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?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let's take a quick hypothetical.

Your players decide, unbeknownst to you until now, they want to find a portal/Spelljammer/whatever and go explore another setting in the game that isn't the one you are currently on. Go visit Sigil or Krynn or Eberron.

Do you let them go to a completely new world and continue the game? If not, why are you robbing them of their agency?

For my current game: This is not possible at present, and the players are currently working on finding out why.

Something I established as part of the cosmology known to academia in this setting is that there are exactly three planes that are known to exist:

1. the mortal world (Al-Duniyyah, "that which is near" or "the place of examination"), which the Spirit World (Al-Barzakh, the "barrier" or "separation") is a subset of, where dead souls linger before passing on to whatever fate the dead go to meet;
2. the elemental otherworld (Al-Akirah, lit. "the other world," where the genies retreated many centuries ago), which is much more magical than the mortal world but as a result also much more dangerous;
3. and Hell/the Abyss (Ja'hannam, "the place of sin and darkness," more or less), which is where demons and devils come from; according to Safiqi doctrine, they were banished there by the One after they waged a War in Heaven against Their will.

Official Waziri cosmology* states that no other planes exist, period. The party has conclusively proven this false, as they have adventured in the artificial perpendicular plane of Zerzura, the Garden-City. While inside Zerzura, they came across a "Polyplanetarium," which contained powerful (and dangerous) objects that could display either the night skies or surfaces...of other worlds. The implication from this is that there isn't just one other plane, but possibly an enormous number of other planes, but for some reason the wizards of Al-Duniyyah cannot even observe them, let alone travel to them. This is a weird mystery, and the party is slowly but surely discovering that that mystery may be a heck of a lot more important than they ever realized.

(*The Safiqi believe one other plane exists, Jannah, True Heaven, where the souls of the righteous dead go at death, but only the righteous may enter and none may leave once they do, so it is inaccessible to mortal prying eyes. This is their explanation for why certain dead people cannot be resurrected, even if the spell is cast immediately after death.)

In a different game that had had no pre-established reason why this couldn't happen: I would do my best to embrace the players' desire, but, depending on their level and the various commitments/connections they've made, would try to make clear exactly what the difficulty and consequences of such a choice would be. E.g. if the characters are literally level 1, fresh-faced adventurers with only a little experience, it's gonna take a while; travelling to a totally separate setting is a Big Deal for someone just starting their adventure. They'll have to build up to it, perhaps hunting down rumors of otherworldly travellers or researching the components necessary to conduct a ritual. Higher-level characters could get it done more quickly, but have many more entanglements and connections to deal with--leaving your entire world behind is a lot for any character to do, so there will necessarily be consequences, and probably people who aren't entirely happy about the character doing that. (E.g. our party Bard has a loving family and is in a dedicated relationship with a single person; if he were to leave for a whole other world entirely, his girlfriend would definitely be bothered by that, and his family would be concerned for his well-being.) Allies who have trusted them in the past would probably feel hurt that they're leaving them behind, and those with official duties (like our Battlemaster, who is still officially part of the Sultana's Army, just on special assignment from her as an adventurer) would likely see such an action as dereliction of those duties.

In a certain sense, I have already told my players that I would let them do something like this; I expressly told them that if they decided one day that they just weren't interested in this story anymore, that they wanted to chart a ship off into the Sapphire Sea and never return to Al-Rakkah, that I would absolutely let them do that. I would feel very disappointed in myself, because it would mean that I had failed to make something that was sufficiently interesting to warrant their continued attention, but I would absolutely support their choice and do my best to respond to it.

There would be consequences for this choice, however; they would essentially be abandoning their friends and allies to whatever fate awaits them, so after a while (probably 2-3 months after the party left) they'd start hearing rumors about stuff that had happened in the Tarrakhuna. It would never be more than that--just the occasional rumor of some major event or other. A dead leader, a disease or disaster, upheaval, something like that. And such rumors only last for a relatively short while, sailors being who and what they are, so it wouldn't even be more than an occasional mention. I would strive to avoid making those rumors into guilt trips, but rumors of Bad Things happening "Back Home" is really the only major consequence that could befall the party if they chose to do this, should they choose to travel far enough away.

