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?

 

[iserith]

So I do want to codify something, as the "Railroad is always bad" camp has used the common argument that "there is no benefit to railroading, you could always just not do it".

The fundamental benefit of Railroad is.... DM time savings. If I make one combat encounter that the party will encounter if they go down any of 3 paths, versus crafting a different encounter for each of those paths....I have saved a good amount of my time. Maybe that's time I spend enhancing another part of the game, maybe its time I spend working on the garage at home. But that is a benefit.

Now you can argue that you would rather spend more time on your game and not railroad, and that is your choice. But it doesn't invalidate that there is an inherent benefit to railroading for the DM, and not railroading has a cost.

Correct, railroading allows for the preservation of prep. Prep takes time, so the more you keep your players on your prep by railroading, you don't have to create a lot of extra stuff that might not get used. Accordingly, you save yourself prep time. Ultimately this is a matter of time management on the part of a DM who has chosen to railroad over other approaches that might be workable for their schedule. I, for example, plan my next campaign right when I start my current one. I outline what I'll need for prep, break that down into little pieces, then work on those pieces bit by bit while the current campaign is playing out. When done, I'm ready to start this new campaign and I repeat that process. No fuss, no muss, and no railroading needed.

But ultimately here's the thing: All you have to do is explain to your players and ask them for their agreement to stick to the prep as much as they can while understanding sometimes you'll move stuff around to keep things on track, and you're no longer railroading. Railroading is by definition doing something against someone else's wishes. If they're cool with going along with your plot, finding reasons for their characters to stick with it, and good with you moving that ogre to their current path, then you're not railroading anymore. What's revealing is the objection to just saying what you're doing up front. Everyone understands that time is a limited commodity. They'll understand some adjustments need to be made. And if they don't, then they don't have to play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ah, can you point me in the DMG the page where it tells me how many hours of DMing I am supposed to do a week? I seemed to have missed that section

Did I specify a number of hours? Hmm, doesn't seem like I did. How odd. Perhaps, instead of a snarky comment, it would be more constructive to engage in actual conversation.

I'm not sure that's really true, ER. I've seen it used a pretty fair bit the way the prior poster said, as not respecting die rolls once made whether acknowledged or not. It wouldn't be the first time a term is used variously by different people and if you happen to mostly run across one usage, you might not realize it.

Okay. It's pretty clear from every Youtube video, every forum post, and every live-person conversation I've ever had that "fudging" means being secretive. That's rather a weird bubble to have somehow maintained.

So what? Why is the latter bad?

Because it's clearly not a world that has any durability or weight to it? There are no consequences. Nothing matters. Things "change" only so they can stay perfectly the same. The world continuously rearranges itself in order that exactly the same curve is drawn, no matter what order you pass through its parts.

I actually prefer the former for big stuff, but I see no reason to be fundamentalist about it, as it is practically impossible to have everything preplanned so that the world actually seems full of interesting things regardless of wherever and whenever the PCs go.

I don't have everything preplanned, as I said. I have forced myself not to, because I know that's much too much of a temptation for someone like me. But if they choose to go west instead of north, I will improvise different things if I haven't prepared anything. (And, in general, I've done at least a LITTLE prep, so I have something to go off of. That's why I have a map that is drawn...and yet full of blanks.)

And that GMs do this is not "deception." There are no people outside internet debates who think that GMs never ever do anything like this.

There absolutely are. I was one, before I got involved in debates like this. It's part of why I find the practice so problematic and shocking. It has made me second-guess some of my past DMs.

People having problems with absolutism? Here's a flawed absolutist stance for you.

Also, I'm flabbergasted that you run Story Now games which literally are based on concept of no myth and the GM just making stuff up as response to player actions.

People have (in effect) told me I play DW wrong. My players are happy and I enjoy running the game, so...I dunno what to say. I've always found it incredibly weird that people harp so hard on DMs having absolutely nothing pre-existing when two of the Principles ("draw maps, leave blanks" and "think offscreen, too") and one of the explicit instructions for How To DM ("exploit your prep") require that you have, y'know, things prepared and stuff that definitely exists without prior player input. You cannot have "no myth" and also have, and I quote, "They don’t know that the attention that just fell on them was the ominous gaze of a demon waiting two levels below, but you do."

It is always an illusion to a degree! There is no "real version" of the world so how could there be a false one?

Nnnnnnnnnope.

