One of the hallmarks of old school design in support of classic play and OSR play is the lack of intended stories. A pre-plotted story is regarded as part of poor GMing, putting PCs on rails, so the speak, to experience some tale the GM wants to tell, instead of allowing the actual play at the table give rise to what narrative it will. Grognards appreciate letting play — the choices made by players — decide if the dragon gets rescued from the sheriff’s men.

So, the approach taken for Fogey Play could be thought of as going off-rail. Going off-rail, if done effectively, is to avoid getting on the rails in the first place, ideally. On both the level of an adventure and the level of a campaign, player choice should be driving the narrative and the GM avoiding pushing the PCs into any pre-planned choices. There is no BBEG behind everything in the setting and whom the PCs have to overcome for a campaign arc. There are no storylines PCs have to be nudged into during individual adventures. As there are no character background stories, there’s nothing involving those that has to happen at any time. Just say “no” to plotting.

The Basic Approach

The most obvious way to stay off-rail is to avoid starting on rails by not plotting any story. The idea of prepping only conflicts, sites, and situations has appeared in many blog posts and on discussion boards. It’s pretty standard advice in OSR circles and invaluable for GMs coming to old school play from contemporary D&D and other modern, character-based systems. It’s a solid reminder to GMs to help them avoid putting their games on rails.

Beyond the Basic

There lurks a danger at the table, however, if the players aren’t veterans of old school play. That is, the players can proceed to play as if there *is* a pre-determined plot to follow. They, themselves, can hop onto invisible rails by assuming there is an actual plotted story and having their PCs act accordingly. They can assume that a local crime boss is the BBEG of some grand story, instead of simply a Bad Guy not possessed of any significance beyond that of directing a cartel/faction/front/biker gang determined to control half a kingdom from behind the scenes, the same as a couple of other local Bad Guys. The players can assume that the first Bad Guy is the focus of a campaign and then try to force a grand storyline on play.

We have to step beyond that basic approach to support the understanding that there isn’t a single storyline. We have to show that there’s no single storyline, nor even a single major conflict, to play out. We have to do so early and often. So, how do we do that? There are things we can do that I’ve observed help keep players from locking in on any one conflict and trying to turn that into *the* story of a campaign.

First, instead of presenting a single conflict for the PCS to engage with at the start of play, present multiple conflicts. Make each of them enticing enough that the players are hard-pressed to choose which to initially pursue. They begin play of the campaign with the understanding that there’s more possible than just what they chose to do.

And keep those hooks freshly baited. Whenever something changes in one of the other conflicts, let the PCs get word of it. Shoot, even if nothing changes, let the players get wind of the conflict in a different fashion than before. If they first heard a rumor at the inn, let a pedlar along the road drop a different rumor about the same thing. Let the players figure out that there’s always something different they could be doing and make it appealing.

Town turns, downtime, ale time, or whatever you want to call it is a fine time to drop more tidbits in front of the PCs. More travelers telling tales. Research the PCs commissioned from sages that provide tantalizing information. Requests for assistance by interested parties. When the PCs aren’t actively out and about chasing adventure, let adventure try to lure the PCs back out. The players have activities they want to pursue while in town, so do your best to distract them by dangling hooks.

Mix the conflicts. That is, have elements of one of the conflicts show up in play of the conflict the PCS are engaging with. An NPC who is an essential cog in a cartel that’s part of a different conflict happens to have business with an old friend in a key cartel the PCs are trying to infiltrate. A raiding party from Site A shows up at Site B when the sites are tied into different conflicts. An item/artifact found in Site A matches one found in Site B and in Site C, providing a bit of a puzzle as to what the items’ purpose is.

Stay Off the Rails

To support the effort to stay off rails, it can help to work with four principles in mind:

  • PCs can always walk away from any conflict at any time;
  • PCs can set their own goals for any conflict they interact with;
  • PCs can negotiate with and influence most NPCs in a conflict;
  • PCs can side with cartels and switch sides freely, if they do

If you can keep these in mind and help the players keep them in mind, there’s likely little chance of the PCs ending up riding the rails of a real or imagined planned story.