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


log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
But the example in the OP are basically like that. They're not about informed choices, they're just about random 'doors' that create an illusion of a larger objectively existing space. (The clue one isn't like that, but it also doesn't actually contain illusionism, so I'm not sure what it is doing on the list.)

I agree with you that messing with informed choices is generally a bad call. But that's not what's happening here. So it seems that we might not actually disagree, at least significantly. 🤷
The 10-room dungeon example contains plenty of informed decisions. Or at least it should, if the dungeon doesn’t suck.
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
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.

See my comments re "scar tissue".
 

The 10-room dungeon example contains plenty of informed decisions. Or at least it should, if the dungeon doesn’t suck.
It is quite possible that by your standards it would suck*. But it doesn't contain informed choices regarding direction selection, which is the part that is being illusionised. From player perspective it would be similar like if the GM randomly drew a new room from some deck of cards when the PCs decide to move to the next area. It's just that in this instance the GM has arranged the order of the cards. But even if they hadn't, the player choices wouldn't be any more informed.

(* And mine too. This would probably produce rather nonsensical space. But official D&D dungeons often are completely nonsensical, so that really isn't super relevant criticism. I suppose one could carefully craft the sort of rooms and the sort of framing for the whole thing which would make it seem sensible.)
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Though keep in mind, D&D (all iterations, as far as I'm aware) makes it VERY clear that the DM cannot be guilty of cheating while the players 100% can.

To be really blunt, at least without qualification, that position is not exactly the game's advice's finest hour.
 




Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
when you do slip up and get caught how do you think the players will feel?
About the same as when they think I've slipped up but I haven't. Like when they get ogres anyway because that's what the dice say just one time too many.

The argument that one way always fails and causes grief is unfounded. We can tell this because we have WotC APs, which have many moments that align to the OP, where the module tells you to engage in this kind of behavior. Heck, there's DMG advice about fudging that aligns here. So, if we assume that merely a large plurality run the game according to this advice, then there's a lot of games out there doing this. And they seem to be doing just fine. WotC, at least, continues to sell APs. So the idea that this approach always fails into acrimony is false on this account. Secondly, it doesn't even acknowledge that since the behavior is largely opaque to the players, that a run of bad dice behind the screen looks exactly like the kind of failure you're discussing here. Finally, discounting an approach because the overdone failure state has unfortunate characteristics is exactly like throwing stone whilst living in a glass house -- all game approaches fail at some level of degeneracy.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top