If the players don't do these thing the story does advance. So while they have to choice of going left or right in the corridor, they will eventually have to take the right path to advance the storyline. So it is basically a linear adventure with filler.

However if run at the right level (IMO) "killing everything" becomes impossible (and was in most early D&D modules), so characters have to find other avenues to defeat the dungeon. As I mentioned before, even a new group of middle schoolers on their first adventure in the infamous Caves of Chaos knew they couldn't kill everything in sight. They wanted to "defeat" the caves and take everything, but had to ally themselves with some groups, pay off others, and destroy groups one-by-one. A similar thing happens in the famous G and D series of AD&D modules. It's impossible to wander through a kill everything (if the DM is even semicompetent), and is actively encourages that the players find indirect ways of dealing with the giants, and underground inhabitants. None of that is written out, but its no more encouraged to wade through than to talk to creatures. That's totally up to the players. My point is that it doesn't matter how the players deal with it. The very fact that they can deal with it in an variety of ways, that all have a chance of working, it's not linear. It becomes linear only when there is only one way, or a very limited number of ways, to tackle the overall adventure.

Hardly. I haven't seen one yet where mass genocide wasn't possible. One kick ass group I used to game with even developed some tactcis that would break most dugeouns wide open. Made a beeline to the bootm level. By the time you get there you've gotten tough enough to kill the "boss". Clear our the bottom level and then work your way up, with everything after bottom level or so becoming a cakewalk.

Of course they were the guys who won that Slave Pits module where the characters are overwhelemd by the Slave Lord's in a "no win" fight. Since the next part of the module required that the PCs escpae from their cell, it made that linear adventure a bit tough.

I disagree. The adventure is everything that happens during the dungeon crawl. They can typically choose several different routes and options for taking posession of said McGuffin, which can involve killing things, negotiating with things, taking path A over path B, playing groups off against each other, sneaking in and sneaking out, etc. It's all up to the players approach. Of course, a dungeon can be a series of linear encounters, but it most certainly doesn't have to be. Just like a high brow "non-combat" plot in any other game can be completely linear. Linearity has to do with the player's (character's?) choices on how to procede. Anything with a prescripted plot has to straddle the line of being linear if it's not linear. Most adventures with no prescripted plot are inherently nonlinear: the plot only comes out of play with what the characters choose to do in the setting.

Not in most dungeouns. To get item A means beating foe B. Foe B's minions will fight the group, and allies if any are prewritten into the adventure. The story is linerar. It is just that they put some randomness in the "triggers". In the end the party will ally with the gnomes, (or whoever the good guys are) and attack the kobolds (or whoever the bad guys are). The rest is just die rolling and racking up treasure and XP.

Does that make sense?

It would if all the options you presented actually applied to a dungeon crawl, but generally they don't. Such adventures typically have some "Save the princess/kingdom/whatever" reason for going into the dungeon. A bunch of meaningless encounters and some significant ones to push the PCs along the path towards the final bad guy.

Things like, oh, the PCs joining up with the bad guy, or walking away from the adventure are not even considered. It is really being led around by the nose.