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?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What does it mean to "present something as a choice?" and what sort of meaning should it have? People say things like that like it was unambiguous, and I don't think it is at all.

CL, I think we've had enough positive interactions to know I'm not going to just bust you for no reason or because I consider you some kind of enemy, but I've got to tell you that at some point this starts to come across as deliberate lack of engagement.

Yes, sometimes it can be ambiguous. Many things in life are not clear-cut, but we still talk about them because ambiguity does not mean you cannot make effort to look at something and go "Does this look like it matters? Would it matter to me? Have I seen signs it matters to most players?"

You've described a situation. Whether you deliberately emphasize it or not, there's going to be things that that look like they might make a difference. People start to debate which of those they should do.

Is it that difficult when this happens to tell them "Whether you go up into the hills, down through the valley, or boat up the river isn't likely to effect much." Then they can decide if they want to spend time on it or just tell you that you're going to the other side of the hills and not worry about it and spend mental energy on something that is (at best, and maybe not even this) just about color.

Its not just about not being actively going "You have these four options, which one do you take?" when none of them matter, but not letting players assume there are decisions there which, in terms of anything in game play, really aren't.

Let's get back to my example of a day in the town and wild beast at the market. Was "what you are going to do today" a clear choice, and was the characters getting to do research in the library a sufficiently meaningful even if they couldn't avoid the rampaging beast at the market?

Was the research likely to be useful? Basically, would anything play out differently if they'd all stayed home and had lunch?

What about "What sort of clothes you wear?" "What spells you prepare?" "What you say to the bartender?" The game is full of choices that may or may not matter.

And you can tell people if that's true (if the mechanics don't already tell you that, which it does in the second case).

Oh, I'm sure I could have people at my table agree about it just fine. But not people here. And I am not lying about what I am doing. But when I say that it is ultimately my call as GM what techniques to use, then that is me being honest.

Of course it is. But is that a reason for someone else not to say "I think Technique X is a bad idea?" Or "I'd object strenuously to someone using this technique in a game I'm in?" If so, why?

And I say that even using words like 'lie' or 'deception' is an overreaction and ultimately insulting.

Again, honestly, the fact there are words that describe doing something (and if "deception" is not an accurate description of someone acting like a decision that doesn't really make a difference does, I'd like to know why) that seem insulting seems like a case of "If you find that word insulting, why are you doing it?" I mean, I get there's semantic loading being a thing, but its hard for me to think of a term to describe that process that isn't insulting if "deception". People pay to have stage mages decieve them. Their skill at doing sleight-of-hand (which is deception) is part of what people are there for.

So what word that actually describes the process would you find acceptable? And why does your feelings here matter more than those who dislike it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I get that it can come across as unpleasant for people to repeatedly remind you that they consider some of your GMing choices actively offputting, and the terms they use are going to likely be in some cases overinflammatory, but at some point its unlikely that someone is going to describe a process they dislike in complimentary terms, and often there's a limited number of words to work with that seem to actually describe a process.

But I think its kind of unreasonable not to expect that when someone presents a technique for actively deceiving people (which is pretty clearly what the "invisible railroad" of the title is) and have people not call it that. The question in the end, is if people want to be deceived. And as the stage magic analogy has tried to show, sometimes people very much do. But for people who don't, knowing whether its going to be on their plate is not trivial, and if folks who use these techniques can't accept that's true for at least some people, I really kind of don't know what to say here.

 

[iserith]

I mean, I get that it can come across as unpleasant for people to repeatedly remind you that they consider some of your GMing choices actively offputting, and the terms they use are going to likely be in some cases overinflammatory, but at some point its unlikely that someone is going to describe a process they dislike in complimentary terms, and often there's a limited number of words to work with that seem to actually describe a process.

But I think its kind of unreasonable not to expect that when someone presents a technique for actively deceiving people (which is pretty clearly what the "invisible railroad" of the title is) and have people not call it that. The question in the end, is if people want to be deceived. And as the stage magic analogy has tried to show, sometimes people very much do. But for people who don't, knowing whether its going to be on their plate is not trivial, and if folks who use these techniques can't accept that's true for at least some people, I really kind of don't know what to say here.

Right, I can absolutely make the case for using techniques commonly associated with railroading. It's pretty easy to see why DMs use them and how they benefit the play experience and reduce the DM's prep time.

The deceit, however, is where it all breaks down for me. I'm not going to do that. It's not justifiable when I have other options.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, I can absolutely make the case for using techniques commonly associated with railroading. It's pretty easy to see why DMs use them and how they benefit the play experience and reduce the DM's prep time.

The deceit, however, is where it all breaks down for me. I'm not going to do that. It's not justifiable when I have other options.

And that's a fine choice, but as I noted, some people don't want to see how the trick is done.

The gig is knowing whether all your players are on one side of that divide. And the only real way to know, is to ask (like I said, I make an educated guess because I've been playing with the same people so long, but that's what it is--a guess. Since I rarely feel a need to use illusionism, its not a big risk).

 

[Charlaquin]

How could they? What are the odds of a wild beast breaking loose at the market at the moment the PCs are there and how could they know that?

For the record, I didn’t think your beast at the market example was railroading. But, to answer your question, the players should know under what conditions the DM rolls for random encounter, how likely one is to occur when they do, and if/how they can affect those things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

CL, I think we've had enough positive interactions to know I'm not going to just bust you for no reason or because I consider you some kind of enemy, but I've got to tell you that at some point this starts to come across as deliberate lack of engagement.

