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

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?
again just be honest... "Yeah no matter what door oger" or "I am making this up as we go" or "I have this dungeon and 4 more mapped out in detail" or "I am useing random encounters" but don't say "Im useing random" then really both paths have ogers or don't say "I had this mapped out fully" when you are making it up as you go...

and some groups wont care, they wont ask and they don't need to know... if no one asks and you never say that isn't a lie. But if you say or even emply you are one and the truth is the other you are a liar.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If everyone has agreed that the GM runs the game in the manner they feel most comfortable with, then no one is being lied to.
if everyone agrees there is no issue... the OP is all about not letting them agree but lieing and pretending you are a different style of DM.

I put 100s of hours into each world, and I have dozens of possible plot hooks... and I STILL need to make things up on the fly sometimes. I still change my plans/reality when a player puts forward an idea that is better... I just don't hide it when I do.
 

Cool, but you kinda sidestep the last part, here, which acknowledges this and then asks "ok, take that and consider that the GM is lying. What looks different on the player side?" The answer, I think, is nothing. So, then, what does that mean for the discussion at large?
To me, it depends.

Case 1: GM actually is lying (ie the players asked about the die roll and the GM misrepresented the results). Don’t do that. Seriously. I recognize that some proponents of invisible rails (such as Matt Colville) have supported this. My understanding is that none of the posters in this thread would support that, though I may be mistaken. I certainly would not.

Case 2: the GM is not lying, but the player does not know that. This goes back to taking steps to build trust, including being upfront with GM decisions and volunteering to roll in the open. That said, there are absolutely players that have great difficulty trusting the GM regardless of the GM’s actions.
 

I can lie to you easily and do both of those things in 5e. Stakes are often unclear, so die results don't provide the insight you might think, and me answering questions -- I can say a lot of things. Unless you're looking for receipts, and I'm not sure that survives at the social contract level.
The starting point with people I play with, either as a player or a GM, is a certain level of trust. There are certain steps you can take to maintain or improve that level of trust, and I am always curious to hear more.

If that level of trust isn’t present, I’m not going to play with you in the first place.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Of course the GM should be honest. Everyone should be honest. Honesty is pretty universally regarded as an important virtue.

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.
I suppose that you have similarly strong viewpoints about other media that may use unreliable narration techniques? That's certainly a thing you can like, but calling it universal seems a bit presumptuous.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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?
Again, improvising is planning and executing simultaneously, so whether or not improvising is invisible railroading depends on what you planned, same as with pre-planned content. Invisible railroading involves presenting a choice that is ostensibly meaningful but manipulating things so the results are the same no matter what the players choose. So, if you improvise a decision and plan for the result to be the same either way, that’s invisible railroading. If you improvise a decision and plan for different results (or plan to improvise different results) depending on what the players choose, that is not invisible railroading.
If everyone has agreed that the GM runs the game in the manner they feel most comfortable with, then no one is being lied to.
But, again, invisible railroading is presenting a choice as meaningful that isn’t actually meaningful. That is lying, unless you have explicit consent ahead of time. A general “sure the DM can do whatever they want” is not explicit.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
The starting point with people I play with, either as a player or a GM, is a certain level of trust. There are certain steps you can take to maintain or improve that level of trust, and I am always curious to hear more.

If that level of trust isn’t present, I’m not going to play with you in the first place.
Ok. My point is that this 'trust' is entirely based on faith, can be abused easily, and there's often no way to tell -- you cannot tell if it's truth or deception in most of how 5e plays out. So it's an article of faith, then. Do you play with strangers often, or just with a home group? How do you work with this trust when playing with strangers?

These are things being asked to generate thought, not to prove a point. I'm finding a lot of the hardline stances taken in this thread to be odd, in that they only rely on faith for their operation. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but it would be nice to see it acknowledged.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
To me, it depends.

Case 1: GM actually is lying (ie the players asked about the die roll and the GM misrepresented the results). Don’t do that. Seriously. I recognize that some proponents of invisible rails (such as Matt Colville) have supported this. My understanding is that none of the posters in this thread would support that, though I may be mistaken. I certainly would not.

Case 2: the GM is not lying, but the player does not know that. This goes back to taking steps to build trust, including being upfront with GM decisions and volunteering to roll in the open. That said, there are absolutely players that have great difficulty trusting the GM regardless of the GM’s actions.
How do you feel about fudging?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I suppose that you have similarly strong viewpoints about other media that may use unreliable narration techniques? That's certainly a thing you can like, but calling it universal seems a bit presumptuous.
Huh? No, unreliable narration is a literary technique. That’s a totally different form of media that audiences engage with in a completely different way than they do with D&D.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Huh? No, unreliable narration is a literary technique. That’s a totally different form of media that audiences engage with in a completely different way than they do with D&D.
You'll need to make that clarification clear for me. How is a GM presenting information that is false to drive an outcome different from an author presenting false information to drive to an outcome different? Just pointing out that it exists in different media is not sufficient to support your claim. Fundamentally, we're talking about false presentation of information with a different future outcome in mind.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top