Fortunately, my players are troopers. They appreciate that they do have the freedom to go wherever they want, if they should choose to do so, but freely choose to stay in the Tarrakhuna and adventure there, because (a) what I have offered them remains interesting enough to explore, and (b) they feel attached to the characters, organizations, locations, and mysteries of this place, even though they may also feel a desire to explore other places too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thinking of dungeons. Are modules where creatures are assigned to a room and assumed to be there -- instead of having some natural pattern of movement through the thing (excepting those that wouldn't) -- also a railroad?

I'm wondering in particular about

Spoiler: Module Name

Spoiler: Module Name

Goodman version of B1 and B2

and the other party of adventurers and the family of gnomes. Should there only be a pretty darn low chance the party ever runs into the former, and a pretty high chance if the party dilly-dallies that the gnomes have cleaned the place out before the party even gets there?

Prewritten modules are understood to be inherently more railroad-y than things developed "live" (or, well, pseudo-live) by the DM. At least, I would certainly hope that if the players have agreed to play a module or adventure path, they understand that certain events are expected to happen and thus certain things are "fixed points" even if they're allowed to color outside the lines etc.

Again, for me the issue is the deception, not the rails per se. If the players know and consent, awesome, more power to you, do what you like.

In this case, the coverup isn't just worse than the crime, it IS the crime.

I started a thread about it when the video first dropped. The fuller context is really, really important to that clip.

ETA: It would be helpful to actually include the link...need more coffee.

Critical Role - Story, rails, and running games

There was a round-table discussion last night between Matt Mercer, Aabria Iyengar, and Brennan Lee Mulligan. There was a lot of laughs and a lot of referee talk. One thing that stood out was this analogy by Brennan. I'm not sure what to think about this, honestly. I know that's a common...

www.enworld.org

Yeah I was gonna say, I remember when that thread went up, and hearing the full context of the quote was...revelatory, to say the least. They're speaking of "railroading" in a context that makes it....pretty much not at all "railroading" in the usual sense. Like, it's "railroading" that...is literally based on the personal backstory and information created by the player. So...the player literally already put their buy-in and agency into it. They WANT to go where that train is headed, wherever that might be. That's so radically different from what most people refer to as "railroading"--and what this thread refers to as "railroading"--that I don't really agree with the classification at all.

There's a difference between "having a plot" and "being on (invisible) rails." The former means you know the state of affairs and plausible dramatic moments/events/concepts/themes. The latter means you have a fixed sequence of events that will definitely occur no matter what (and, if invisible, that you'll ensure they happen even if the players think they have control.) The two are not the same.

But if my group chooses path A (versus B and C), and they always meet a Nymph no matter what, that to me is a soft railroad. THeir choice of path might have still mattered for other reasons, might even affect some of the conditions of the Nymph. If the choice has impact, even if I remove some of the impact through a soft railroad, its still a valid scenario.

I mean...if you just make the one tiny step of actually (in-story) making sure that all three paths actually do lead to the same place, then you've done no railroading at all. Sometimes, paths converge IRL. That's a perfectly natural event. It's even something you can foreshadow/telegraph/explicitly state, depending on context. (E.g. our party Druid, before the character's soft retirement, would probably notice that the path they're on curved away at first before curving back, allowing the party to guess "hmm, maybe these three paths all converge at the same point!") This is one aspect of what I mean by saying that these techniques aren't necessary. You can have the choice still have consequences (as you say, changing the party's condition or the condition of other things as a result of the choice), even if all three result in reaching the same physical destination.

There's no need for an illusion here, if you're actually adding consequences. You literally just need to be slightly more informative to the players, and suddenly it's not even illusionism anymore, it's not a soft railroad, it's just....exploring through a defined space.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly, DMs railroad all the time--even if they don't realize they are doing it. I refuse to believe anyone who claims they "never do it"... it just means they don't realize they are doing it. And frankly, railroading, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

Give your definition of "railroading," then, and we can see. Because, at least by my definition of "railroading," I never do it, and my players have explicitly stated that they appreciate that I do not use railroading.

