All Aboard the Invisible Railroad!

What if I told you it was possible to lock your players on a tight railroad, but make them think every decision they made mattered?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

While this may sound like the evil GM speaking, I have my reasons. Firstly, not every GM has time to craft a massive campaign. There are also plenty of GMs who are daunted at the prospect of having to figure out every eventuality. So, this advice is offered to help people scale down the pressure of being a GM and give them options to reuse and recycle their ideas and channel players through an exciting adventure that just doesn’t have as many options as they thought it did. All I’m suggesting here is a way to make sure every choice the players make takes them to an awesome encounter, which is surly no bad thing.

A Caveat​

I should add that used too often this system can have the opposite effect. The important thing here is not to take away their feeling of agency. If players realise nothing they do changes the story, then the adventure will quickly lose its allure. But as long as they don’t realise what is happening they will think every choice matters and the story is entirely in their hands. However, I should add that some players are used to being led around by the nose, or even prefer it, so as long as no one points out the “emperor has no clothes” everyone will have a great game.

You See Three Doors…​

This is the most basic use of the invisible railroad: you offer a choice and whichever choice they pick it is the same result. Now, this only works if they don’t get to check out the other doors. So this sort of choice needs to only allow one option and no take backs. This might be that the players know certain death is behind the other two doors ("Phew, thank gods we picked the correct one there!"). The other option is for a monotone voice to announce “the choice has been made” and for the other doors to lock or disappear.

If you use this too often the players will start to realise what is going on. To a degree you are limiting their agency by making them unable to backtrack. So only lock out the other options if it looks likely they will check them out. If they never go and check then you don’t need to stop them doing so.

The Ten Room Dungeon​

This variant on the idea above works with any dungeon, although it might also apply to a village or any place with separate encounters. Essentially, you create ten encounters/rooms and whichever door the player character’s open leads to the next one on your list. You can create as complex a dungeon map as you like, and the player characters can try any door in any order. But whatever door they open after room four will always lead to room five.

In this way the players will think there is a whole complex they may have missed, and if they backtrack you always have a new room ready for them, it’s just the next one on the list. The downside is that all the rooms will need to fit to roughly the same dimensions if someone is mapping. But if no one is keeping track you can just go crazy.

Now, this may go against the noble art of dungeon design, but it does offer less wastage. There are also some GMs who create dungeons that force you to try every room, which is basically just visible railroading. This way the players can pick any door and still visit every encounter.

This idea also works for any area the player characters are wandering about randomly. You might populate a whole village with only ten NPCs because unless the characters are looking for someone specific that will just find the next one of your preset NPCs regardless of which door they knock on.

What Path Do You Take in the Wilderness?​

When you take away doors and corridors it might seem more complex, but actually it makes the invisible railroad a lot easier. The player characters can pick any direction (although they may still pick a physical path). However, it is unlikely they will cross into another environmental region even after a day’s walk. So as long as your encounters are not specific to a forest or mountain they should all suit “the next encounter.”

So, whichever direction the players decide to go, however strange and off the beaten path, they will encounter the same monster or ruins as if they went in any other direction. Essentially a wilderness is automatically a ‘ten room dungeon’ just with fewer walls.

As with any encounter you can keep things generic and add an environmentally appropriate skin depending on where you find it. So it might be forest trolls or mountain trolls depending on where they are found, but either way its trolls. When it comes to traps and ruins it’s even easier as pretty much anything can be built anywhere and either become iced up or overgrown depending on the environment.

Before You Leave the Village…​

Sometimes the easiest choice is no choice at all. If the player characters have done all they need to do in “the village” (or whatever area they are in) they will have to move on to the next one. So while they might procrastinate, explore, do some shopping, you know which major plot beat they are going to follow next. Anything they do beforehand will just be a side encounter you can probably improvise or draw from your backstock of generic ones. You need not spend too long on these as even the players know these are not important. The next piece of the “proper adventure” is whenever they leave the village so they won’t expect anything beyond short and sweet. In fact, the less detailed the encounters the more the GM will be assumed to be intimating it is time to move on.

Following the Clues​

Finally we come to the most common invisible railroad that isn’t ever considered railroading (ironically). Investigative adventures usually live and breathe by allowing the player characters to uncover clues that lead to other clues. Such adventures are actually openly railroading as each clue leads to another on a proscribed path. The players aren’t forced to follow the clues, but what else are they going to do? The players are making a point of following the railroad in the knowledge it will take them to the denouement of the adventure. What makes this type of railroading entertaining is that the players feel clever for having found the clues that lead them along the path. So if they start to divert too much the GM can put another clue on their path or let them find the next one a little easier and you are back on track.

The "Good" Kind of Railroading​

Now, all this may all seem a little manipulative, but modifying events in reaction to what the players do is a part of many GM’s tools. Any trick you use is usually okay as long as you do it to serve the story and the player’s enjoyment.

That said, never take away player agency so you can ensure the story plays out the way you want it to. This sort of railroading should only be used just to make the game more manageable and free up the GM to concentrate on running a good game instead of desperately trying to create contingencies. So, remember that you must never restrict the choices and agency of the players, at least knowingly. But it is fine to make sure every road goes where you want it to, as long as that is to somewhere amazing.

Your Turn: How do you use railroading in your games?

 

[Mort]

By that logic, there is never railroading. If you (or others) feel that way, no wonder people can claim "I've never railroaded my players!".

