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

this also reminds me of the player that my style REALLY rubbed the wrong way.

He played like 1 game in 2e with us but then didn't really play D&D (did do board and video games) with us until 4e. His first character was a super stealthy super perceptive investigator that had things that played off it... so I kept putting the pcs in postions where stealth and investigation skills helped. He made a comment once or twice but nothing really jarring, but that party had a single warlord as a healer and even then they mostly were the buffing warlord so they didn't have a lot of healing.

the 2nd 4e game he made a clerics with like every healing power you can imagine... and in that game he found not only did we get less healing potions then the campaign before but I also included lots of NPCs that needed healing. He also thought I had upped the damage of some monsters but that was more trying to balance out the grind and that I explained... but about level 13 he blew up out of game and yelled "We went from never needing healing and always needing stealth to almost no need for stealth and every game I am healing everyone... why are you punishing us for my character being good at my job?!?!"

I was taken aback. But worse still others said they saw where he was coming from and that just becuse he could heal 'as if you spend a surge' 5ish times a day and could help you spend surges with bonuses a dozen times per combat he should never run out of healing... but in the last 3 sessions he used all his daily heals every day.

"Um... I made the encounters, especially the towns folk needing healing so you COULD use your healing powers and feel like they were a worth while investment?"

but then he drilled in about his last character and stealth and I told him that was a PC choice... although an understandable one since we went for 5 light armor high dex characters to 2 light armor 3 heavy armor characters... stealth wasn't a good choice, but they could TRY to sneak past things.

but he then pointed out that we had adventures that we had side objectives that embraced stealth and that gave bonuses if we did stealth and were set up to make stealth the better choice.

Okay, so I took this to heart and set up a stealth style adventure for the next week... and everyone (including that player) were missrable. they couldn't make a stealth check even in the easy catagory, in general they were more str int and less dex... so anything dex related they just kept failing... I also didn't have a single plot point for a month have to do with healing or townsfolk/npc needing healing... but he still used his healing like crazy and by 15th level I had a little list I had made of how many times someone was 'down less then a surge' but got healed and how many times he used (I think it was called healing strike) and didn't have anyone that needed healing... it was a long list. I then reminded him that gale the genasi warlord would never heal anyone until they were bloodied, cause she DIDN"T have a lot of healing resources. I also pointed out that PC choices of useing healing was out of my hands...

that player remained friends but by the time 5e came around he wasn't playing D&D anymore.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mort

Legend
Supporter
this also reminds me of the player that my style REALLY rubbed the wrong way.

He played like 1 game in 2e with us but then didn't really play D&D (did do board and video games) with us until 4e. His first character was a super stealthy super perceptive investigator that had things that played off it... so I kept putting the pcs in postions where stealth and investigation skills helped. He made a comment once or twice but nothing really jarring, but that party had a single warlord as a healer and even then they mostly were the buffing warlord so they didn't have a lot of healing.

the 2nd 4e game he made a clerics with like every healing power you can imagine... and in that game he found not only did we get less healing potions then the campaign before but I also included lots of NPCs that needed healing. He also thought I had upped the damage of some monsters but that was more trying to balance out the grind and that I explained... but about level 13 he blew up out of game and yelled "We went from never needing healing and always needing stealth to almost no need for stealth and every game I am healing everyone... why are you punishing us for my character being good at my job?!?!"

I was taken aback. But worse still others said they saw where he was coming from and that just becuse he could heal 'as if you spend a surge' 5ish times a day and could help you spend surges with bonuses a dozen times per combat he should never run out of healing... but in the last 3 sessions he used all his daily heals every day.

"Um... I made the encounters, especially the towns folk needing healing so you COULD use your healing powers and feel like they were a worth while investment?"

but then he drilled in about his last character and stealth and I told him that was a PC choice... although an understandable one since we went for 5 light armor high dex characters to 2 light armor 3 heavy armor characters... stealth wasn't a good choice, but they could TRY to sneak past things.

but he then pointed out that we had adventures that we had side objectives that embraced stealth and that gave bonuses if we did stealth and were set up to make stealth the better choice.

