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?

 

[Medic]

So I'll ask "what is wrong with railroading?" Other then you don't like it. And other then some moral high ground to say "all lies, deception and such are always wrong", because that is not true.

Y'know, I've seen a lot of wacky things in my lifetime, but this has got to be the first time I've seen someone use a discussion about tabletop role-playing as a venue to endorse the Noble Lie™.

Odd, I see a lie and lots of deception there. So a PC knew some vague information you carefully sculpted to hide what was going on? Notice how you BLATANTLY hit the part about the NPC doing experiments with the Alien(TM). Just let that part out? Just "randomly decided" that "somehow" the PCs did not know about it? And why did you not tell the PC? Was it to not ruin the surprise? DM: "oh the NPC in sick bay is doing dangerous reckless Alien(tm) experiments with no security protections."

I think for forgot the "surprise" part in the second story. Unless your saying the the "surprise" was the brother was evil? But that is only a surprise if the brother was never mentioned before and the player had no chance to learn anything about them.

In the first example, the player in question possessed all of the knowledge they needed to determine the truth of the event ex ante; if we get pedantic, it's not even a lie by omission, because none of the requisite information was concealed such that it could never be found by a sufficiently curious player.

The second is not an example of a GM denying the player information, but the character's own failure to come to the correct conclusion as adjudicated by the GM. So no, this isn't a lie either.

 

[pemerton]

I see a lot pre made adventure always badwrongfun and an improv adventure is super cool. It also seems like the player "choice" seems to be all about the random "like real life" type games popular on line where a character just does normal stuff like shopping and laundry.

Prepared material doesn't have to be railroading. Is it used for framing? Or it used to dictate/negate consequences?

If the prepared material can only be used by deciding what happens next independently of what the players have their PCs do, then it starts to look pretty railroad-y.

 

[pemerton]

In the first example, the player in question possessed all of the knowledge they needed to determine the truth of the event ex ante; if we get pedantic, it's not even a lie by omission, because none of the requisite information was concealed such that it could never be found by a sufficiently curious player.

As a point of logic, Person X conceals information Q entails Person X knows information Q.

In other words, and putting to one side weird, deviant cases, you can't conceal what you don't know.

If it's not established, in the shared fiction, what the medical scientist NPC is doing in the sickbay - because no one has made it a focus of play - then there is nothing I (or any other participant) knows about that, and hence nothing to be concealed.

The second is not an example of a GM denying the player information, but the character's own failure to come to the correct conclusion as adjudicated by the GM. So no, this isn't a lie either.

In this case, the resolution system is clear: there is no established fiction about who made the arrows until someone authors it in accordance with the game procedures, and because it is a high stakes question - the PC wants his brother to be innocent! - the procedures don't permit unilateral GM authorship. The player puts the stakes into play by declaring the Aura Reading check, and again the procedure is clear: if the Aura Reading check succeeds, the player's intent is realised (so, in this case, the character confirms that someone other than the brother made the Black Arrows); if it fails, then the GM is obliged to narrate an adverse consequence (in this case, the PC reads the aura and confirms that his brother made the Black Arrows).

And as a point of logic, Person X lies about information Q entails Person X has acquired information Q. In this case, the player and the GM acquire the relevant information at the same time, and neither lies to the other about it.

 

[Charlaquin]

But why? Beyond some vague "it's generically wrong".

Quite simply, because some players - a lot of players - wouldn’t like it if they knew you were doing it. Do I really have to explain what’s wrong with doing something someone doesn’t like, while pretending not to?

For example, in order to surprise the players you have to hide things, be deceptive and such. They can only be surprised for real. You can't tell the players the supprie and then have it happen: it will fall flat. Real emotions are always better then fake emotions.

This is a non-sequitur. You can tell the players “hey, I’m going to change things around behind the scenes so you don’t miss the cool stuff I prepped” without ruining any surprises at all. And there’s really no negative impact to doing so, so I don’t understand where all the pushback is coming from.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I still remain puzzled by where people draw the lines.

GM framing stuff based on their prep. Cool!

GM improvises stuff on spot. Still cool.

GM has some prep, but decides on the spot where and when that prep is used. Deception!!!

I don't get it.


Like why it is cool for GM to improvise on the spot that there is an ogre behind the door, but not cool to decide beforehand that behind the first door the PCs open there is an ogre?

 

[Cadence]

I still remain puzzled by where people draw the lines.

GM framing stuff based on their prep. Cool!

GM improvises stuff on spot. Still cool.

GM has some prep, but decides on the spot where and when that prep is used. Deception!!!

