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?

 

[Mort]

So its never good to have the "us vs them" argument, but my problem is I feel the "railroading is bad" crowd here is drawing a line in the sand that says, "there is no such thing as acceptable railroading....ever".

Whereas I have said several times that too much railroading, or railroading in certain cases, is absolutely bad, completely agree. But...there are exceptions.

Ultimately I don't know how to move the lines at this point. I've given an inch, and gotten no shift in return. So what do you do from there? heheh probably what we all should have done 10 pages ago and just let this go.... its not like one side is forcing the other to play under their "horrendous" DM style.

People's opinions tend to drift to extremes when arguing on message boards. If nothing else, most (not all of course) people aren't going to spend 20 pages on a middle of the road position, they'd drift from the thread.

Also, I think it's still a definitional issue - even after all these pages. I simply prefer railroading keep its negative connotation as a definition. Otherwise, the waters are just that much muddier as people argue "good" vs. "bad" railroading as opposed to the good vs. bad techniques involved themselves - and WHY some people have such a big issue (not that it's all THAT complicated - some people just place a very high value on player agency and consider any infringement verboten.)

Me? I'm fine just having a good time, and I don't get to play (vs. DM) nearly enough - so just about ANY style is fine as long as it's entertaining. But I do prefer knowing what style I'm actually playing.

And, despite a lot of naysaying in this thread, most of the various techniques used to railroad actually work fine when used out in the open and often actually work better since, out in the open, you are working WITH your players instead of against them (where against means trying to keep the techniques etc. hidden).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd say some of them absolutely are. I mean, getting real, when there's something people respond to in different ways, there's going to be some point on the line where the acceptable amount is "None at all."

Yeah, that's fair. It just is that with vague terms like "railroading" and "illusionism" that people cannot agree on, demanding "none at all" becomes rather tricky position. Like I said, I literally couldn't promise that even if I wanted to, because there is a good chance that they might consider something to fall into those categories that I wouldn't.

I won't eat pickles. No, not even a little, not in any form.

Perfectly understandable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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).

This is, as I have repeatedly said, the main problem.

If you (generic) as DM choose to use these techniques and get explicit affirmative consent to do so in advance (e.g. during session zero), then awesome. That gives folks like me a chance to ask you to please not, and if no understanding can be reached, we can break amicably.

But the OP, and pretty much every single person I've ever seen advocate for railroading (and fudging etc.), will either explicitly say "tell your players you don't do this even though you do," or will say "well players should just know that this is how stuff is done, I don't have to talk about it, everyone knows, there's no need to get consent." Even Crimson Longinus, who has become more clear that communication is actually involved in his stuff (as noted below), has spoken of how there's a one-liner reference buried deep in the DMG as justifying a presumption of player buy-in so actual communication can be skipped.

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.

There is a different lesson to take from this, one that doesn't dismiss the entire other side you don't grok as though it were a pointless waste of time: other people have (a) very strong feelings about things you don't, and (b) it can be difficult to predict, so (c) you should be extremely careful and do your best good-faith effort to actively discover what the players value and how important to them certain things are. IOW, learning from this that communication is not only important, but that one of the great responsibilities that come with the great power of the DM's seat. That it is incumbent on DMs to be highly proactive. Nobody's perfect and nothing is guaranteed, so there may still be issues. That doesn't mean the effort isn't important.

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

How am I supposed to say something--to even know there is something to speak about--if, as the OP repeatedly says, I am being TOLD that things are a certain way when they aren't? Or if I am not told such, but the DM is constantly concealing any evidence which might suggest the other way?

How can someone who has only ever heard propaganda ask hard, important questions about their government? How, for example, were the American people supposed to speak out against PRISM when the program was secret?

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.

