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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
For me, placing a magic item just because a player has requested it is a type of fudging. If it makes sense the villain would have a holy avenger then place it, but if you're placing it because your paladin player wants one, that's not being a neutral arbiter.

But that's a wild tangent and I don't want to take the topic further off the invisible rails.
I hand place about half the items and roll the other half. I NEVER hand place an item that was requested. The world doesn't work that way unless they are actively searching out the item in fiction, and then there will be a chance they might eventually find it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
For me, placing a magic item just because a player has requested it is a type of fudging. If it makes sense the villain would have a holy avenger then place it, but if you're placing it because your paladin player wants one, that's not being a neutral arbiter.
Ok, I see where you’re coming from. For me, my opposition to fudging isn’t that it isn’t neutral, but that it’s deceptive.
But that's a wild tangent and I don't want to take the topic further off the invisible rails.
🤣
 

For me, placing a magic item just because a player has requested it is a type of fudging. If it makes sense the villain would have a holy avenger then place it, but if you're placing it because your paladin player wants one, that's not being a neutral arbiter.

But that's a wild tangent and I don't want to take the topic further off the invisible rails.
that seems weird... I mean I would feel that way if I gave random bear #17 a holy avenger to drop, but any place I put it, it will make sense.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
For me, placing a magic item just because a player has requested it is a type of fudging. If it makes sense the villain would have a holy avenger then place it, but if you're placing it because your paladin player wants one, that's not being a neutral arbiter.

But that's a wild tangent and I don't want to take the topic further off the invisible rails.
It's as simple as the character taking proactive steps in the world to see if there are indeed holy weapons of that sort. Perhaps they attempt to recall lore, use divination spells, or consult a sage. If it makes sense for the setting, the DM can say they exist and the player can have the character quest for it. That's not fudging or railroading in the slightest in my view.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
that seems weird... I mean I would feel that way if I gave random bear #17 a holy avenger to drop, but any place I put it, it will make sense.

It goes back to the random treasure tables early in the hobby. While treasure tables would slant what kind of magic items might show up in a given treasure, and would slant how frequently higher powered ones showed up, they didn't actually slant what treasures high powered ones would show up in. So you could find a basic +1 sword and a vorpal blade anywhere a magic sword showed up.
 

Which should be a sign that they don’t want you to do it. When people don’t want you to do something, the appropriate response is to not do it, not to do it anyway and try to hide it.
But, yet again this is not a universal truth.
Yes, because moving things around behind the scenes isn’t inherently wrong, what’s wrong is doing it without the players’ knowledge or consent. If you talk to them about it and they agree they don’t have a problem with it, then go right ahead, have fun.
But if the players don't know what your doing why does it matter? And why do the players get all this power to control the DMs actions?

cidentally, @bloodtide , this is exactly what I meant by not being respectful to your players. You are absolutely not showing any respect whatsoever to a player that doesn't want to participate in this kind of gaming. You are, in fact, actively putting down such players and painting them as nasty, mean, and petty. Is there any wonder, then, why I have said so many times that this is a matter of being respectful, and that there's a deficiency of respect going on here?
I don't see it the same way. The word "respect" is not one that you and I would agree on a definition of, just like railroading.

't know that the other side is up to trickery?
As I said, a lot of people are clueless and don't know. A lot of people.


Avoiding encounters started in Basic and 1e. But I never claimed it's some sort of badge of honor, big or otherwise. This is purely about agency, so why don't you address that instead?
It did? Can you tell me where?

Unforfunetly I don't know what "agency" is in your definition.

I'm not choosing not to play the game. The DM railroading me is preventing me from playing the game. Only through agency can players actually play the game. Illusionism fools the players into thinking that they are playing the game when they are not.
Well, I'm not sure your talking about playing the same game as I play. I can railroad hard and every has a great time on the adventure and loves it...even when they were "deceived" in your words.

Now the hostile "agency" group that avoids all encounters in the game and just sits around for hours is not playing the game.

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.
Well, "love" is a silly thing to do in a D&D game: if you real want to play a love game try Hearts RPG or some other such game. I wish there could be more honesty too, but too many players are so extreme to make it impossible.
um I'm not sure what you mean... I played the NPCs so I at least did SOME of the DM work.
From your posted story a couple of pages ago: Any ideas you had about the game you just tossed away. You did whatever the players told you to do. You were not even making a game together: they told you what to do and you did it.

I mean they adventured into many places, Im not sure where you get the idea of it there being no adventures.
Because you did not mention any?
You do realize that is what every DM does right?
No. Not every DM. Some DMs make the game for themselves and the players.

It goes back to the random treasure tables early in the hobby. While treasure tables would slant what kind of magic items might show up in a given treasure, and would slant how frequently higher powered ones showed up, they didn't actually slant what treasures high powered ones would show up in. So you could find a basic +1 sword and a vorpal blade anywhere a magic sword showed up.
I love this myself, and as I run an Old School type game always, I make it a feature. I embrace randomness.
 

pemerton

Legend
I literally don't get why people would care about effectively blind choices, especially if they would be fine with improvising or randomising the outcome. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Because they are assuming the tropes and procedures of "hidden board" gameplay, even when they are not using its underlying principles and imperatives.
 

pemerton

Legend
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.
I agree that the two examples you set out contrast strongly, but I don't think the contrast shows that the main issue is trust. I think the contrast shows that there is a difference between the GM playing by the rules - including the very local rules that have been established about a particular situation in the fiction - and a GM just making stuff up, especially stuff that is adverse to the players!

Classic D&D is replete with the sort of thing you describe - see eg the Appendices in Gygax's DMG, especially Appendix A and Appendices G and H. There are also the percentage chances of success on Augury and Divination spells. The game system these create, via their interactions, have a certain lottery flavour. And like a lottery, their fairness depends on the dice actually being rolled and the appropriate outcomes applied.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It did? Can you tell me where?
It encouraged you to steal treasure and get away rather than fight monsters, since monsters killed you and gave a small fraction of the XP that treasure did.
Unforfunetly I don't know what "agency" is in your definition.
You should try reading my posts sometime. I've been very specific about it several times.
Well, I'm not sure your talking about playing the same game as I play. I can railroad hard and every has a great time on the adventure and loves it...even when they were "deceived" in your words.
And the same thing would have happened with no players. It's only you playing the game when you railroad. Lying to your players and making them think they're playing is pretty bad.
Now the hostile "agency" group that avoids all encounters in the game and just sits around for hours is not playing the game.
No idea what you are talking about. You're creating yet more Strawmen, because that's not something I've ever said.

For all that you just said, you still evaded everything. Do you have a real response for an argument that I've made?
 

pemerton

Legend
And yet it is one of the few pieces of advice that is 100% consistent through ALL editions of D&D.
This isn't right. Moldvay Basic doesn't tell the GM that they can't be guilty of cheating. Quite the opposite - there is a lot of advice on how to be fair and balanced. I believe that Mike Carr gives similar advice in the intro to module B1. And Gygax in his PHB and DMG absolutely assumes that the GM will stick to their prep, and gives detailed explanations of when a GM might depart from random rolls for content determination (wandering monsters and finding secret doors) - clearly a great deal of thought has been given to the relevant principles, and there is no suggestion that a GM is free to depart from those willy-nilly.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top