I don't get it.


Like why it is cool for GM to improvise on the spot that there is an ogre behind the door, but not cool to decide beforehand that behind the first door the PCs open there is an ogre?

It feels like for some it comes down to whether or not anything Ogre-y has transpired yet. If the party is trying to avoid big monsters, does an augury, is cautious looking for signs or sounds, etc... and nothing matters then it feels a bit bad.

But it feels like that should be true of the random table too. Now I'm wondering if party actions should change results on those.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't see how the sort of decision-making you are talking about changes the game from railroad to not a railroad.

by giving them choice and the ability to choose is the opposite of railroading... the game isn't 'my game' it's 'our game' now the players have lesser control, I would say somewhere between 50/50 with the DM having 50% and the players entirely control 50%.

a real life example would be a 3e game. It started in the sunless citadel and a 'major' subplot is the goblins and the kobolds were at war. When the PCs decided that they would pick a side (kobold) and help them I quickly made a kobold queen. She was a half dragon (this was new i wanted to play with templates) and I figured this would be a 1 off for this low level adventure. However the ranger/sorcerer PC decided he fell in love with her (he was a human so icky). this then meant that not only did the PCs continue to come back to the citadel after the adventure... but they now how a vested interest in the kobold 'kingdom'.
I can't remember the name of the town near the citadel but the PCs negotiated an alliance between the kobolds and the city... now I had to scramble no more could I just wing 'have sword will travel' the PCs were building a kingdom I didn't see coming. So I inserted a legend of an old mine where a great king long ago mines some super metal...

My plan at that point was to have the mine be mostly empty but have some hard to get diamonds and adamantine in it (thinking in my head hard things grow together) but when the PCs got there and saw crystals one said "Hey, how do you forge weapon and armors out of crystals" and I would have written it off as a joke and explained they were diamonds but another player said "You alloy it... take steel work the crystals in while it is liquids and hot like you add carbon to iron." well there went my notes since that sounded way better. So I had to scap the adamantine and diamond and instead the mystic crystals could be added to a metal when forgeing and make them better... so i decided (mostly pulling from my backside) that the process would be master work (again as per those 3e rules) but would also have 'other' abilities that I didn't fill out and I was going to make the metal look white... but as I went to describe it yet another player asked "Wait like see through" and I decided sure... like a milky glass.
Now I 100% expected they would move some allies to the mine, and get some crystals and make some new cool equipment... of course the ranger/sorcerer decided the first thing to make would be a ring... to propose to his 'beloved queen'
Now because of the fact that the kobolds in the mod that started this had a white dragon, I decided that she would request scale armor made for some of her 'elite kobold guards' (spoiler not very élite) and the PCs thought it was cool and said they should all get clear/white scale and work in some of the discarded scales of the dragon and become like an adder... but the rogue pointed out that he wasn't going to get much benfit from scale armor. That is when I decided what the 'other' property of this new metal would be... making it allow armor and weapons to be lighter.

At no point did I direct any of this game on rails... game 1 I did not imagine the Adder Knights forming a kingdom of Kobolds, Humans and Gnomes... if anything I WAS THE WATER not the PCs...

Here are two reasonably well-known modules which are both railroads: Dead Gods, and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Suppose a GM asks their players to choose which of these modules to play: that doesn't make the ensuing game not a railroad.

correct... in order to not be a railroad you have to be willing to throw an adventure away. (hence why I said I DO railroad if we all agree to play an adventure like curse of strahd) the choices in game have to matter. if the PCs go a way the DM didn't plan the DM has to let them, and modify there world to adjust (and a lot of time this means not using things you preped and making stuff up on the fly)

Suppose the GM introduces two different hooks, one which leads to Dead Gods and on which leads to Expedition: that doesn't make the ensuing game not a railroad.

no but it doesn't mean they WILL be a railroad just that you have not shown how much the DM is willing to work... if that 1 choice is it... railroad if on the other hand (as I keep showing) the PCs make 100s of choices and most of them directly shape the plot the game and the world... that isn't railroading.

In your example, the adventure, research and quest all seem to be things that the GM has decided,

I mean It is more an assumption. how would you as a PC choose to do something if not to research it then go do it? that seems the most straight forward to me.

or will decide (eg you refer to your, the GM's, lack of having made up anything about vampires). The players are making a contribution about topic, but that seems to be it.

they have 100% control of what they do, they have limited control in the form of asking and suggesting (sometimes not even on purpose) things that are not under there control.

Again, everything here seems to be authored by you the GM.

nope... I just authored the basic back drop... what happens is based on what the players do.

