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

pemerton

Legend
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. o_O


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.
If the GM's improv, or random rolls, negate prior player choices and outcomes, then that would be a problem too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





So, I use all this as a non example. ONE player decided to do a silly "love" plot and the other players choose to join with the kobolds. Ok, so this has nothing to do with the Sunless Citadel adventure: the DM can run the game through a hard railroad and the players choices have nothing to do with that.
first what makes the plot silly?
second your right you CAN run the game on hard rails or the soft rails suggested by the OP. I just think you need to be honest about it.
So you had a plan and changed it based on some random stuff the players said. So, because the players randomly said something this is not a railroad. That makes no sense.
I didn't force the players into my way of doing things... int that case I didn't even make the world only me... we all made this world, this story. I'm not saying you have to do what I did, I'm not even saying that you should... heck I don't always do it this way. but I was defending myself cause I was told I still railroad. and again... I didn't even say I never railroad, I said I do sometimes it's just rare, and when I do I don't lie about it.
Right, you just sat back and let the players DM the game and made everything in the game that they liked.
um I'm not sure what you mean... I played the NPCs so I at least did SOME of the DM work.
The players want X, and you rolled out the red carpet and said "ok".
yeah... cause we were all friends, and so I didn't see a reason not to... I still don't
But I also notice there is no adventure here, it's just free form role playing.
I mean they adventured into many places, Im not sure where you get the idea of it there being no adventures.
Your just sitting back and making the game reality whatever the players want.
You do realize that is what every DM does right?
I disagree. If the players are going to just toss the adventure away on a whim, then they can find another DM. This is not about player choice, this is about not being a jerk.
I covered this before... we don't allow jerks to do that. We often just have the soft rule being "If your character doesn't want to play in this campaign, they can go out on there own and you can make one that will"

I have 0 intrest in fighting with jerk players anymore. I am too old for that.
 

So, I wasn’t going to say it, because I don’t want to put words into people’s mouths. But, since Bloodtide said the quiet part out loud, I’ll quote them.

^ This? This is why it’s so hard. People recognize, maybe consciously, maybe unconsciously, that some of their players probably wouldn’t like it if they knew their DM was doing this, and might not want to play in that game any more.
that is why the op needs the rails to be invisable... cause they would have players stop trusting them if they saw it.
 

that is why the op needs the rails to be invisable... cause they would have players stop trusting them if they saw it.
I don't think it is that.

It's just that if you want to craft an illusion of a vast mysterious forest the characters can wander in, with countless strange things the they can meet and discover, it kinda works better if you don't outright tell them that there are actually just three mysterious things and the characters are guaranteed to stumble upon them all, as that's all you had the time to prep... 😅
 

Well I am not a PC, I'm a real person in the real world.
but I assume you control PCs in the past and will again in the future.
If I was playing a character in a RPG, then one thing I might do is declare that my PC undertakes research. Whether or not the game is a railroad depends on a range of things: where is my reason for undertaking the research coming from?; and how is the outcome of my research resolved?.
and again... why do you assume it ISN'T the players choice?!?! I can't list 500 different actions that the player COULD declare. This post would just take 6 days to read and longer to write.
When you say "I know", what you mean is I have decided. Because the shared fiction has no independent existence as an object of knowledge.
correct I dexided... cause I know that what really happened didn't have to do with that tree.

Lets take a game I have pitched before but not actually run yet (it's in my to be played pile) where there is a mostly human kingdom that flourished until a king married and elven woman as his second wife after his first died in child birth... since then it has been hundreds of years of her rule as queen as both the pure human royal line (from that kings siblings and his children with first wife) and his half elf descendants with her all grew up had families and grew old... so now as she is sick there are A LOT of claimants to the throne and being a human kingdom this has never happened before.
That is the general idea. The specifics will change based on who is playing and what they are playing (and adding to the world) but one of the plots I have in my head is the question of if the 500 year old elf is really just getting sick or if she is being MADE to be sick. Since this is only a rough idea I can't admit to having the answers now... but I will by the time game 1 or 2 kicks off. If I decide she was poisoned by coronial mustard then there is no clue to be found in any trees.... because neither mustard or elf would have been in the tree. BUT if a PC chooses to climb a tree I wont tell them not to or that they can't, I will just tell them there is noting up there and move on...
So what is happening here is that a player is declaring an action; the GM has already decided the outcome (ie nothing useful happens); and the GM is not telling the player that straight-up, but rather is allowing the player to proceed as if the search for the clue, door, etc is meaningful.
because the search IS meaningful... I don't understand why "you find nothing" isn't an answer!!? I have people on these boards tell me all the time that if a 8 str no training no equipment character declares they climb a deadly cliff but there is nothing on top I am supposed to let them auto succeed instead of roll... but then (and mostly different but sometimes same people) claim that once they get to the top something MUST be there...
That seems to fit the definition of "railroading" and "illusionism" being used in this thread.
not even close. letting a player do what they want is never railroading... telling them what to do (either by trickery or just out right) is. And the illusionism here is nothing like the hidden rails... I am not directing there choices I am infact letting them go anywhere they want no rails. I have even said that if they go far enough afield (And trust me players will) I will gently but honestly tell them they are on a dead end... BUT they ALWAYS have the choice to stay on the dead end... the best part is when they go chaseing a dead end and find a whole different plot.
THis is why I very rarely make it a dozen games into the campaign without at least a few major surprises TO ME THE DM.
I'm responding to what you (and others) are posting. As I posted, the default presentation of 4e D&D is not railroading (eg in the rules for resolving a skill challenge, there is no provision for a check to find a clue to fail just because the GM has decided that there is no clue to be found).
there actually is... reread the skill challenge, the DM decides if an action or skill is appropriate (and again the going joke from the time Tony 'did a push up for insight') in fact one of the very examples was that during a negotiation you can declare all intimidate checks to count as fails without a roll if you decide that intimidating isn't what is needed.
If the default approach to 5e is to run it as a railroad, that would of course be an interesting state of affairs.
I don't think it is. I think the defualt of many published adventures for every edition is though.
 

I don't think it is that.

It's just that if you want to craft an illusion of a vast mysterious forest the characters can wander in, with countless strange things the they can meet and discover, it kinda works better if you don't outright tell them that there are actually just three mysterious things and the characters are guaranteed to stumble upon them all, as that's all you had the time to prep... 😅
well I don't know the players that think that you or I as a DM sat down and planned out 5,000 possible things in the woods... so I don't see why you would lie and pretend you did.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top