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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
You don't appear to have taken my point. I'm not saying you didn't say that, I'm saying that if this is so, then the argument is one from the principle that the GM should be honest.
Of course the GM should be honest. Everyone should be honest. Honesty is pretty universally regarded as an important virtue.
But, since there is not way to tell from the player perspective (barring GM error or overuse) then we have a principle that is only visible and enforceable by the GM on the GM. Is that really a useful principle -- one who's only watcher is the watchee? That's what I'm getting at -- it's a toothless statement of principle, one that can be made forcefully but is actually without any force.
This is exactly why I am so vehemently opposed to DMs using these deceptive tactics. The DM is the only one who can police their own honesty. That is a tremendous amount of power, and thus requires a tremendous amount of responsibility. D&D requires trust between the players and the DM to function, so breaking that trust is an egregious abuse of power and act of disrespect towards the players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Frankly, I don't even get why people care how the things were procedurally generated. If it indeed looks just the same from the player's seat, what does it matter? Stop worrying about whether we live in a simulation, if it feels real, it is good enough.
So it does matter if I lie as long as I don’t get caught? Sorry, that’s not something I can agree with.
 

Consider the ten room dungeon example. Then consider that instead of the GM having prepanned order of rooms like in the example, they're just improvising the whole thing. The end result is exactly the same,
I want to know this too.

I also want to know how well that DM is thinking through if they ARE planning.

I don't want to waste time thinking through "Oh there are only 17 orc warriors and we killed 14 so only 3 left" if I know the DM is just rolling random and doesn't care about number of orc warriors in a tribe.

I don't want to say "Hey, how is this mind flayer eating if he is 3 levels down" if the DM isn't the kind to think about it

I REALLY don't want to doe either if I know the DM is just pulling everything out of his butt.
 

Medic

Neutral Evil
I'm seeing a lot of "lie" going on, but from the player's perspective, what's the effective difference between making a choice blind and making a choice the GM is going to do what they want anyway? There's an argument floating that it's fine to have players choose a path if you then randomly determine what's there (some kind of procedural generation) but I don't follow how this affords any difference in agency or meaning to the choice. The only way that agency is increased is if there is some information about the difference between the paths that holds true. But, even here, there's some issues to be considered.

Let's go with the example from above (paraphrased) where going down path A there's an 80% chance of ogre and 20% chance of bandit and on path B there's 80% chance of bandit and 20% chance of ogre. Let's say that this information is even provided in a less mechanical way of "path A has way more ogres than bandits, and path B has way more bandits than ogres." This is a true statement. The players make a choice based on this, deciding they want less ogre and so pick path B. The dice are rolled and turn up ogre. Was there agency here? I mean, sure, risks and all that, so yes to that hypothetical, but here's the real question -- does it matter that there was agency from the player's perspective? They made a choice and the outcome was what they wanted to avoid anyway. How does that appear? Walk this through various iterations of play from where everything is 100% open and transparent to the players such that they see the %'s and the rolls and know exactly how it happened all they way through the vaguer statement and a roll behind the screen. Let's assume the GM is 100% honest in all efforts here -- no lying. In the 'behind the screen' version, does it matter if the GM is being honest? The appearance from the players is one where they can easily leap to the conclusion the GM Forced the ogre. And if the defense to this is "but you should trust the GM" then we need to go back and talk about occasional moments when the GM isn't honest and does Force the ogre and evaluate if there's actually anything different on the player side of the screen here.

I don't have preferred answers here (I have my preferences, but nothing says those are controlling). I'm not fishing for a gotcha. Legit thinking exercise. Approach with curiosity.
I don't really have a stake in this ongoing discussion, since my GM style is totally different than the one which seems to be the subject of this thread, but I'll try to offer some perspective on this by taking the scenario and moving the furniture around such that the stakes are actually meaningful.

The player characters finish clearing out a dungeon and enter a room full of treasure, wherein they find a magic lever. The party's wizard casts identify on said lever, and relays to the rest of the group that it is a magic device that has an 80% chance of conjuring a legendary magic item, and a 20% chance of flat-out killing the rube that decided to pull it. Boldly, the rogue makes the attempt, dice are rolled, and seconds later she's a pile of gore because the DM rolled a 19 on the percentile in front of everybody; pure bad luck. All of the information they needed to make an informed decision was present, the unbiased truth was right there where everyone could see, and it will probably be remembered as a funny moment going forward.

Compare this against a similar scenario, where the wizard's spell only reveals "there is a chance of conjuring a legendary magic item, but a small chance of being killed." The rogue, plucky woman that she is, still makes the attempt - but the DM has already decided beforehand that no matter what he rolls, pulling the lever blows someone up. The chance of success was merely an illusion! The only way to avoid the DM's ploy was to not engage with it at all. It's incredibly spiteful to do this, and will likely lead to several weeks of polite discussion on EN World.

