• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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?

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?

away-1020200_960_720.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine

If the players agree to the contrived scenario and enthusiastically support its inclusion, knowing that it is something worth doing and understanding what the consequences are...

How is that railroading? It sure as heck isn't fudging.

Like at this point people have basically started saying that DMs who do literally anything AT ALL are railroading. The term has been watered down to meaninglessness.
1st everything I do I am open about so it is hard for me to really get into the mindset... the surprises I spring on my players are little bits of lore, hidden passages ect but if I have to fudge odds are the players will know about it within a month if not right then and there "Okay, that orc has 7hp left...but dead, lets just move on" has been said more then once.

However the "pick a door," and no matter what door is the door X is behind is something I may do from time to time... but only because it is needed to move the story forward and it wouldn't be 'doors' but more likely "where are you going now" when they can go anywhere on the map and no matter where they go... there is the new NPC or PC..."
Edit: And I myself never fudge. Ever. I will do things like have a near-dead enemy get finished off without a roll....by TELLING my players "it's almost dead, tell me how you kill it/knock it out." I will do things like, as stated above, skipping unnecessary debate s if the PCs have even the slightest chance of knowing that the debate is unnecessary. Etc. Absolutely none of that involves pretending that I am using the dice when I am secretly (and with intentional effort to keep players from knowing) ignoring the dice and just doing whatever I feel like doing.
I have also let a nat 1 get "Yea that is just a fail not a crit fail" on death saves when I know that the player would be REAL pissed if his character died... the most resent example I can think of is the time Steph's paladin/sorcerer died, then she brought in a new armor artificer, and 1st encounter she got double crit in the 1st round dropping her to 0... her turn came and she failed her first save, and the druid couldn't heal her that round (wild shapped) but was going to switch back on the next... and she rolled a 1 (2 death saves so dead...) she went red both ashamed and mad... I was like "No that's just 1 fail we can say that wasn't a 1" and she went on to finish out that campaign many levels later with that character...

Oh another 'fudge' was when I had rumors of a 'powerful healer' in a town near by but they were a divine soul sorcerer and only had low level spells but high level slots... and that was a 'hidden gotcha' until a PC got hit by a thing (maybe turned to stone...it was something) that only greater restoration could undo... so they went there. I could have played it straight and they would be SOL becuse that sorcerer couldn't do that spell... I just wrote in that spell and now he had it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Just on the subject of definitions, i absolutely consider that fudging in the same way that just deciding the hit that left 1 HP just took them out. If you as GM decide it's dead and don't require another full round to let the players and dice decide if it dies or kills a PC or whatever, you fudged. If eel like we all shift definitions to make sure we are innocent of whatever unforgivable crime we accused others of, and that's just silly. better, I think. to admit imperfection and just do our best.
Fudging requires deception. It cannot be fudging if there is no deception. This is the standard I have always used, I have used it in every thread discussing fudging, and no one has ever thought this was a weirdo stance that was just excusing myself.

How is "I don't fudge" inconsistent with this? I don't deceive my players about whether I'm using the rules or not. If I deviate from the rules, I make damn sure my players know that I am doing so.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
1st everything I do I am open about so it is hard for me to really get into the mindset... the surprises I spring on my players are little bits of lore, hidden passages ect but if I have to fudge odds are the players will know about it within a month if not right then and there "Okay, that orc has 7hp left...but dead, lets just move on" has been said more then once.
Which I am fine with. That's not fudging, because the players know what you are doing. I usually don't specify the exact amount of HP. But I have ended fights early in various ways but only by telling the players that the fight was ending early.

However the "pick a door," and no matter what door is the door X is behind is something I may do from time to time... but only because it is needed to move the story forward and it wouldn't be 'doors' but more likely "where are you going now" when they can go anywhere on the map and no matter where they go... there is the new NPC or PC..."
Why ask them where they are going then? Legit. If they are just going to run into the Quantum NPC, why not just say they run into them and dispense with the pretense?

I have also let a nat 1 get "Yea that is just a fail not a crit fail" on death saves when I know that the player would be REAL pissed if his character died... the most resent example I can think of is the time Steph's paladin/sorcerer died, then she brought in a new armor artificer, and 1st encounter she got double crit in the 1st round dropping her to 0... her turn came and she failed her first save, and the druid couldn't heal her that round (wild shapped) but was going to switch back on the next... and she rolled a 1 (2 death saves so dead...) she went red both ashamed and mad... I was like "No that's just 1 fail we can say that wasn't a 1" and she went on to finish out that campaign many levels later with that character...
Again: you specifically told her, coming to an agreement with rhe player in public, open discourse. I have never seen a definition of "fudging" that would count something like that. I would do this (indeed, I have done things like it.) I would never, ever fudge.

