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?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, the techniques themselves aren’t necessarily a problem. The problem is using controversial techniques without the players’ knowledge or consent, which illusionism is specifically designed to do.

On the internet people have seven thousand different definitions of railroading, illusionism and fudging and they loudly exclaim they have a problem with these things. In real life I have never encountered this. The practice is that the GM runs the game the way they see fit, and as long as the end result is enjoyable, everyone is good with it.

And at least in D&D the rules clearly state that in the end the GM is basically an arbiter of what goes, so at least implicitly the players have agreed to this when they agreed to play, unless otherwise noted

I don't think I use most of the stuff people find controversial, at least not much. But then again, I'm not going to make promises, especially considering the myriad definitions floating around. To be blunt, as a player it is not your business how I manage the things behind the curtains, and if you're not fine with that then we shouldn't play together.

 

[pemerton]

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.

These don't seem to me the same as what you described upthread, of permitting the players to declare actions to try and travel to another world although you've already decided that that isn't possible and hence that those actions will fail.

But I tend to see much of what you describe here as railroading also. You are deciding in advance that certain actions fail, on the basis of your own authorial inclinations.

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.

This is all you, as GM, making decisions. There's no objective reason why, to learn about the fire, the players have to have their PCs ask about a blacksmith. This is a contrivance that you as GM have set up. Likewise for the churches.

Setting up hoops for the players to jump through, while making the nature of those hoops obscure, again seems to me to fall within the general conception of railroading: the GM is deciding what happens in the fiction, perhaps using the actions that the players declare as cues, but the meaning (if any) of those actions is completely obscure to the players.

the DM ALWAYs unfolds the game

This claim isn't true.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So interesting things "just happen to happen" in the time and place the characters happen to be.

Of course they do. We only pay attention to people who have actually interesting experiences. This isn't a matter of "illusionism." We don't read histories about nameless 15th-century porters who died at age 36 from cholera, having done nothing particularly interesting. We read histories about Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth because they have the opportunity to do things in their time and context. Adventurers in a fantasy setting are just us paying attention to fictional people whose lives are Particularly Interesting, because there's no real point in paying attention to the (very large number of) people whose fantasy lives aren't actually interesting or noteworthy.

Slice-of-life is a valid genre. It's just not one that has much appeal in this context.

It's all make believe, GM makes stuff up. Everyone knows this, no one is being deceived.

Imagination is not the same as telling lies.

Anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, they are advocating a position corrosive to doing imaginative work or play.

There is a very, VERY big difference between, "I know that I am here because I want to imagine cool things that are not physically real" and "I am here to make choices, except that they won't actually be choices at all most of the time, and you'll do everything you possibly can to prevent me from ever finding this out. Oh, and you won't tell me this, but instead present it as though I really am making choices."

The former is imagination. The latter is being sold a bill of goods. The difference is obvious.

 

[pemerton]

The definition of immersion is deep mental involvement. Engagement is a deep emotional investment. There is a nuance, but they're highly related and everything I described would be applicable to someone that is highly immersed in a game of D&D.
And you can happen to pull off a good event with entirely improvised moments. Entirely possible. All DMing involves some improvising, afterall. We don't prepare every little feature. However, you can also far more easily %$@! the pooch.

The question here is whether planning to improvise will tend to result in a better, or even equal, game than planning out a session in advance so that it ties together better. And, as is the case pretty much everywhere in life, the actual truthful answer is that more preparation gives you a better product in the end.

<snip>

I've played for over 40 years. Consistently, when DMs put in the effort, it shows. I have enjoyed games run by DMs that do not prepare much ... but I've seen some of those DMs really improve when they added the pregame effort.

I've also played, and GMed, PRGs for about 40 years. And I find that games in which the GM prepares a story and railroads the players through it is less fun than one in which the players contribute to the shared fiction.

And the reason is not mysterious. RPGing is essentially conversation, albeit stylised conversation: different participants talk about different things, and there are rules that tell us who can say what when. The topic and upshot of the conversation is a shared fiction.

Conversations are best when they are spontaneous and responsive. A script isn't a conversation - at best it might be a simulacrum of one. In my view, the same is true in RPGing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And at least in D&D the rules clearly state that in the end the GM is basically an arbiter of what goes, so at least implicitly the players have agreed to this when they agreed to play, unless otherwise noted

If the law tells you that an immoral or inappropriate behavior is legal, does that make that behavior acceptable?

Just because the rulebook says something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In fact, the rulebook may even directly tell you to do things that are not correct, whether by accident (consider various typos across every edition of D&D, but particularly 3e) or on purpose (e.g. the advice to 3e monks that they should be mobile, when that prevents them from using a full attack and thus massively hurts their damage output.)

 

[Charlaquin]

To be blunt, as a player it is not your business how I manage the things behind the curtains, and if you're not fine with that then we shouldn't play together.

I absolutely agree! The problem with the technique described in the opening post is that it denies the players the opportunity to make that decision, because it is specifically designed to prevent the players from knowing the DM is doing it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Of course they do. We only pay attention to people who have actually interesting experiences. This isn't a matter of "illusionism." We don't read histories about nameless 15th-century porters who died at age 36 from cholera, having done nothing particularly interesting. We read histories about Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth because they have the opportunity to do things in their time and context. Adventurers in a fantasy setting are just us paying attention to fictional people whose lives are Particularly Interesting, because there's no real point in paying attention to the (very large number of) people whose fantasy lives aren't actually interesting or noteworthy.