Ultimately, it's a matter of trust. The players trust that the GM will be a fair judicator that impartially interprets the outcomes of what their characters do instead of a despot that subjects the group to their will regardless of what actions they take.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
As I posted to @FrozenNorth, the next step of the thought experiment is to take this answer about how you'd set it up in session 0 and now apply a GM willing to lie about it. What looks different?

There might not be a difference from the player side UNLESS the DM gets caught railroading (especially if it's egregious), which I have seen happen a few times. And it has not done wonders for the group!

As for set up in session 0 if you plan to use a lot of illusionism etc? 1. Ask the players if they care how the sausage is made. If they all say "no, not at all we just want to be entertained..." you're basically done. if some say yes then 2. explain that you might not always be upfront with how their choices ACTUALLY impact the story and go over what that means how comfortable are they with agency limitations (and to what degree).

If you're running published material, the talk might be a bit different. 1. Ensure everyone is comfortable staying within the confines of any given module and that's mostly it. You might also want to let them know if you plan to make significant changes (in case the player later wants to run the module or whatever), some players want the "authentic" experience and actually get miffed at too many changes (I've only ever encountered 1, but they do exist).
 

Improvising is just planning and executing simultaneously. There is nothing deceptive about it, the dungeon layout doesn’t change to enforce a predetermined outcome.
How does this make sense? Now we are in purely in invisible though crime territory. If I haven't decided what's on the left path and I improvise an ogre that's fine, but if I have beforehand decided that whichever path the PCs take there is an ogre there then it is deception? Even though I could have improvised an ogre on the right path too... How firmly I need to decide this for it to move from improvisation to deceit? Like if I have browsed level appropriate foes and noted that ogres might be good or watched Shrek on previous night, but not made any clear decisions, is that OK?
 


Frankly, I don't even get why people care how the things were procedurally generated. If it indeed looks just the same from the player's seat, what does it matter? Stop worrying about whether we live in a simulation, if it feels real, it is good enough.
it changes how I see the world, and my character interacts with the world...

back in 3e we had a guy DM who was not the best at it... but he was a friend and we tried to work with it. When one day he told us the size of the city we were in was more miles across then the state we live in (over 100 miles) we went bonkers... especially when it had a population of a normal D&D town... later we went into a dungeon and we had just traveled north from this kingdom size city but had not gotten to the mountains... when we came out the mountains were to our east... we came out the same door we went in, and there was no magic... so the guy trying to map (since the DM didn't map the world) started going a bit nuts with 'moving mountains'. It got worse yet a bit later when we took a boat from the eastern side of the super city less then a day west and somehow managed to make it to another city... when we pointed out we were still WELL inside the size of the city he labeled it he didn't know what to say.
Then came the dinosour... that ran through the gate to the center of town and to the ocean... remember this city was over 100 miles, so how long did it take the dino to do it... 3 rounds. 18 seconds to go 100 miles that is 6ish miles per second...someone figuted that to be about 22,000 miles per hour. when asked if there was a sonic boom he got mad.

now I have had 'nonsense' worlds... I had one with root beer geysers chocolaty trees and oxygen producing elves (they breath in carbon dyoxid and out oxygen the oppisit of humans) and I also casually dropped kryptonians invading into a 3.5 game, so lord know I am not going to falt someone for some bat poop crazy things... but you need to know what your character understands...

in ross's game he was making up as he went where cities changed sizes and mountains moved and rivers dried up into desserts over night it wasn't some 'oh this is a clue' there was nothing to figure out... he just had a poop memomry and was making it up. The poor guy trying to map that world I swear aged 5 years in the 3ish months we played
 


he party's wizard casts identify on said lever, and relays to the rest of the group that it is a magic device that has an 80% chance of conjuring a legendary magic item, and a 20% chance of flat-out killing the rube that decided to pull it. Boldly, the rogue makes the attempt, dice are rolled, and seconds later she's a pile of gore because the DM rolled a 19 on the percentile in front of everybody; pure bad luck. All of the information they needed to make an informed decision was present, the unbiased truth was right there where everyone could see, and it will probably be remembered as a funny moment going forward.
can I just say I feel like that rogue is every PC i have ever had in my games... or at least 7 out of 10.
Compare this against a similar scenario, where the wizard's spell only reveals "there is a chance of conjuring a legendary magic item, but a small chance of being killed." The rogue, plucky woman that she is, still makes the attempt - but the DM has already decided beforehand that no matter what he rolls, pulling the lever blows someone up. The chance of success was merely an illusion! The only way to avoid the DM's ploy was to not engage with it at all. It's incredibly spiteful to do this, and will likely lead to several weeks of polite discussion on EN World.
hey look at that it's a classic gary SOD that removes the save... another reason I would NOT want to play under such a dm
Ultimately, it's a matter of trust. The players trust that the GM will be a fair judicator that impartially interprets the outcomes of what their characters do instead of a despot that subjects the group to their will regardless of what actions they take.
this is also why if a DM does a lot of great things and is clear and upfront and honest I may even take the occassioanl 'or die' and just walk off the anger.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top