Oh another 'fudge' was when I had rumors of a 'powerful healer' in a town near by but they were a divine soul sorcerer and only had low level spells but high level slots... and that was a 'hidden gotcha' until a PC got hit by a thing (maybe turned to stone...it was something) that only greater restoration could undo... so they went there. I could have played it straight and they would be SOL becuse that sorcerer couldn't do that spell... I just wrote in that spell and now he had it.
Had the players actually met the NPC and learned of their limited Sorcerer spell list? If not, I see no problem with this. Things that have not yet been fixed in play may be altered, if necessary. I certainly don't think of this as any form of railroading.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Just on the subject of definitions, i absolutely consider that fudging in the same way that just deciding the hit that left 1 HP just took them out. If you as GM decide it's dead and don't require another full round to let the players and dice decide if it dies or kills a PC or whatever, you fudged. If eel like we all shift definitions to make sure we are innocent of whatever unforgivable crime we accused others of, and that's just silly. better, I think. to admit imperfection and just do our best.

If you actually tell your players what you're doing, it's not fudging it's merely a shortcut.

Fudging, major or minor, requires some level of deception. Telling the players "alright the monster doesn't have a lot left, but the way this combat is going it's going to take 30 minutes to resolve. What say we just get to the end and call the monster vanquished - everyone good with that?" Isn't fudging it's a request to do a cut scene.

In the same way, railroading requires the players are blind to the manipulation. If it's out in the open, it's not railroading.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Just on the subject of definitions, i absolutely consider that fudging in the same way that just deciding the hit that left 1 HP just took them out. If you as GM decide it's dead and don't require another full round to let the players and dice decide if it dies or kills a PC or whatever, you fudged. I feel like we all shift definitions to make sure we are innocent of whatever unforgivable crime we accused others of, and that's just silly. better, I think. to admit imperfection and just do our best.
I don't think that's the case. I don't fudge either. I roll where everyone can see. Monsters have whatever hit points they have. I use things like morale checks to have fights of variable lengths. I also have monsters with objectives that generally don't involve simply slaughtering the PCs, though on occasion that's exactly what they want. So once the objective is completed...or impossible...the monsters flee. If the PCs want to investigate some side passage and it's getting late, I'll call the game there. Not scrub it from the map to eliminate it as a possibility. Some toxic things are so common that a lot of people don't see them as toxic. Absolutely admit imperfections. No one's perfect.
 


Reynard

Legend
Supporter
I don't think that's the case. I don't fudge either. I roll where everyone can see. Monsters have whatever hit points they have. I use things like morale checks to have fights of variable lengths. I also have monsters with objectives that generally don't involve simply slaughtering the PCs, though on occasion that's exactly what they want. So once the objective is completed...or impossible...the monsters flee.
But flight isn't automatic. If the monster has 1 hit point and you say it runs off down the corridor without consideration of initiative and movement rates (or chase rules or whatever) you're fudging.
 

Which I am fine with. That's not fudging, because the players know what you are doing. I usually don't specify the exact amount of HP. But I have ended fights early in various ways but only by telling the players that the fight was ending early.
I always think of fudging as not obeying the die roll...
Why ask them where they are going then? Legit. If they are just going to run into the Quantum NPC, why not just say they run into them and dispense with the pretense?
normally because there are OTHER things that it matters for they wont ONLY meet the PC NPC, they will then be on different plot hooks.

So up north is the orc tribes that are preping for war, and down south is the kingdom having an issue with a succession issue were twins are both claiming the thrown of there dead mom, and to the east is the elven wood, and to the west is the port city where they find out about the illithid pirates.

no matter what way they go the new party member is in that direction... and/or the NPC with the story hook about the teifling lord from the city of brass that has a job they may want the PCs for.

Had the players actually met the NPC and learned of their limited Sorcerer spell list? If not, I see no problem with this. Things that have not yet been fixed in play may be altered, if necessary. I certainly don't think of this as any form of railroading.
yeah had an earlier conversation said that he could NOT do it I wouldn't change that,
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
I have never understood fudging to require deception but rather be simply asking for a die roll then ignoring or altering the results to your whim as GM. But, again, definitions.

If you ask for a roll, ignore the result in favor of whatever result you actually want (presumably because the roll did not conform to the desired result) but tell the player the roll succeeded/failed when it was actually the opposite, how is that not a deception?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
Right, but see, the Clueless, when they find out that the magic wasn’t real, sometimes feel deeply betrayed by the deception. See: any child when they learn Santa Claus isn’t real. This doesn’t always happen, but it can. The “invisible railroad” is a problem because it attempts to preserve the cluelessness of the players, at the risk of creating this feeling of betrayal. The problem isn’t the illusionism itself, it’s the lack of disclosure that it’s indeed an illusion that’s being performed.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top