Okay, so I took this to heart and set up a stealth style adventure for the next week... and everyone (including that player) were missrable. they couldn't make a stealth check even in the easy catagory, in general they were more str int and less dex... so anything dex related they just kept failing... I also didn't have a single plot point for a month have to do with healing or townsfolk/npc needing healing... but he still used his healing like crazy and by 15th level I had a little list I had made of how many times someone was 'down less then a surge' but got healed and how many times he used (I think it was called healing strike) and didn't have anyone that needed healing... it was a long list. I then reminded him that gale the genasi warlord would never heal anyone until they were bloodied, cause she DIDN"T have a lot of healing resources. I also pointed out that PC choices of useing healing was out of my hands...

that player remained friends but by the time 5e came around he wasn't playing D&D anymore.


Yeah, I mean players gravitate towards what their PCs are best at. If the party is stealthy, they're going to solve many more problems via stealth than a non stealthy party. If the party has huge charm, there will likely be more talking, negotiating, that sort of interaction. And if the party has huge amounts of healing they will, likely, be less risk averse in their problem solving and not shy away from confrontations and other dangerous situations - especially in D&D.

This will be as it even more true if the DM isn't designing specific challenges for the party as the party will almost certainly gravitate to solutions that utilize their strengths.
 

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!
yeah this reminds me of another arguement... this one me trying to set up a con game and running it as a playtest before the con.

the players had to get from A to B. there were 3 routes they could take. They could go up and over the mountain, that was the longest it would take almost 3 weeks. They could go through the pass this was the quickest less then a week. They could go through the woods avoiding the path entirely but it would take anywhere from 1-2 weeks depending on skill checks.

the PCs had the choice to try to get more into in point A, but by default they knew the pass was the most dangerous and the mountain was the least dangerous. SO they got to pick speed or safety. I then designed level appropriate challenges for each path. And again they had resources they could choose to use (but would take time) to get more info on any/all paths. BUT there was a timer of sorts. the thing they needed to get from A to B was a magic elixir that would heal a disease that was plaguing the town. One of the pregens was also a paladin that could help when he got there.

the argument was that I wasted too much time and energy making 3 paths. Since I would only be running this twice at most it would have 2 paths used and my home group bet anything that both would take the more dangerous faster route. At the very least just have over the mountain or threw the pass no one would be dumb enough (especially since no pregen was a ranger or druid) to try to trail blaze through the woods.

now we play tested all 3 paths anyway (even though they thought it a waste) and of the 2 times I ran it both in 4 hour slots... 1 time they never left point A. They spent the entire aloted time trying to decide. the other time they took the fast dangeus path, and TPKed.

so what do you think, was I wasting my time giving those choices?
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
yeah this reminds me of another arguement... this one me trying to set up a con game and running it as a playtest before the con.

the players had to get from A to B. there were 3 routes they could take. They could go up and over the mountain, that was the longest it would take almost 3 weeks. They could go through the pass this was the quickest less then a week. They could go through the woods avoiding the path entirely but it would take anywhere from 1-2 weeks depending on skill checks.

the PCs had the choice to try to get more into in point A, but by default they knew the pass was the most dangerous and the mountain was the least dangerous. SO they got to pick speed or safety. I then designed level appropriate challenges for each path. And again they had resources they could choose to use (but would take time) to get more info on any/all paths. BUT there was a timer of sorts. the thing they needed to get from A to B was a magic elixir that would heal a disease that was plaguing the town. One of the pregens was also a paladin that could help when he got there.

the argument was that I wasted too much time and energy making 3 paths. Since I would only be running this twice at most it would have 2 paths used and my home group bet anything that both would take the more dangerous faster route. At the very least just have over the mountain or threw the pass no one would be dumb enough (especially since no pregen was a ranger or druid) to try to trail blaze through the woods.

now we play tested all 3 paths anyway (even though they thought it a waste) and of the 2 times I ran it both in 4 hour slots... 1 time they never left point A. They spent the entire aloted time trying to decide. the other time they took the fast dangeus path, and TPKed.

so what do you think, was I wasting my time giving those choices?