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 is choices having consequences--so long as their capture was the result of their choices (and, presumably, undesirable dice rolls).

Sometimes, logically, there just aren't other choices to be made. That's not railroading. That is life.

Unless you mean to say that, for example, reality itself railroads you every time you must exit a room via the only door because you cannot physically destroy the wall to exit....

Yep. There's only one time railroading is okay, and that's when you have player buy-in before the railroading starts.

Which, IMO, means it isn't railroading anymore. The players' agency is respected, because they want to go where you're leading. You don't need a fence to hem them in. They go of their own volition.

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.

Exactly this. Couldn't have said it better myself.

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

Then you are simply incorrect. There are player choices that are not illusions. So long as you continue to hold this incorrect belief, contradictions will result.

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.

I have never done this and would never do it. Period.

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 have never done this, and would never do it. Period.

I could go on and on.

Thus far, you're 0/3 on examples of railroading; the first by not actually being railroading in the first place, the second and third by absolutely being railroading...and being things I would never do and have never done.

If time has passed, then the adventure not only can change, it should change. That's literally how I respect my players' choices, by having the world change. Sometimes it changes because of what they do; sometimes it changes because of what they didn't do. And sometimes it just changes regardless of their actions. That, again, is life. Things change.

And if the players choose to go to City B, it sure as heck won't have the same adventure hooks as City A would. The two are distinct cities; they should have distinct components. I will consider such elements as local (sub)culture (e.g. Al-Maralus, to the north, is more tropical and more directly influenced by Moroccan culture and names, while Al-Tusyoun, to the south, is much more arid and more influenced by the Levant), past events associated with those cities in-game (the party has been to both cities before, but has rarely been to Al-Tusyoun while Al-Maralus they've visited repeatedly), and both secret and non-secret information about the setting (e.g. the Cult of the Burning Eye is not particularly active around Al-Tusyoun while the Shadow-Druids are, something the PCs do not know; they do, however, know that Al-Tusyoun is more of a "crossroads" town, while Al-Maralus is more of a "gateway" town to another region.) Being further south, Al-Tusyoun will have more elves/half-elves and dragonborn (who are more common in the temperate, southern "elf forests," though the dragonborn are rare in general on this continent), while Al-Maralus is mostly humans and orcs/half-orcs, with many of them related to the indigenous peoples of the northern jungles. Etc. As a result, the names, races, and occupations of the people they meet will depend on where they go, and the dangers they face will differ. My commitment to maintaining a consistent, grounded, meaningful world is part of how I respect my players' choices.

Because that part makes no difference to the question. Your "world" is just story that you've written. You've written a story in which the players can't have their PCs succeed at a thing that they want their PCs to achieve. As I asked, how is this not "railroading (or similar)? It's the GM deciding that the action declaration will fail in advance of play and regardless of how the players frame their attempt.

For my part, I consider it non-railroading because, for my world, there is a reason why this fact is true, and the players can not only discover that fact, but attempt to do something about it. (Indeed, I hope that they not only attempt to do something about it, but that they do so with gusto!) If they just petulantly said, "But we want to go to another world NOW!" then I would be rather annoyed with them (and extremely surprised that they became petulant all of a sudden!), and explain that while I am 99.9%* of the time willing to work with them on the things they wish to do, sometimes there will be barriers or difficulties that must be overcome before that can happen, and that if they wish to participate in my game, they will need to accept that sometimes getting the thing they want to get will be an adventure, possibly a lengthy one, rather than instant gratification.

But, as I said in an earlier post, my players are troopers, and have never even once been petulant or demanding. In fact, they've been nothing but accommodating, which is part of why I do everything I can to support their choices and ensure that appropriate, grounded consequences result from those choices. I also do that because of my ardent belief that it is my duty as DM to foster player enthusiasm whenever and wherever I can, but it certainly doesn't hurt that my players are respectful and cooperative.

