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

Stalker0

Legend
No, I don’t think those are the only options either, I was saying the heavy use of procedural generation is the alternative to the heavy use of prep that the extreme anti-illusionism folks find acceptable.
My issue is the notion this is more acceptable because it’s “fairer” and not railroady as opposed to the DM doing it. And that is a trust issue.

The dm really holds all the cards, they create the entire world. At a whim they could rip apart the PCs plans and characters, and there is nothing the PCs could do to stop him. But the reason the game works is there is trust the dm won’t do this, that they will craft a story with the PCs and will arbitrate fairly (though not perfectly)

If the players want to see procedural generation because they don’t believe the DM will keep things fair…then the game is already lost.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
My issue is the notion this is more acceptable because it’s “fairer” and not railroady as opposed to the DM doing it. And that is a trust issue.

The dm really holds all the cards, they create the entire world. At a whim they could rip apart the PCs plans and characters, and there is nothing the PCs could do to stop him. But the reason the game works is there is trust the dm won’t do this, that they will craft a story with the PCs and will arbitrate fairly (though not perfectly)

If the players want to see procedural generation because they don’t believe the DM will keep things fair…then the game is already lost.
Yeah, I don’t disagree. To be clear, I’m not part of the extreme anti-illusionism crowd I’m describing here. I don’t care for the DM changing things behind the scenes in a way that steps on player agency, but I don’t believe all behind the scenes changes do that. I also don’t think improvising is the same thing as illusionism. I’m just saying, the folks who take such an extreme stance that the only recourse seems to be an absurd degree of prep… are also usually fine with random content generation.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah, I don’t disagree. To be clear, I’m not part of the extreme anti-illusionism crowd I’m describing here. I don’t care for the DM changing things behind the scenes in a way that steps on player agency, but I don’t believe all behind the scenes changes do that. I also don’t think improvising is the same thing as illusionism. I’m just saying, the folks who take such an extreme stance that the only recourse seems to be an absurd degree of prep… are also usually fine with random content generation.
I don't mind random generation, though it does sometimes leave something to be desired, because random. That said, it also doesn't take anywhere near an absurd amount of prep to not deprive players of agency. It takes next to none, really. You just don't force them down some preconceived rail that you want them on for whatever reason.
 


I mean I see no particular reason to not answer if asked, though I don't understand why anyone would ask or care. But ultimately I don't think it is the players business how the content is generated, so if the GM doesn't want to reveal that information, that seems fine to me.
As a raging egomaniac, I am more than happy to discuss GM-stuff and adventure generation (with the obvious caveat that sometimes, I cannot talk about things that haven’t been resolved).

In practice, in my three regular groups, such questions are extremely rare, to the point that I am more likely to bring up GMing than my players are.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don't think random generation is any better to the player agency (at least if they don't know the odds) than the GM deciding. In either case the thing is determined independently of the player choices. It of course reduces the GM's agency, but that's another matter.
Well, they should know the odds
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
I mean I see no particular reason to not answer if asked, though I don't understand why anyone would ask or care. But ultimately I don't think it is the players business how the content is generated, so if the GM doesn't want to reveal that information, that seems fine to me.

And it doesn't to me. Like I said before, that coyness on the part of GMs comes across to me these days as a possible sign of power-tripping on the GM's part; I don't see any real valid reason to hide it if asked.

As for choices, I agree in the context where the stakes are clearly presented, but games are full of choices that are not like that.

I just don't see much point in even presenting something as a choice if the choice has no meaning at all.


No one can even agree what it means. Thus I could no promise to not to do it even if I wanted to.

You can promise not to lie to people about what you're doing at least. I'll be honest here and say if you think you can't get people at your table to even agree on what that means, you've got a problem at your table with one or more people, one of which could be you.

I don't see need to be a jerk about it, but also I don't think comparing someone's gaming preferences to trauma triggers is perhaps the best idea. These are not a similar thing and comparing them seems to me dismissive of actual psychological harm.

Its not intended that way, but I also don't get to tell someone they have to react more positively to deception than they do to spiders.
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
let me tell you both why I might ask but why I have been asked...learning.

A lot of this is often the case. And of course, sometimes its just curiosity about a player whether you were actually up to making up something fairly complex on the fly. Not everyone is, and it can be interesting to them that someone else can pull it off.
( I might not be able to keep all the balls in the air with some of done in the past these days, but then, I did them when I was 35 not 65).
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top