There is a "real version." Just because it's fictional doesn't mean there is absolutely no weight to it whatsoever...unless you've decided there should be no weight to it.

My fictional worlds do, in fact, have weight to them. Things exist, in a fictional, narrative sense. Choices matter, in a fictional sense. Just as they do in, say, books or movies or TV shows. Continuity is vital, for instance. Rational relationships between things are important. "Babylon 5" and "Star Trek" don't exist in the sense that you or I exist, but they do exist in a narrative sense, and that narrative existence is extremely important. The fictional world I share with my players exists in a narrative sense. Doesn't your fictional world exist in that sense? It has a history, for example, that shouldn't be changed for light or transient causes.

Because I don't do it every single time, that's the whole darn point. I mix it in with other fully immersive stories that adjust to player choices. Your right if I slam the illusion card everytime I dm, yeah its probably not going to go well. As a tool I use on occasion, nope I have no problems maintaining it for entire campaigns.

Yeah, sorry, I don't buy it. I've seen through DM illusions before, and my players are WAY too sharp to not see through any of mine (hell, they've already pretty much seen through 3/4 of everything I've done thus far, they just don't know they have, it's intuition rather than evidence.) It's not a matter of skill. It's a matter of numbers. Four or five brains vs one. That's not a winnable game. It's just not.

How is that not exactly the similar sort of illusionism? It is the same content, perhaps slightly reskinned. This is literally what the quantum bandits are, except the recycling happens now and not later.

Because "recycle" is not the same as "reuse." Remember those old commercials? Reduce, reuse, recycle. "Reuse" means to use the same thing again, like using a Ziploc baggie for more than one snack, or using paper plates more than once. "Recycle" means to take a thing, break it down into its materials so those materials can be used in something else, like taking milk jugs and turning them into planters.

I would not reuse a fight if it didn't fit--period. But, for example, one of the components of that aforementioned obsidian golem was some shadow-magic spider-bot things. Perhaps their makers discovered the golem later (the grotto in which the PCs found it was essentially deserted after they left), meaning those makers could try to create something intentional built off the same (accidental) principles of the golem. That would be recycling the old fight that never happened so I could build something new and interesting as a result, anchored in plausible plot events, with the specific details necessarily altered because the situation is quite different.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But ultimately here's the thing: All you have to do is explain to your players and ask them for their agreement

Yes! This! Exactly this!

Why is, "Communicate with your players and get them on the same page" such a bad thing? Why does it make me an evil absolutist that I want DMs to either communicate, or be scrupulous?

Why is this so hard?!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it's clearly not a world that has any durability or weight to it? There are no consequences. Nothing matters. Things "change" only so they can stay perfectly the same. The world continuously rearranges itself in order that exactly the same curve is drawn, no matter what order you pass through its parts.

Again you're being binary. That everything is not fixed doesn't mean that nothing is fixed! I can have an encyclopaedia of stuff defined about the world, and still some things can just happen when they would make the game more interesting.

Nnnnnnnnnope.

There is a "real version." Just because it's fictional doesn't mean there is absolutely no weight to it whatsoever...unless you've decided there should be no weight to it.

My fictional worlds do, in fact, have weight to them. Things exist, in a fictional, narrative sense. Choices matter, in a fictional sense. Just as they do in, say, books or movies or TV shows. Continuity is vital, for instance. Rational relationships between things are important. "Babylon 5" and "Star Trek" don't exist in the sense that you or I exist, but they do exist in a narrative sense, and that narrative existence is extremely important. The fictional world I share with my players exists in a narrative sense. Doesn't your fictional world exist in that sense? It has a history, for example, that shouldn't be changed for light or transient causes.

Yes, mine have too. But that "reality" is by necessity just a broad stokes sketch, and it appearing as real world full of stuff is by necessity always an illusion to a degree.

I believe I have similar desire to have an objective word than you (and lack of that is one of the things I don't like about Story Now games,) but I understand that this is always an approximation. And ultimately we are creating a fun experience to the players, not a realistic real-time world simulation.

Because "recycle" is not the same as "reuse." Remember those old commercials? Reduce, reuse, recycle. "Reuse" means to use the same thing again, like using a Ziploc baggie for more than one snack, or using paper plates more than once. "Recycle" means to take a thing, break it down into its materials so those materials can be used in something else, like taking milk jugs and turning them into planters.