*There are a small number of areas where I am....reluctant to compromise. I made sure that as many such areas were explicitly identified as possible during Session 0, and work to be absolutely transparent and forthright about such things. E.g., I do not run games for evil PCs, not because I don't think evil PCs can be interesting, but because I do not trust my ability to produce an enjoyable game for evil PCs. Players can choose to have their characters go full-on capital-E Evil if they want, but I consider that a form of retirement for the character. A formerly evil character struggling to atone for past sins is awesome, however, so I'm quite willing to make stuff like that happen. Likewise, necromancy (as in raising the dead as profane things like ghuls or zombies), alongside slavery, is one of the very few EXTREME taboos of the culture of the land the game is set in; to practice necromancy in any way that could be discovered would be reputational suicide, so I have strongly encouraged the players not to do that sort of thing. When any issues with these topics arise, I give players a fair hearing and work with them to try to find consensus, and I have only once had to do anything more than "have a quick, polite conversation."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

True, but I feel that a theme is best paired with a narrative that serves it. If you're going to be a member of the Silver Inquisition, the DM should be tossing rumors of heretics, cells of hidden cultists in government, a council of demon worshipping high priests, and maybe a grand conspiracy against the Church to stop. Not just say "go find evil and smite it" and set me in Thrane, looking for something to do. Again, I don't want to have to wander around looking for the fun stuff. I want a main plot with occasional rest stops for side quests.

As was said by others above, I don't see "there are ongoing events, which your characters plausibly care about," as being the same thing as "railroading." And I'm also quite aware that Mr. Hayes (a lovely Youtuber, I've burned through almost all of his content already!) very specifically favors gaming where the main story exists, but the players do not have to follow it. They can choose to go off and do other things, and come back to the main story later if they want to. That doesn't at all sound like railroading. Instead, it sounds like there's an adventure line for those who want one, and a world to explore for those who really don't want an adventure line.

One of the (very) few exceptions to this preference is Final Fantasy XIV, which I know he enjoys mightily, where it does pretty heavily restrict your non-MSQ choices until you advance the MSQ. And he has specifically commented on how he doesn't really care for how restrictive FFXIV can be with its content outside of advancing the MSQ. He believes the adventure line is worthwhile enough to forgive this fault, but it is something that needs forgiveness, as it were. (I, personally, expect most video game stories to be fixed things, so it never really bothered me, but I get why it bothers him.)

For my own game, there are plots (plural, there's various things going on in the world.) These are events, which will happen, unless the players interpose themselves, at which point it becomes unclear exactly what will result--we must play to find out what happens. This is the essence of the Dungeon World "fronts" concept, as I understand it. The world is full of threats. Those threats will do bad things if allowed to operate unhindered. The players, as Heroic Adventurers, are naturally-gifted hinderers and meddlers. And you'd better One-damned believe their opponents would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!

More seriously: there's stuff going on. There's things to discover and track down. But the PCs also have their own stuff going on, and sometimes those personal matters carry more weight. Sometimes the party is hungry for a direction, and I'll throw them a bone. That's not railroading, that's greasing the wheels of play when they've gotten stuck and no one knows quite what to do. Much of the time, however, I'm quite happy to follow the players' lead. The current adventure blossomed out of a player wanting to speak to a particular person about information she'd uncovered regarding a lost ancient heirloom of his people. We've already gotten three sessions and at least one Perilous Journey out of that (completely personal) inquiry. I am quite excited to see what else comes of it.

 

[Mort]

I will answer with an example from what YouTuber Josh Strife Hayes has said about MMO design.

MMO typically falls into two broad camps: narrative driven or open world. Narrative MMOs like WoW, ESO or the Old Republic have a general main story that is augmented with plenty of side quests, raids, dungeons and supplemental systems like crafting or housing to keep players interested. They can go and do other things but they always have a main focus of the story to fall back on. Even if they engage in none of the supplement stuff, there is an engaging story they can interact with. A structure. A sense of purpose.

Open world games like New World or many survival/full PvP MMOs give you a big world and tell you to make your own fun. Go craft. Go PvP. Go build houses and form guilds or go raid dungeons and grind for loot. The problem is there is rarely any reason to do any of that besides "you can". The story doesn't evolve because there is no story, except for what you did while crafting or raiding or hunting wolves for hours. You just wander around aimlessly trying to find something fun to do while trying not to die. You have lots of options but none of them matter.

