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]

To be fair, back stories can get a little out of hand. While I don't think the GM should control them, I think it's important to make sure that backstory fits into the game presented.

Or, alternatively, dispense with them entirely.

I tend to allow no more than a short paragraph of backstory for any given PC.

IMO, the PCs are meant to be developed during play, not come fully formed before the first session even starts.

Usually though, the group will come up with some concept for themselves as a whole, such as Knights of the Silver Flame, employees of Morgrave University, members of the Greyhawk adventurer's guild - that sort of thing. Tends to bring the group together better and focus play much better/easier than a bunch of completely separate back stories.

 

[Reynard]

I tend to allow no more than a short paragraph of backstory for any given PC.

IMO, the PCs are meant to be developed during play, not come fully formed before the first session even starts.

Usually though, the group will come up with some concept for themselves as a whole, such as Knights of the Silver Flame, employees of Morgrave University, members of the Greyhawk adventurer's guild - that sort of thing. Tends to bring the group together better and focus play much better/easier than a bunch of completely separate back stories.

One useful thing about those overly long backstories is that they tell you a lot about what the player sees in their head when they think "fantasy."

 

[overgeeked]

I tend to allow no more than a short paragraph of backstory for any given PC.

IMO, the PCs are meant to be developed during play, not come fully formed before the first session even starts.

Usually though, the group will come up with some concept for themselves as a whole, such as Knights of the Silver Flame, employees of Morgrave University, members of the Greyhawk adventurer's guild - that sort of thing. Tends to bring the group together better and focus play much better/easier than a bunch of completely separate back stories.

I always start D&D PCs off at 1st level and limit backstories to 100 words. Even then the players tends to go nuts.

One useful thing about those overly long backstories is that they tell you a lot about what the player sees in their head when they think "fantasy."

In theory the PC's backstory will also tell you the kinds of adventure hooks the character will never pass up. But I've found that's not true. The players will often ignore their own backstory whenever it's convenient.

 

[Mort]

One useful thing about those overly long backstories is that they tell you a lot about what the player sees in their head when they think "fantasy."

Possibly,

I prefer to just have a conversation with the player and ask their preferences, influences, likes and dislikes. Saves me having to guess.

 

[jgsugden]

You completely missed, ignored, or aren't familiar with another style in which the GM defines the parameters of the situation, motivations of the NPCs and features of the environment to such a degree that they can improvise both coherently and confidently.

I'm going to play the veteran card and say I've seen 40 years of gaming in a huge variety of situations. It is my broad experience that reinforces my perspective. Further, I've said it is more than possible to have a good session with the improvised style ... your can was accurate ... but overall you'll get a superior product more regularly through craft and preparation rather than relying upon the tactics of the OP as your primary methodology.

You seem to be intimating that "preparation" is somehow limited to defining which monsters are in which rooms, and it's just not so.

Think about what I said. Think about how you interpreted it. Really give it a try. Then ask why your statement absolutely missed the point. Reducing what I described to "which monsters are in which rooms" ... I'm talking about what makes a story make sense which is a lot more than 'bugbears here, orcs there'.

Moreover, your doubling down on the idea that immersion is somehow a necessary goal shows that you have a particular view of what a successful game looks like. Which is fine -- for you. But it isn't universal or a point from which to determine broadly applicable truths.

Again, my 40 years of experience with a broad range of DMs playing with a broad range of players in a broad range of circumstances differs with your opinion.


I can't recall ever seeing a table where a DM prepared an adventure for their player group with attention to detail and conducted the game skillfully (both from a rules and storytelling perspective) where the game was not highly successful. There can be down moments (usually when they have to adapt to something unexpected), but the degree of success (as measured by the enjoyment of the players) is very high in these circumstances. The games - and the campaigns overall - work.

I have seen a lot of games where an overconfident DM sat down at a table, 'winged it' while relying upon their charm and rules knowledge, and left their players either bored, frustrated, confused or dismissive. Not every session of a 'winged' game fails, but the approach results in failed sessions too often, and no DM that comes unprepared escapes the fruits of their lack of labor. These are the tables at Cons where the players leave mid-session. These are the games at home where players don't know it is their turn because they're not paying attention. These are the games where the players start to have their PCs do stupid things to entertain themselves because they're bored. These are the games where you see players sharing sideways glances with each other as the DM describes something. These are the campaigns that peter out at level 5 to 9 with people looking for something new because there is nothing holding their interest.