As you describe it, the players are "lucky dipping" into your box of stories and seeing which one they pull out. Maybe they can throw aside one they don't like and have another draw. Is that what you mean by meaningful choice?

not luck choice. The PCs CHOOSE to do something and then I narrate the results... the things they care about get worked on more and things they don't care about get dropped. Not every choice is meaningful, but alot are.

I've already mentioned other ways of approaching play. There is the approach set out in the 4e rulebooks, where the setting backstory is shared (it's presented in the PHB, mostly under the entries for races and for gods), and players are encouraged to author quests for their PCs, and the system for resolving actions (both combat and non-combat) is transparent and player-facing.

and all of that is exactly what I described... go back and reread (or check out my I've always been playing 4e thread) please show me where you think anything I said contradicts this? Even to the point where my players can make up there own quest for a vampire that 5 minutes before they said it didn't exist.

Of the RPGs I know, the one that has the most robust and unrelenting implementation of the 4e approach is Burning Wheel. While 4e is not quite as robust nor as unrelenting, it still works fine.

Another well-known approach is that found in Apocalypse World and well-known spin-offs like Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, etc.

I do not play nor have I read any of those so I can not comment

One thing these approaches have in common, which is directly relevant to "railroading", is that the GM is not permitted to rule that a player's declared action fails just because, in the GM's imagination, the fiction makes success impossible.

now we are back to the skill thing... look if a Player tells me they climb the tree to look for a clue, and I know there is no clue up there they can climb all they want that doesn't make a clue appear. A Player who searches for a hidden door in a wall that is solid with no hidden door is not going to make one appear most times (I say most cause if a player makes a suggestion I like I may make changes but I am under no obligation to)
that is not railroading... now you can have a style where that IS true, that there is no hidden passage but the Player authors it into exsistence... I just don't think saying anything short of that is railroading is helpful at all.

Or to put it another way: these approaches do not treat the GM's unilateral, secret ideas about the shared fiction as authoritative.

that is still not rail roading... by your defenition every defualt game of D&D 5e is a railroad.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

You can not eat pickles.
You can order your burger hold the pickles.
I can eat pickles
I can order extra pickles on the side
I can ask when you take the pickles off your burger that the kid put on cause 'special orders are hard' if I can have them...

we can eat together, we can eat on different sides of the world.

You should NEVER have the option to tell me I can't have pickles...
You probably shouldn't be insulting or demeaning to people just cause they choose to eat pickles.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Prepared material doesn't have to be railroading. Is it used for framing? Or it used to dictate/negate consequences?

If the prepared material can only be used by deciding what happens next independently of what the players have their PCs do, then it starts to look pretty railroad-y.

how is this any diffrent then every example I gave you called railroading?

 

[Mort]

I still remain puzzled by where people draw the lines.

GM framing stuff based on their prep. Cool!

GM improvises stuff on spot. Still cool.

GM has some prep, but decides on the spot where and when that prep is used. Deception!!!

I don't get it.


Like why it is cool for GM to improvise on the spot that there is an ogre behind the door, but not cool to decide beforehand that behind the first door the PCs open there is an ogre?

For some it's simply this:

Was the DM honest with the choices (or lack of choices) presented? If yes, cool. If no, not cool.

(Hopefully) easy example:

1. PCs are going from point A to point B. They encounter a door. They open the door and there's an ogre behind it, they encounter the ogre. There was NO choice here to be impacted. Just an obstacle to be overcome. For me, this is fine.

2. PCs are going from point A to point B. They encounter 2 doors they could go through. They pick one at random - and encounter an ogre. For me, it makes no difference if the DM had decided that they would encounter an ogre either way ,(or that there was a 50% chance of ogre or whatever), because there was no real choice present. Heck there could have been 2 ogres.

3. PCs are going from point A to point B and encounter 2 doors. But these PCs decide to do some research, through tracking, augury, interviewing locals, whatever. They discover taking the door on the right leads to a shorter, but more dangerous route, while the path on the left is longer but less dangerous. The group feeling rushed for time, takes the supposedly shorter route. They encounter an ogre vanquish it and move on. Would some in the group feel cheated if they found out that had they taken the other route they would have faced the same ogre under the same circumstances? I can see how they would!

How would someone find out? Well maybe they wouldn't, but things have a way of getting out. I remember back in college (when everyone had way too much time) I had a roommate who was in a different group with the same DM I had. I don't remember anything like this coming up, but we did talk and sometimes even compare. If I had found out we had the same scenario, picked different options but had the exact same scene play out? Wouldn't I be justified in being a bit annoyed?