Now let's take this back to D&D. When a DM says "in this campaign, you're all pirates" or "you're all on a holy quest for the Sun God" or "you're all working for the super secret branch of the King's spy order", you have set up a storyline that gives the PC focus. A long term goal and an expectation. The day to day stuff can vary; finding a rare spell component for the wizard, doing a quest for a priest who raised another PC, or saving a PCs brother from cultists, but eventually all roads lead back to the main plot.

That's not railroading. It's merely an agreed upon structure and plot. The players are presented with a choice at session 0 and have chosen to abide by this structure and plot. The fact that the rails are visible and agreed upon usually means it's not railroading.

Now let's say the players THOUGHT they were playing an open world game but the DM only had this pirate plot to run. He doesn't tell the players this, he hides the fact that there is nothing else for them to do. Every time they try to take a path different from this pirate adventure, he guides them back to the pirate adventure and only advances that plot. That would be railroading.

 

[bloodtide]

I can help with the double meaning of "Railroad" being both good and bad.

Take Performance Magic. Ok, perfomance magic is not real. Sorry to shatter any illusions.

So ask someone would they like to be tricked, deceived or lied too and you will get a hard passionate NO.

Now this is exactly what performance magic does, and millions love it and have no problem with it. You can break down the magic audience into three easy groups:

1.The Clueless. They think the performance magic is real "magic". They can't figure it out...and it looks impossible. They have been told it's "not real", but it sure "looks real". And try as they might, they can't figure out how that rabbit was pulled out of the empty hat. Even when you might try to explain it, many don't want to know.....they want to "keep the magic alive" for them. They can't (or don't wish to) figure it out means it's "real" magic to them.

2.The Knowers. They are much more fascinated by "how" the stage magic was done then just watching it. They get enjoyment from figuring out how the trick was done. They like to know things. Many of these people often do magic themselves.

3.The Fans. They like magic. They are fully aware it's a trick, but they don't care. They are fine with being fooled, ticked, deceived and such for entertainment. They will avoid learning much about magic, again to keep the wonder alive.


The same is true for novels/TV shows/Movies. Some are clueless and just enjoy them. Some know about story crafting and can spot and see things with no problem, and can enjoy that craft. And many know the whole story is fake, set up and crafted...and ignore all that, so they can be entertained.

In both cases the trickery and deception is for a good outcome.

Railroading is exactly the same: Some are clueless they are even "on a rail" or something. Some know and see the railroad and enjoy watching the track being laid. And some know fully well it is happening, but just sit back and relax and let it happen to have fun.

 

[Mort]

I can help with the double meaning of "Railroad" being both good and bad.

I much prefer to keep it at what it is: railroading as the illusion of choice.

Much less muddy that way.

Take Performance Magic. Ok, perfomance magic is not real. Sorry to shatter any illusions.

But in a magic show, part of the fun is trying to figure out how the magician is doing it. We know it's not real, but the good magicians make it seem like it is.

This isn't the case with gaming. The fun isn't in trying to figure out how or what the DM is doing and that being part of the entertainment. The fun is in interacting with the game, the environment and each other. Usually to create a shared experience at the table.

So ask someone would they like to be tricked, deceived or lied too and you will get a hard passionate NO.

Now this is exactly what performance magic does, and millions love it and have no problem with it. You can break down the magic audience into three easy groups:

1.The Clueless. They think the performance magic is real "magic". They can't figure it out...and it looks impossible. They have been told it's "not real", but it sure "looks real". And try as they might, they can't figure out how that rabbit was pulled out of the empty hat. Even when you might try to explain it, many don't want to know.....they want to "keep the magic alive" for them. They can't (or don't wish to) figure it out means it's "real" magic to them.

2.The Knowers. They are much more fascinated by "how" the stage magic was done then just watching it. They get enjoyment from figuring out how the trick was done. They like to know things. Many of these people often do magic themselves.

3.The Fans. They like magic. They are fully aware it's a trick, but they don't care. They are fine with being fooled, ticked, deceived and such for entertainment. They will avoid learning much about magic, again to keep the wonder alive.