Given the OP explicitly and repeatedly warns against such communication, I'm not sure how one can get this reading. And as I and @Charlaquin have repeatedly said, it is the false impression that is the problem, not the technique itself. The OP clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly refers to not only NOT communicating, but outright saying things which are not true and actively cultivating a false pretense for the players, actively avoiding any possible form of consent. That's where the moral issue arises.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Given the OP explicitly and repeatedly warns against such communication, I'm not sure how one can get this reading.

It does not. The guy literally published an article about it under his own name on a public message board. It is not a secret.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It does not. The guy literally published an article about it under his own name on a public message board. It is not a secret.

Except all the places he does. Such as (all bolding added for emphasis)...

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?

While this may sound like the evil GM speaking, I have my reasons.

channel players through an exciting adventure that just doesn’t have as many options as they thought it did.

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.

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.

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.

None of these statements make sense without the presumption of not only NOT telling the players that you do this sort of thing, but actively forestalling any possibility that they might realize (a term used repeatedly in the essay) that you're doing it. Explicit instructions to avoid certain actions or patterns, not because doing so makes the game better, but because if you don't avoid them, people will discover the false pretense, and likely become upset.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

None of these statements make sense without the presumption of not only NOT telling the players that you do this sort of thing, but actively forestalling any possibility that they might realize (a term used repeatedly in the essay) that you're doing it. Explicit instructions to avoid certain actions or patterns, not because doing so makes the game better, but because if you don't avoid them, people will discover the false pretense, and likely become upset.

The advice is to not overdo it so it feels they have no agency. Yes, it relies on the players not in the moment thinking in terms of this happening, but this doesn't mean that it is a secret in a broad sense that in the game everything may not always be what it seems. Like I said earlier, all that is happening is the GM making stuff up and describing that stuff to the players. But OP can of course answer himself what his actual communication with his players is, I can't know that.

I certainly wouldn't advice actively lying to the players. If you asked me to not use illusionism, I wouldn't say "Okay, I won't" and then do it anyway.
I would say "Can't promise that, mate."

 

[pemerton]

But let's look what is actually happening in the examples in the OP. They're GM making up stuff, and then describing that stuff to the players. That's it. And that is what GM is supposed to do.

That's not it.

In most RPGing, there are rules, including mechanical systems, and also principles, that govern what the GM makes up. Some of those are express; in many cases some are implicit.

The OP is advocating a particular framework of principles. They are not the only possible principles, not the only desirable principles, and for those who wish not to follow them are easily avoided.

The 'deception' that is happening is having the players to think that the world is independently and objectively existing, and not mutable and altered on the spot. But certainly that would be true if the GM would be just improvising this on the spot too? And certainly in broad sense the players are aware that at least some of the world actually is not predetermined (as everything never can be) and is just decided by the GM when relevant. So I really don't think that there is any significantly more nefarious deception going on here than in the general process of making some haphazard notes and stray thoughts coming across as real and existing world the PCs can interact with.

There are RPGs that involve the "world" not being predetermined, and that involve the GM deciding things when relevant - eg AW, DW, BW, 4e D&D - which do not require, and indeed eschew, the principles set out in the OP.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

It's.... It's all real, isn't it?

 

[Stalker0]

Yup. I think honestly the biggest problem in this sort of thread is that people who expect certain techniques or approaches just can't wrap their heads around the fact to some people it really is unacceptable. They end up seeing the other side as just being contrarian rather than being able to accept that they sincerely don't want to deal with it. I see this on a variety of topics when they come up.

Well that stems from the fact that this is a forum....designed for discourse. And discourse is not possible when two sides have intransigent positions.

Doesn't mean I can't understand the other side, but it just means there is nothing left to talk about.

 

[Maxperson]

So its never good to have the "us vs them" argument, but my problem is I feel the "railroading is bad" crowd here is drawing a line in the sand that says, "there is no such thing as acceptable railroading....ever".

That's because railroading is universally negative. It's literally forcing someone to do something against their will or tricking them into it through lies. If the players agree to it, it is okay, but then it's no longer a railroad and is simply linear.