I would not reuse a fight if it didn't fit--period. But, for example, one of the components of that aforementioned obsidian golem was some shadow-magic spider-bot things. Perhaps their makers discovered the golem later (the grotto in which they found it was essentially deserted after they left), meaning they could try to create something intentional built off the same (accidental) principles of the golem. That would be recycling the old fight that never happened so I could build something new and interesting as a result, anchored in plausible plot events, with the specific details necessarily altered because the situation is quite different.

Yeah, this is just quibbling about the details. It's the same thing. And of no one has suggested reusing things in places where they don't make fictional sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What does this mean? What is a change? Why is this something that is not already covered by the GM being in charge?

Being in charge does not imply "I'll lie to you about what's going on on a player level to keep the game running." Those are in no way implied, and the fact parts of this hobby thinks so is, like the hyper-GM-authority view, a leftover artifact that does not serve it well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay. It's pretty clear from every Youtube video, every forum post, and every live-person conversation I've ever had that "fudging" means being secretive. That's rather a weird bubble to have somehow maintained.

And I've seen plenty of the other usage in both forums and live over 40 years in the hobby. So is it, instead, that I somehow magically have found tiny amounts of this usage with great frequency? Frankly, confirmation bias can be the answer in either direction.

 

[Cadence]

I kind of wonder what % of D&D players at large wouldn't like each of the following - assuming they were told this is how the game would run in advance (but not each time they were happening):

• Nothing ever prepped, and everything that wasn't revealed so far always determined on the spot.
• Some prepped material, locations, and encounters dropped in where they seem appropriate so far as long as they don't contradict previously established facts or void character choices
• Plot hooks dangled essentially regardless of where the party goes as long as it feels appropriate
• Plot hooks missed if the party doesn't go to one of the few places they would naturally occur in a real world
• Prepped things altered based on the the number of players present
• Prepped things altered based on current character level when they encounter it
• Everything prepped and never changed, regardless of characters levels, current status, or number of players present.
• Planned encounters alterable up to the start of the session
• Planned encounters alterable up to the encounter occurs
• Planned encounters alterable while in progress if a miscalculation was done of the challenge level
• Planned encounters alterable while in progress if the luck is swinging abnormally against the players
  

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Being in charge does not imply "I'll lie to you about what's going on on a player level to keep the game running." Those are in no way implied, and the fact parts of this hobby thinks so is, like the hyper-GM-authority view, a leftover artifact that does not serve it well.

But the thing is that outside these internet debates people do not consider stuff like "interesting thing happens when the PCs are around to see it" to be any sort of deception.

I am not opposed to discussing gaming practices, I'm doing that right now. But I think that in a DM centric game such as D&D it is the baseline assumption that the GM may choose and rearrange things behind the curtains in a manner they see fit, and if someone has a strong objection to that, it behoves them to bring it up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I kind of wonder what % of D&D players at large wouldn't like each of the following - assuming they were told this is how the game would run in advance (but not each time they were happening):

• Nothing ever prepped, and everything that wasn't revealed so far always determined on the spot.
• Some prepped material, locations, and encounters dropped in where they seem appropriate so far as long as they don't contradict previously established facts or void character choices
• Plot hooks dangled essentially regardless of where the party goes as long as it feels appropriate
• Plot hooks missed if the party doesn't go to one of the few places they would naturally occur in a real world
• Prepped things altered based on the the number of players present
• Prepped things altered based on current character level when they encounter it
• Everything prepped and never changed, regardless of characters levels, current status, or number of players present.
• Planned encounters alterable up to the start of the session
• Planned encounters alterable up to the encounter occurs
• Planned encounters alterable while in progress if a miscalculation was done of the challenge level
• Planned encounters alterable while in progress if the luck is swinging abnormally against the players

I can say that as a player, I don't care how the GM does any of that. As long as the world seems real and full of interesting stuff to do and it seems that my choices matter I'm good. I don't really care how the GM achieved it or whether some of my feelings are based on illusion. It doesn't really affect my subjective experience.

 

[bloodtide]

DMs should be brave enough to accept that the things they create will not always come up in play. Like...if a DM literally can't accept that the thing he thought was super duper ultra cool just didn't interest the party, or (by pure coincidence) didn't end up being what the players wanted to investigate even if they were ignorant of that specific part, the problem is that DM, not the players.