The same is true for novels/TV shows/Movies. Some are clueless and just enjoy them. Some know about story crafting and can spot and see things with no problem, and can enjoy that craft. And many know the whole story is fake, set up and crafted...and ignore all that, so they can be entertained.

In both cases the trickery and deception is for a good outcome.

Railroading is exactly the same: Some are clueless they are even "on a rail" or something. Some know and see the railroad and enjoy watching the track being laid. And some know fully well it is happening, but just sit back and relax and let it happen to have fun.

If the people at the table agree to the parameters of the game, it's not railroading it's an agreed experience with agreed upon limitations. This is what most adventure modules are and they work because players agree to stay within the framework of the module.

It's when the DM doesn't tell the players the framework and the constraints but imposes them anyway that problems occur.

 

[Shiroiken]

A certain level of railroading is normal, as is a certain level of illusionism. The amount varies for people, but IME most players are not fans of consistent illusionism.

When I devise a campaign, the overall idea is pretty much set, so there's some railroading that will keep the players moving towards this goal. A lot of adventure hooks are set up this way too, especially published adventures and APs. Most players understand this, and will accept obvious railroading, so long as it makes a level of sense. For example, most of Descent into Avernus is a railroad once you get into Avernus, but because the rails lead you down the most logical choices, most players aren't going to object. The decision to go to Avernus is a major railroad that many PCs likely aren't going to accept, however, so it comes off as rather forced.

Illusionism can be a useful tool, but one that should only be used sparingly at best, because one the illusion is revealed, the players will doubt any future action as being relevant. IME it's best when the DM wants to narrate a specific scenario without having to make a crapload of extra stuff that probably won't come up anyway. The "choose a door" that's always correct is nonsense, since you're putting them in the situation to deliberately take away their agency anyway. If you want to have a linear dungeon, you just make a linear dungeon, rather than presenting it as somehow a choice.

 

[overgeeked]

That's a terrible analogy. Something a bit closer would be buying tickets to a stand-up comedy show and when you get to the venue the house decides to strap you into a chair and force you to watch Warhol's Empire instead because they think they know better than you do.

When players sit down to play a game, they expect their decisions will matter. When their decisions don't matter and the players find out, they tend to throw things at the offending referee and walk out. As they should.

 

[Stalker0]

Honest question, no snark: what is it about being railroaded that you like? Is it knowing you will get a coherent story? Is it something about your character's place in that story? Why do you prefer the "illusion of choice" over "actual choice." Again, I am not trying to snark or trap you. I am honestly curious.

I can answer this for you as a longtime DM.

There are two main reasons:

1) Older players with Real Lives: So one of the things I have noticed in my games as the years have gone on, as my players have gotten older, gotten jobs and families.... they just don't have the mental energy they once did. I have done "open sandbox" games with them, and what I find is that giving them a bevy of choices tends to create decision paralysis, infighting, and slows down the game. What normally happens is one player just makes a choice and everyone goes along with it.

conversely my most successful campaigns have been my "mission focused" ones. Ie the players are a part of some organization, they have a boss that goes "alright team, your mission is....". Aka I put them on a railroad, here is where you are going and what you are doing. And they love it, it removes any infighting, any debating, they just get right into the roleplaying and the action.

2) Limited DM time: Likewise as I've gotten older, my time and mental energy are limited as well. Now I can spend that time crafting a dozen options to try and account for player choices....each of which only get a small portion of my time and creativity, or I can focus my energies on 2-3 encounters I know they will encounter (because of the railroad), each of which will be much more involved and interesting because I've put my full mind to their creation.


Now the key here is the matter of degrees. There is railroading and there is RAILROADING. I may be forcing some of the plot points, but that doesn't mean I don't have an NPC pivot due to my player's roleplaying, or change up a dungeon if my players take 3 days to do the job instead of 1. My players still have agency, they just don't have TOTAL agency. The covenant is effectively....I will be limiting some of your agency, and in return, we will get more time in for gaming (rather than debating), and the encounters you have will be more interesting.