My sweet sweet Dawn of the Emperors boxed set just arrived. It´s filled with great double sided hexagon maps, two player guides and a huge GMs book. Pure gaming goodness. In it was also the Module: Arena of Thyatis.

What did I read, when I opened it?
Lo and behold:

A definite guide to player rape, railroading and illusionism!
In a classic D&D product. Holy smokes, I think, who is the author of this terrible text, that could cause many a shitty game session? Who is it, that wrote the swinistic manifest: "The DM´s guide to winging it"? Happens to be some John Nephew, more on him in a moment. A careful investigation of the credits blew my mind, as the very start of the conspiracy to make D&D into a story-whore system, that would be outsold by Vampire and other swinish endeavours, was documented in it. The playtesters (and therefore most likely personal friends of John Nephew) were, in no appearant order:

Woody Eblom (Sales Manager of SJGames)
Mathew Gress
Mark Rein-Hagen (it´s just a regular hyphen, TSR can´t be wrong)
Nicole Lindroos

So back in 1990 those Delusionistas started to teach their swinish lore, and soon would AD&D 2nd become an unplayable story fest of Planar proportions. And in this first attempt, they were striking directly at D&Ds heart: The Known World, and the genre of tried and true Gladiatorial modules.

On the John Nephew guy:
Look here for his complete credits. For the hasty reader, let it be known, that he participated in the graphic production of the game:

Furry Pirates

That should show, how utterly fucked up as a hobbyist he is. Or maybe he was young and needed the money, who knows. What I can say for sure, is that he was full of pretentiousness and self aggrandizement back then: He thanks several (history?) Professors in the Credits, which really only says:

"Look fellow gamers, I know real Professors, and I "researched" this module very heavily. It´s all accurate. If not, it´s because Rome is a a thousand year dead empire, as latin is a thousand year dead language. Nobody really knows what it was like."
Not even a submarine Swine like John Nephew could  think that a Professor would read a D&D module, could he? I wish he had presented it to one of those Profs. My bets are, the Prof would have taken the module, rolled it into a nice little baton, and slapped Mr. Nephew with it until he cried, and then some more because he cried.

See, I´m not against research. But real research by real students results in a bibliography, not a wanker´s list of his academic "influences & contacts".
So now it has been proven, that the Swine were there from the start, and definitely involved in the fuck up that would become AD&D 2nd Ed.

Currently Smoking: NA

Nicole Lindroos is Nikchick, from Green Ronin. I have no idea about Mathew Gress.

I know! That´s what makes it so creepy!
Mr. Gress OTOH, surely is the casual gamer who left the hobby after this swineified D&D...

Geez! What kind of psychotic world allows people with different likes and dislikes to play the same games!?!?!? This must be stopped! TO WAR, MY BROTHERS!

LOL

That´s definitely true. This "winging it" article is totally destructive to the hobby and to the game actually played. Only brain-damaged people like Mark Rein-Hagen or NickChick  could ever let such a thing past playtest.

LOL

Interesting.  Dawn of the Emperors was one of the last things I bought for D&D as I entered a period of deep alienation from the game that lasted on and off for much of the early to mid 90s.  I still ran some D&D at cons, and played in one or two short-lived campaigns.  But for much of that decade something about the Old Game as it was then just didn't feel right.

Is this the offending article?

QuoteOften, problems occur when players lose sight of their goals, or get distracted by another plotline. Your basic job is to keep your main plotline strong enough so the players want to follow it and see where it goes. Having identified a turning point, you can use seemingly random events, omens, accidents, and the secret plans of NPCs to steer the party in the right direction.

QuoteStock situations also can be used to occupy the party. The tavern brawl, the public contest (from archery to poetry), the official procession, an NPC being pursued past the party, the wandering seer or gossip, the merchant who haggles prices theatrically, and more, can not only entertain the players, but can be used to sneak subtle clues into play. These devices work best if each has a little routine. That is, each has its own plotline that ends if the party doesn't participate. The players have more fun if their actions make a difference in the outcome. Don't worry at first if the encounter sends the party away from the main plotline—you can practice steering them back to it!

and

QuoteWhen you wing it, you are replacing concrete dungeon maps with abstract plot twists. Thus, players depend on you dropping clues to guide them and can easily get lost if they miss something vital. Don't panic, keep giving them chances to get on the right track until they connect.

But note

QuoteIf they don't connect, you can decide after the session whether you want to get them back on track or modify the adventure to go in their direction.

seemingly leaves a glimmer of a possibility that an enterprising GM will allow the players to get off the rails.