Railroading is the illusion of choice.

The scenario you provided contains no such illusion, as such, it is not railroading. The player is 100% aware of the non choice provided.

Now if the player chooses for the character to die and the DM still saves him and continues with the plot - THAT'S railroading.

 

[jgsugden]

"Immersion" is not a universal goal. Some people don't really care about it at all.

the reason the "GM lying" is bad is because it robs players of the most important aspect of playing an RPG: agency.

Immersion is for the most part universally superior to the alternatives. It means you're so caught up in things that it steals your focus. Being "caught up in the moment" ... being "into it" ... being "blown away" ... how often do people reference these things as bad things?

Well, blown away in another context is bad, but in the context of seeing something and being captivated by it ... always seen as good.

You can have fun without immersion. True. But you're more likely to have more fun when you're really into it - which is what immersion is all about.

I think your expanding your scope too high.

There is a big difference between "winging" a random dungeon that is a side quest, and winging the major murder mystery plot. There are things where cohesion and immersion are quite important, and other places where its not that big a deal.

I disagree.

In your example, the side quest is unimportant, and not worthy of being treated with the same respect and care that the main plot is. Think about a movie, book, or tv series. Think about the parts of it that are treated as unimportant. The ones that don't really tie to the main story ... and don't make complete sense ... You don't find them in great movies. You do find them in bad movies ... and they're (some of) the things that make the movie bad.

If your 'side plot' isn't worth doing right, it isn't a good contribution to your campaign.

I've acknowledged that this "wing it" approach is a necessary evil at times. When PCs go unexpected places that you have not prepared, your two choices are improvise or stop (unless you have some trusty prepared gap fillers that are highly adaptable). Sometimes you just don't have the time to finish preparing and have the same choices - no game or winging it. However, if you're planning on using it for elements of your campaign as a "good enough for this thing" approach when you could do better, then I think you're doing a disservice to that area of your game, and I believe that any good DM will generate a better experience for their players by crafting, rather than hobbling together, an adventure.

Use the OPs techniques in a pinch. But you'll be better off not using them as a crutch.

 

[Maxperson]

So how is this not a "railroad" (or whatever you want to call it)? The GM has already decided that what the players are trying to have their PCs achieve can never succeed.

Is the DM making them do those things? No. Can they leave and try anything else they want to do? Yes. Not a railroad. They aren't being forced down any line.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the key word, "consciously". IME ever DM has done it, even if they didn't mean to. Players often have limited choices. It isn't so much "taking them away" as there aren't any other realistic alternatives.

I mean, consider this scenario:

The PCs are captured and ordered to complete a task. If they don't agree to do it, they will be executed. They are under a Zone of Truth and have failed their saves, so cannot lie.

Is that railroading?

No. It's an in-fiction consequence of the situation. The domination spell used on a PC is likewise not railroading, even though it does deprive that player of agency for a bit. There can be linear portions of the game. Linear and railroading are different things.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The scenario you provided contains no such illusion, as such, it is not railroading. The player is 100% aware of the non choice provided.

All player choice is illusion, as it is always up to the roll of a die or the DM the results of those choices.

Now if the player chooses for the character to die and the DM still saves him and continues with the plot - THAT'S railroading.

Seen that, too.

Here's another:

The DM has the adventure prepared. The players can choose to go to city A or city B. Regardless of which they choose, the adventure hook will take place and set the PCs on their path to the adventure.

This is a classic example of the pick a door scenario. It happens all the time, even if the DM's doing it don't realize it.

Or another:

The DM has the adventure prepared, but the players get sidetracked. Later on, the DM still runs the adventure after the sidetrack is over, even though the "timeline" of the world might indicate other events made the adventure null.

I could go on and on.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Anyway, I've said all I care to on the topic. I'll leave it to others to continue discussing. Later.

 

[Maxperson]

If the player choose to die, I don't think they could play anymore.

I have 2 players who wouldn't miss a game for anything.

 

[Mort]

All player choice is illusion, as it is always up to the roll of a die or the DM the results of those choices.


Seen that, too.

Here's another:

The DM has the adventure prepared. The players can choose to go to city A or city B. Regardless of which they choose, the adventure hook will take place and set the PCs on their path to the adventure.

This is a classic example of the pick a door scenario. It happens all the time, even if the DM's doing it don't realize it.

Or another:

The DM has the adventure prepared, but the players get sidetracked. Later on, the DM still runs the adventure after the sidetrack is over, even though the "timeline" of the world might indicate other events made the adventure null.

I could go on and on.

Did the players agree to run the adventure (heck, I've done that kind of thing in a flashback), not railroading.

You said you're done with this discussion, but introduced a hypothetical.

Yet, so far none of these are railroading. None of them involve taking away the players choice WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Part of the art of DMing is knowing when to offer real choice versus the illusion of choice.

Two plot hooks that lead to the same place: illusion of choice.
Two paths than offer different hazards that can be negotiated separately: choice.

There's a place for both. What I think DM's should try to avoid is when the rails are visible: not even the illusion of choice.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So how is this not a "railroad" (or whatever you want to call it)? The GM has already decided that what the players are trying to have their PCs achieve can never succeed.

um... you cut the part of my answer were I explained that I currently have a world that is locked from the planes... if they pushed trying I would let them find away...

my other campaign is CoS and verymuch a railroad...but that is how WotC wrote it