DMs, like artists, must learn how to let go of their art at least some of the time. Learn that sometimes, even the things you think are masterpieces...aren't. Using trickery and deception to ensure that your masterpieces always end up in front of the players means intentionally ignoring this extremely important lesson. That's both unwise and counterproductive.

Brave does not even fit here. A DM makes up fun stuff for the game, this is even in the rules. The whole point is the things will come up in the game.

Players might randomly miss a thing or not go to a spot or whatever, so does the DM just toss that thing away? Why? What is even the point of the DM doing ANY game prep if it won't be used in the game?

And what about improv? If the DM has nothing made, everything is blank, and the characters go to a location....then the DM just improvs and encounter, that is fine right? The encounter did not exist until the characters got there, so they could never have avoided it. Or would you say the improv Dm must toss out that encounter too?

Or are you saying the Only Allowed Things are things the players are 100% fully aware and informed about and then choose to encounter?

No. It's invisible because the DM hides away all the evidence that might reveal it. That's the point. That's my WHOLE point here. You keep acting like every player is some dumb rube, too stupid to figure out when they're being hoodwinked. That's both an incredibly disrespectful view of players, and in my experience completely, dead wrong.

I never said all, I said a third. They do exist.

The DM sure as heck does. Why else are they concealing things from the players?

With a magic trick, anyone with even a modicum of education knows it's not real. The illusionism-using DM is specifically ensuring that their players believe it IS real, and moreover, actively hiding any information which could have suggested otherwise. Since you seem to like these arguments by analogy: It would be like a magician trying to "prove" that their magic is in fact completely legitimate, by providing edited and manipulated video tapes that appear to show the magic being physically real, and destroying all other records that could contradict those manipulated tapes.

Though for all of history all magicians have tried to hide how the tricks are done from most people. Even today, most are reluctant at best to admit any tricks. They keep up the illusion of magic at all costs.

I'd note that it's a bit confusing when you say a DM is creating such a good game illusion that players....think the game is real?

Again: with the illusionism DM, they do not want the player to ever think that sleight of hand is happening. They want the player to genuinely believe that the superficial situation--choices that actually do matter--is in fact the true situation, when it isn't. And they will actively hide away any evidence that this isn't the case. Go looking just about anywhere and you'll see that nearly everyone who advocates for fudging, for example (which isn't railroading per se, but absolutely is a form of illusionism) will expressly say that you SHOULD fudge, but IF you do, NEVER EVER let the players find out. The deception is NOT explicitly part of play, and is in fact kept very hush-hush, hidden away, denying the players even the opportunity to discover that a deception might occur at all while specifically leading them on so they'll believe what they're told.

Players are free to think whatever they want. The rails are invisible as the players can't see them. And for the record I never fudge: let the dice roll where they may.

1. Inventing an organization or society that is active in the world. For example, the of Robin Hood-esque Silver Thread thieves/pickpockets/etc., who work to keep the shadows safe for the common man and fight against the oppression of the poor by high society. This included Rahim, the dashing prince of thieves who leads them. Lovely character. I always enjoy portraying him, all suave and good-humored.
2. Establishing historical characters of significance, such as long-dead saints, former rulers, particular ancient genies, etc.
3. Mythopoeia, telling us the nursery rhyme or Nomad Tribe story-ritual or bawdy tavern song where the character heard about something.
4. Personal connections, e.g. loved ones, rivals, former friends, etc. One character, for example, has a vast extended family, who are willing to provide help, so long as it reflects well on them within the clan.
5. Requests, such as wanting to find a teacher of the Dance of the Wizard's Blade (a magical martial art) or wanting to find lost or apocryphal books of strategic theory and practice.
6. On-the-spot NPCs invented to explain how or why the character knows a particular fact or has been to a particular place etc.

So, other then the ones where you want the players to do your DM work for you(I don't agree with that, but if that is what you like it's fine), how does a Railroad stop a player from doing the other ones?

The players and characters are railroaded along the adventure The Bandits of Bunglewood. A player can still make up character history, can still make up myths or make up NPCs they know. The railroad keeping them on the adventure does nothing to stop the players from making that stuff up.


I'd have a big problem with the hostile player of number five though. The player that like two hours into the game where the group is tracking down the bandits suddenly says "I want my character to abandon the adventure and the group and travel 100 miles to Footloose Port to learn how to dance". Nope, never in my game.