Clearly, you don't want to hear this from me. That is cool. Think about all the other people in your life, and across the globe, that have said essentially the same dang thing: Put in the work. Be prepared. You get out what you put in. By failing to prepare, you prepare to fail. H. Thorough preparation makes its own luck. Not that hole. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Preparation precedes power. OK, maybe that hole, but only because you came prepared. The minute you get away from fundamentals – whether its proper technique, work ethic, or mental preparation – the bottom can fall out of your game, your schoolwork, your job, whatever you’re doing.

The importance of preparation gets repeated over and over ... and not because some people find it to be true sometimes, but because it is, essentially, universally true that in the long term you get a better result through preparation and planning than through winging it.

Not all preparation is going to look the same. There are many different ways to prepare. There are too many variables to prepare for them all. However, the DMs that have learned how to prepare efficiently and stylistically are the ones that people remember. I promise.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

again... my world was made and pitcched with other worlds and players signed on but if players put resources into something unexpected or against type i will CHANGE THE WORLD....

 

[Reynard]

I can't recall ever seeing a table where a DM prepared an adventure for their player group with attention to detail and conducted the game skillfully (both from a rules and storytelling perspective) where the game was not highly successful.

Without getting into GM screen measuring contests -- it is a weird flex btw -- I am going to suggest that the latter half of your statement there was the deciding factor. I have seen GMs over prepare themselves into bad games as often as you have seen them under prepare into bad games, I am sure, because the preparation isn't the sole defining factor. Each individual GM, especially a skilled one, will find the level of prep that works best for them and it will vary from GM to.GM, sometimes significantly. Hell, it will vary for a single GM from game to game or even from campaign to campaign of the same game. All I am.saying is there isn't a hard and fast rule and you can't just decree prep is the key to success.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The players know in advance that those things are outside the scope of play. This is not the same as what @GMforPowergamers posted:
GMforPowergamers is posting that the players are permitted to think that their action declarations can make the difference they are hoping for - ie their PCs find their way to another world - but has actually decided that those action declarations cannot make any such difference. This seems to fit the definition of "railroad" most posters in this thread are using, that is, letting the players think their action declarations are meaningful when in fact they are not.

no that is not what I said at all... there choices DO matter. THey choose to look for X and find Y instead is very diffrent then 'no matter what they look for they find Y"

IF my players ask to find a blacksmith in town but I know if they go looking they will find out that there used to be one that died in a mysterious fire.
If my player instead ask for a church of pelor and they find out the two churches in town are to bane and shar I am not railroading them.
If my player instead asked "is there a mage guild" and I just answeers "no, but there is a lone crookied towr that looks like it might be or have been a mage tower once... that is not railroading.

the fact that what they asked mattered and they wouldn't find out about the fire if they don't look for a blacksmith, and might not notice the churches if no one looks is what makes choice matteer.

GM for Powergamers also goes on:
The whole language of "I would let the game unfold" seems to me to the language of railroading. The GM is deciding what happens.

the DM ALWAYs unfolds the game... how is the DM reacting tto the PCs chopice railroading?

 

[beaumontsebos]

I’ve had to resort to invisible railroading on occasion and it’s never been a problem for me or my players. If you’re having fun in a game and realize during the game that your on an invisible railroad and become crappy about it, that’s on you. You are ruining the fun you were having by holding onto your idealized version of D&D. How about just enjoy the fun while your having it?

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I’ve had to resort to invisible railroading on occasion and it’s never been a problem for me or my players. If you’re having fun in a game and realize during the game that your on an invisible railroad and become crappy about it, that’s on you. You are ruining the fun you were having by holding onto your idealized version of D&D. How about just enjoy the fun while your having it?

If you were having fun in my game and then I start spraying you with water and you become crappy about it, that's on you. You are ruining the fun you were having by holding on to your idealized and dry version of D&D.

Obviously, I'm being dishonest with an hyperbole. But I don't think saying to anyone it's their fault that they're not having fun a good approach. Fun is a ridiculously complex topic and last time I read papers on the topic of play, it was impossible to force someone (or yourself) to have fun.

I think if a player was enjoying himself thinking most of his choices mattered, and when he realized they don't it ruins the fun and he's not enjoying himself; then shouldn't be considered as a very obvious clue that you shouldn't mettle too much with your players' agency as opposed to holding it out against them that they're not having fun?