Nevertheless:

QuoteFor example, in this adventure, the PCs should eventually end up in the Arena. Besides the drugging plot, any number of things could happen to get them there: framed for a crime, picked up for vagrancy, answer an advertisement, agree to participate in exchange for a favor, and so on. Nothing even requires characters to go together (except that it is a bit more convenient).

QuoteIf a critical NPC is killed before his part is played, and if the players don't know about his role in the plot, substitute another NPC in his place—if Maximitus dies, another petty noble, Fabinius, hatches the same plot. If the adventure is farther along, the opposition may still carry on its plans. They will have to compensate for the absent NPC, and you will have to decide if they still have the resources to continue, or whether they will abandon the plans but seek revenge, go into hiding, shift their attentions to a less dangerous activity, or maybe even try to recruit the characters!

Finally, you may have a situation where things have gone out of control—the players are mad, the plotline has completely outrun their ability to cope with it, you made a mistake that completely destroys the adventure and you can't think your way out of it. Everyone has bad days. In such cases, stopping the game for a few minutes to sort things out is perfectly okay. At this point relations among the players and you are more important than the game. Often a little time off will solve the problem. Sometimes (rarely) you and the players might decide to "rewrite" history so the unfortunate event never occurs.

I think this sort of thing could be fun if the players understand that they're going to be taken for a ride, with stops along the way to do some fighting or characterization. Essentially this reminds me of the GMing advice in Feng Shui, where the game is supposed to be all about the set-piece scenes and not really about guiding your own destiny or overcoming a strategic challenge. But it's not what I would ordinarily sign onto for D&D.

Somebody might suggest that modules of this type are basically "training wheels" to get a campaign going, after which the player-characters can guide things more. But I'd prefer to use a dungeon-type setup as training wheels since it provides real freedom from the start.

Another data point: lately I've been looking a little more carefully at packaged modules and GMing advice. I don't have them handy, but the Chivalry & Sorcery modules "The Songsmith" and (forget the name--also for 2nd ed. C&S, circa 1984) also have somewhat linear construction, but the introduction to both emphasizes more strongly that the GM may have to follow the players if they go off the sequence of events and in fact presents this as the better style of GMing.

BTW, shouldn't this be in game design, or the general RPG section? I thought this forum was a place for Pundit to rant at will, so others could ignore if they didn't like his style. While this thread is actually of general interest aside from the use of the "swine" term.

Or is Sett standing in for Pundit during his vacation?

Dungeons don't add any more freedom than plotlines do. You can go left or right, but you can't leave unless you want the adventure to end. In any setting either the GM needs to lead the players along or he needs to be prepared to run off in the weeds with them. Whichever method is used should be the one that the group enjoys the most, not the one some guy in a magazine / adventure / web forum says is the best.

Quote from: James McMurrayDungeons don't add any more freedom than plotlines do.

No, they do. The players largely control the pacing and ending of the adventure. The PCs do not have to visit any specific part. They can strategize to pick their point of entry for a given sub-section.

QuoteWhichever method is used should be the one that the group enjoys the most, not the one some guy in a magazine / adventure / web forum says is the best.

Yeah, I know, the point of the game is to have FUN!:rolleyes:

As with a story type adventure, if you want to experience the full potential of the dungeon, you go everywhere. Sure, you're free not to, but it's the same kind of freedom involved in the storyline plot: you're free to jump off the train at any time.

No, that's not the mindset that appeals to me, or I'm guessing to many others such as Sett. That is, the idea that you must explore the whole dungeon--especially without "taking breaks" to go back to base and recharge, and without strategizing on the best approach to various challenges.

Over on RPGnet there was a thread where some people whined about a dungeon that had a killer encounter, while others noted that there was nothing that compelled the characters to actually fight the monster. (It was a Roper, which I gather is a very dangerous but slow-moving creature.) I'm in the latter camp. I don't like it when players assume that everything they see is automatically intended for them to engage.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm in the latter camp. I don't like it when players assume that everything they see is automatically intended for them to engage.

I dislike that also. To some extant, you can blame video games for that. If it is too difficult for PC's, they can't reach it, so they are protected from running face first into threats that will just crush them, and everything else they should be able to beat.

Nowdays, GM's who include monsters that the PC's will have to come back later to beat, or run from, are often called "killer" or "bad" GM's because they had something the special snowflakes can't automatically beat.

But eh, it's a symptom, not the problem.

BTW, the thread I'm thinking of is "Bad GMing Advice". A bit of a ways down--view the printable version, load 200 posts per page, and search for "roper". Rather interesting discussion that points up the difference of perspective.