Slice-of-life is a valid genre. It's just not one that has much appeal in this context.

But consider how the GM makes it so that interesting stuff happens to the characters.

Characters wake up in a tavern. The GM asks what they want to do. So they say they go to library to do some research and after that, on afternoon, they go to the market to do some shopping. When they arrive to the market, there is commotion. An exotic wild beast that had been transported for the sale has broken loose and is wreaking havoc! The characters try to stop the beast and prvent it from killing poor townspeople!

Except this was terrible deceitful illusionism! The GM had preplanned the encounter, and it didn't matter when the PCs went to the market. Had they decided on the morning to go to the market first, the encounter would have happened then. Had they decided to spent a longer time in the library and go to the market next day, the encounter would have happened then. This is basically the same thing than all those false choice doors and roads and whatnot. But I bet GMs do this all the time.

Imagination is not the same as telling lies.

Anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, they are advocating a position corrosive to doing imaginative work or play.

There is a very, VERY big difference between, "I know that I am here because I want to imagine cool things that are not physically real" and "I am here to make choices, except that they won't actually be choices at all most of the time, and you'll do everything you possibly can to prevent me from ever finding this out. Oh, and you won't tell me this, but instead present it as though I really am making choices."

The former is imagination. The latter is being sold a bill of goods. The difference is obvious.

Far from obvious. Different people consider different ways of making stuff up "deceitful". I don't know if you consider my above example to be such, I'm sure some people would. I wouldn't.

It's all made up, stop worrying about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the law tells you that an immoral or inappropriate behavior is legal, does that make that behavior acceptable?

Just because the rulebook says something doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. In fact, the rulebook may even directly tell you to do things that are not correct, whether by accident (consider various typos across every edition of D&D, but particularly 3e) or on purpose (e.g. the advice to 3e monks that they should be mobile, when that prevents them from using a full attack and thus massively hurts their damage output.)

Oh please! Playing an elfgame in a way you don't like is not immoral! If you don't like the way an elfgame arranges the authority, you don't have to play that elfgame.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I absolutely agree! The problem with the technique described in the opening post is that it denies the players the opportunity to make that decision, because it is specifically designed to prevent the players from knowing the DM is doing it.

Presumably they're making the decision when they decide to play a game that gives the GM authority to run the game the way they want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except this was terrible deceitful illusionism! The GM had preplanned the encounter, and it didn't matter when the PCs went to the market. Had they decided on the morning to go to the market first, the encounter would have happened then. Had they decided to spent a longer time in the library ang go to the market next day, the encounter would have happened then. This is basically the same thing than all those false choice doors and roads and whatnot. But I bet GMs do this all the time.

I would not do this. If they chose to go to the library before going to the market, the encounter would happen without them. If they delayed going off to an important location, the world goes on without them. I won't be a HUGE stickler over time things because I don't want to be a dick. But if they intentionally delay on something they know is important, e.g. repeatedly putting off addressing a known threat (as my group did with the black dragon gang), that threat becomes more dangerous.

Far from obvious. Different people consider different ways of making stuff up "deceitful". I don't know if you consider my above example to be such, I'm sure some people would. I wouldn't.

It's all made up, stop worrying about it.

It's really very simple. Are you telling me my choices actually matter? This is a yes or no question. Either you are, or you aren't. Do my choices actually matter when they seem to matter? This is again a yes or no question. Either they do, or they don't. If you're telling me that seemingly-meaningful choices matter, but in fact they do not matter, then that is deceptive. It literally could not possibly get any simpler.

Are (at least some) player choices presented as being actually meaningful? Yes/No
Are those choices that are presented as meaningful actually meaningful? Yes/No
Extra credit: Do you conceal the evidence that would reveal that the seemingly-meaningful choices aren't? Yes/No

If the answer is "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second, it is deceptive, period, end of discussion. If the answer to the extra credit question is also yes, then it's not only deceptive, it's actively covering up that deception, continuously. Few people like being deceived. Even fewer like finding out that someone has worked to deny them even the possibility of discovering the deception.

If the answer is "no" to the first question then while it might not be deception anymore, you're not very likely to attract a lot of players. Telling people straight-up, "It doesn't matter what choices you make, the events will play out as I want them to," is...well, you CAN do that, but I don't think you'll be very successful. There's a reason so many people who advocate for fudging and/or railroading out there explicitly say that you should never allow your players to find out that you do it. Likewise, if you don't conceal the fact that you're offering choices that appear to be meaningful but are in fact meaningless, I strongly suspect you're going to have at least one upset player sooner rather than later, and the results area not likely to be pretty--so if your answers are Yes/No/No, I don't expect you to have much success as a DM.

Yes/No/Yes is deceptive, and thus unstable--if you slip up, you're likely to have upset players--but it is at least an unstable equilibrium. Yes/Yes/(N/A) is not deceptive, and thus stable. You aren't telling your players that a given choice is meaningful when it isn't, and thus there is nothing to "slip up" on, no hidden truth to be revealed because the surface appearance is the truth.

Oh please! Playing an elfgame in a way you don't like is not immoral! If you don't like the way an elfgame arranges the authority, you don't have to play that elfgame.

I used the phrase "immoral or inappropriate" for a reason. I would appreciate not being selectively quoted.