I know that you're arguing in good faith and I feel it is unfortunate that we are seeming to fail to communicate here. But I assure you that I am not being intentionally dismissive.

Yes, sometimes it can be ambiguous. Many things in life are not clear-cut, but we still talk about them because ambiguity does not mean you cannot make effort to look at something and go "Does this look like it matters? Would it matter to me? Have I seen signs it matters to most players?"

The thing is, that it is the ambiguous stuff that the disagreement almost always is about. Like basically everyone agrees that it is generally a bad practice to present a choice with clear(ish) stakes and then have it not to mater. But when get to discussion of what it actually means in practice, the disagreements emerge. I assure you that I honour the player choices great deal, and bigger the stakes are more important I feel it is to honour them. I have let players to blow up entire worlds. But still in discussions here sometimes I find out that some people get hung up on stuff I'd consider trivial. Things that I would consider to be just part of perfectly normal GM framing powers are seen as deceitful illusionism. And the logic behind such complains often eludes me. There probably is one, and in fact several, as these people don't seem to even agree with each other.

Also, one other area where disagreement often arises is the level of fundamentalism regarding good practices. And some people are far more black and white about this than me. There are things that I consider to be good practices, (but aside Wheaton's rule type matters) I don't practically ever consider them to be absolutely binding. I'm wary of "a good GM always" or "thou shat never" type of proclamations. For every GMing principle I can think of there will be some rare edge cases when breaking it actually is the right choice.

You've described a situation. Whether you deliberately emphasize it or not, there's going to be things that that look like they might make a difference. People start to debate which of those they should do.

Is it that difficult when this happens to tell them "Whether you go up into the hills, down through the valley, or boat up the river isn't likely to effect much." Then they can decide if they want to spend time on it or just tell you that you're going to the other side of the hills and not worry about it and spend mental energy on something that is (at best, and maybe not even this) just about color.

One of course can say that, and if the players get stuck for a long time debating something trivial it indeed might be a good call. Then again, it also is calling attention to the artificiality of the game world and addressing the situation at the metal level, which is something I'm not a huge fan of.

Its not just about not being actively going "You have these four options, which one do you take?" when none of them matter, but not letting players assume there are decisions there which, in terms of anything in game play, really aren't.

Again, I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not exactly sure what "letting layers to assume it matters" means. Like I just describe the situation, and the players make their assumptions and choices. It is not necessarily even that GM clearly outlines some choices, they just frame the surroundings and the players decide to make some choices on their own initiative.

Was the research likely to be useful? Basically, would anything play out differently if they'd all stayed home and had lunch?

Presumably the players had some reason to assume that I would be useful, so yeah, it probably would be, or at least could be. I mean of course they might have been mistaken about something or fail their library research rolls miserably or something, so it is not guaranteed to matter.

And you can tell people if that's true (if the mechanics don't already tell you that, which it does in the second case).

Again, that is meta knowledge. Characters wouldn't know whether it will be relevant later, and the GM necessarily wouldn't know either. A situation may emergently lead to a place where choices that seemed to be pretty trivial turn out to matter.

Of course it is. But is that a reason for someone else not to say "I think Technique X is a bad idea?" Or "I'd object strenuously to someone using this technique in a game I'm in?" If so, why?

I've been saying that this is exactly what they should say if they feel that way! The we figure out whether we can align our preferences or not. And for example based on this tread I can see that there are some people with whom I couldn't come to an understanding.

Again, honestly, the fact there are words that describe doing something (and if "deception" is not an accurate description of someone acting like a decision that doesn't really make a difference does, I'd like to know why) that seem insulting seems like a case of "If you find that word insulting, why are you doing it?" I mean, I get there's semantic loading being a thing, but its hard for me to think of a term to describe that process that isn't insulting if "deception". People pay to have stage mages decieve them. Their skill at doing sleight-of-hand (which is deception) is part of what people are there for.

So what word that actually describes the process would you find acceptable? And why does your feelings here matter more than those who dislike it?

Illusionism is badly defined, but I don't think it as a term is insulting. Even railroading that tends to have rather negative connotations is less of a value judgement than "lie."

I understand that some people don't like these techniques, and communication is good idea. But also absolutely nothing suggested in the OP is something that the GM under the rules of D&D wouldn't be allowed to do, which of course is not the same than this being the only proper way to play. And sometimes gaming presence mismatches happen. What I don't like is turning such into a matter of morals rather than of taste.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For the record, I didn’t think your beast at the market example was railroading. But, to answer your question, the players should know under what conditions the DM rolls for random encounter, how likely one is to occur when they do, and if/how they can affect those things.

This indeed makes the system gameable, which gives the players agency. Though such knowledge might sometimes be hard to justify from in character perspective. I know you're not that fussed about such things, but many people are. I definitely am.

 

[G R (grizzyGR)]

This is a great article and I'm surprised how many are commenting that they don't like this idea. I mean, what's next? Will you be upset when you learn your DM just made up everything?

 

[Charlaquin]

This indeed makes the system gameable, which gives the players agency. Though such knowledge might sometimes be hard to justify from in character perspective. I know you're not that fussed about such things, but many people are. I definitely am.

It’s almost like you should talk about these sorts of things with your players beforehand, so you’re on the same page regarding what everyone is and isn’t ok with.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s almost like you should talk about these sorts of things with your players beforehand, so you’re on the same page regarding what everyone is and isn’t ok with.

Sure. We are.