If nothing else, your group learned decision paralysis Is a real thing!
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Three things...

I'm envisioning a show where the omniscient narrator knows how important every seemingly meaningless choice is. ("Ooh, should have gone to the lounge instead of your room in the dorm, now you'll never meet, fall in love with, and marry her." ::: hits erase button on a bunch of possible futures ::: )

Even if two doors have a stochastic ogre the first time, does having two doors sometimes make a building seem more realistic, and give options later (split the party or not, for example)?

It hit me that I don't think about building layout enough as a player or DM. Which door would go to rooms more likely to have windows, closer to the surface of the mountainside, to the sacred direction, etc... Feels like that should change things.
 

If nothing else, your group learned decision paralysis Is a real thing!
yeah... that group was 2 brand new players (they had only done 1 or 2 D&D sessions before this) 1 kinda new (like a year into D&D or so) and 2 Vet long term players... but they did 4 hours of nothing. I have had my share of go nowhere games, but normally it is 'too many options' or 'not enough options/want to find option C' but most common is the party is split on what to do. This blew everyone of those out of the water. They researched they debated, then they went back to double check, then one player wanted to see if he could get more help from the church (since it was an alchemist sending them) then another player asking if they went south (A to B was a northern trip) were there any cities that had teleport capable wizards so they could be safe and fast?
 

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.
Yeah, I totally get that using illusionism to frustrate the players' attempts to gain information might seem pretty questionable, but no one has suggested that, none of the examples in the OP are that. 🤷
 

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.
I think this a very good example to riff off of to better understand the distinctions that some posters are making.

Nothing in the above write-up precludes some of the techniques that have been described as an “invisible railroad”. So, for the sake of argument, suppose a campaign played out as described above BUT:
  • the GM made heavy use of “quantum ogres” to simplify their game prep; and
  • occasional use of some other “invisible railroad techniques”.

To me, the game is not a railroad. The characters have a high level of agency and their choices are meaningful.
 

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!
Let’s modify Scenario 3 a bit.

Scenario 3a. Same set-up, but if they take the dangerous route, they would have faced an ogre champion (ogre with max hp, increased AC, and higher Str, Wis and Int than a normal ogre), rather than the normal ogre.

Scenario 3b. Same set-up, but if they take the path on the right, there is a 80% chance that the ogre shows up and on the left, the chance is 20%. Players choose left, GM rolls a 15% on the die.

To me, neither of the scenarios are “invisible railroads” (though 3a is somewhat lazy GMing). There was a meaningful choice, and the players agency was preserved.
 

I think this a very good example to riff off of to better understand the distinctions that some posters are making.

Nothing in the above write-up precludes some of the techniques that have been described as an “invisible railroad”.
except the part where i describe that out of game I did not have tracks anywhere... in fact I was as supprised as my players on where the game went (and that is often the case with my style)
So, for the sake of argument, suppose a campaign played out as described above BUT:
  • the GM made heavy use of “quantum ogres” to simplify their game prep; and
except I didn't (not that I never do, it is a tool in my tool box jsut a rare one for me to use)
  • occasional use of some other “invisible railroad techniques”.
except for the parts where I showed you 'behind the screen' that I didn't.


I could have written a campagin about the Knights of the Adder forming and how they created there milky white light armor. I could have carefully channeled my players into making alliances and marrying my kobold queen, and bringing togather the land under there freaky half kobold offspring... but I didn't.

if you asked me game 1 what was going to happen I would have said "Well I am running this adventure first, so kill some goblins and some kobolds and these new tree things... then fight a big bad druid, then move on. Each city they come to I will just pre plan an adventure as I see how each game goes they will wander until they hit a level where they tire of that then find a place to settle down and either change the way the game runs or retire this world" at NO point would I have even GUESSED that campaign would end as it did.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top