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

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Because in a book or movie or whatever, the media is consumed passively. There is no expectation that the reader or viewer can make decisions that will affect the narrative. If there was such an expectation, like, I don’t know, a choose your own adventure book, but all the “choices” lead to the same outcome, then we would have an accurate analogy. And I think anyone who bought that book would be rightly annoyed, as they really had no ability to choose their own adventure at all. Might as well have just been a regular book at that point.

It’s not the narration being unreliable that’s the problem, it’s creating an expectation of audience agency, but not actually delivering that agency, all the while trying to maintain the facade of that agency.
So, then, your argument is that an unreliable narrator in other media can never engender hostile or hurt feelings in a reader because they have no expectation of agency? That the belief in the correctness of the narration holds no relationship whatsoever to the belief in the expectation that any given choice mattered?

Your argument hinges on the idea that agency in creating fiction is somehow special. That GM dishonesty impacts that special agency in ways that are always negative. The problem here is that the GM is restricting agency in lots of ways that are not available to the players to know until they thwart action declarations. So you're calling out some subset of the restriction of agency as especially bad, but it only hinges on an honest argument, and one that doesn't apply if the GM is being dishonest through a NPC agent.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
So, then, your argument is that an unreliable narrator in other media can never engender hostile or hurt feelings in a reader because they have no expectation of agency? That the belief in the correctness of the narration holds no relationship whatsoever to the belief in the expectation that any given choice mattered?
My argument is that an unreliable narrator in passively-consumed media is a categorically different thing that a DM in D&D presenting false choices that don’t really matter. Like, it’s apples to streaming series. The issue is one of false agency, not one of… narratives… containing… falsehoods? I don’t know, it’s bizarre to me to even make the comparison.
Your argument hinges on the idea that agency in creating fiction is somehow special. That GM dishonesty impacts that special agency in ways that are always negative.
It’s not always negative. If the players are informed and consenting, it’s perfectly fine, even potentially positive. I don’t know how many times or in how many different ways I have to say that the problem is in the deception - in presenting a decision as though it will have an impact on what will happen next, when in fact it doesn’t.
The problem here is that the GM is restricting agency in lots of ways that are not available to the players to know until they thwart action declarations. So you're calling out some subset of the restriction of agency as especially bad, but it only hinges on an honest argument, and one that doesn't apply if the GM is being dishonest through a NPC agent.
Again, restricting player agency isn’t necessary bad in and of itself. What’s bad is trying to trick the players into thinking they have agency, when in fact they don’t.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.
Heh. When I was in Jr. High and High school, one DM I played with had a different distance issue. He was okay with where mountains were in relation to the city. His issue was that every single dangerous place, village, or dungeon was within 3 days of town. All of them. These poor cities must have been on the edge of extinction with all the nearby danger.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Heh. When I was in Jr. High and High school, one DM I played with had a different distance issue. He was okay with where mountains were in relation to the city. His issue was that every single dangerous place, village, or dungeon was within 3 days of town. All of them. These poor cities must have been on the edge of extinction with all the nearby danger.
1658284022299.jpeg
 

Remathilis

Legend
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.
As a side effect: are you also against DMs fudging rolls or modifying encounters in the PCs favor? For example, calling a nat 20 a regular hit rather than a crit to avoid killing a PC outright, or secretly lowering a monster's HP because you overestimated the CR of a creature? Or are you 100% play the die as rolled and if it's a tpk, so be it?
 

No, Player choice is exactly what it sounds like. Do we go eliminate the goblins or go rat catching. Do we stop the hermit building the world ending machine or the vampire in his castle. If we pick one over the other, hopefully that makes the story different. And it wasn't just preplanned where there was actually only one choice.
Right, the big player choice in the game is the metagame "what will we do today". Ok, but after that there are no "big" choices.

I may not agree with Max about much, but he has the right of it. Deception is generically wrong. This is not an argument. This is a moral axiom.

Right. But then think of all the things in life where deception is OK. Performance Magic is pure deception, but no one says it's wrong. The vast majority of fiction used deception to shock and awe the audience, no one says it's wrong. Surprise Parties are common, and you often have to deceive the person it's for, and no one thinks it's wrong. A vast majority of games involve deception, and no one says that is wrong. The vast majority of team sports involve deception, and no one thinks that is wrong.
You do not need to be deceptive to create surprise. Others, like @pemerton, have shown examples. Further, as I have repeatedly said, there is a difference between fooling the characters (which results in players being surprised due to incongruity in their understanding of the fictional context) and fooling the players (which results in players believing things about the kind of game they're playing which are not true.)
It is impossible to fool, surprise or anything else "the character", as the character is not real.
This is a non-sequitur. You can tell the players “hey, I’m going to change things around behind the scenes so you don’t miss the cool stuff I prepped” without ruining any surprises at all. And there’s really no negative impact to doing so, so I don’t understand where all the pushback is coming from.
I don't get this at all. So the DM just says some random stuff and can get away with it because the players "agree" to it?


a real life example would be a 3e game.
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.
I can't remember the name of the town near the citadel but the PCs negotiated an alliance between the kobolds and the city... now I had to scramble no more could I just wing 'have sword will travel' the PCs were building a kingdom I didn't see coming. So I inserted a legend of an old mine where a great king long ago mines some super metal...
So, just to check that "suddenly improving" that the mine just happened to have some super metal is no Railroading as the players CHOSE to go there.

My plan at that point was to have the mine be mostly empty but have some hard to get diamonds and adamantine in 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.
At no point did I direct any of this game on rails... game 1 I did not imagine the Adder Knights forming a kingdom of Kobolds, Humans and Gnomes... if anything I WAS THE WATER not the PCs...
Right, you just sat back and let the players DM the game and made everything in the game that they liked. The players want X, and you rolled out the red carpet and said "ok". But I also notice there is no adventure here, it's just free form role playing. Your just sitting back and making the game reality whatever the players want.


correct... in order to not be a railroad you have to be willing to throw an adventure away. (hence why I said I DO railroad if we all agree to play an adventure like curse of strahd) the choices in game have to matter. if the PCs go a way the DM didn't plan the DM has to let them, and modify there world to adjust (and a lot of time this means not using things you preped and making stuff up on the fly)
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.

3. PCs are going from point A to point B and encounter 2 doors. But these PCs decide to do some research, through tracking, augury, interviewing locals, whatever. They discover taking the door on the right leads to a shorter, but more dangerous route, while the path on the left is longer but less dangerous. The group feeling rushed for time, takes the supposedly shorter route. They encounter an ogre vanquish it and move on. Would some in the group feel cheated if they found out that had they taken the other route they would have faced the same ogre under the same circumstances? I can see how they would!
Well, I can agree with this. IF the players take TIME and RESOURCES to look and plan ahead knowledgeably, then they can make an informed decision.

If you're playing you probably aren't going to be aware that you were railroaded. That's how illusionism works. Which in my opinion is what makes it worse than overt railroading. At least with the overt method I can see it and opt to leave the game, rather than continuing to play a game where my choices don't matter at least some of the time.

So if your having fun and enjoying the game, do such things matter?

There's no possible way to avoid that encounter.

The big question here is how and why did avoiding encounters become this big badge of honor player thing? How is choosing not to play the game such a big victory? A great many players would say encounters are a big part of the fun of the game. A lot of platers would much rather have an encounter then a "well nothing happens" for hours. So why is avoiding one a good thing?

The only way it makes sense is if the players are just hostile and are trying to ruin the game for the DM.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
As a side effect: are you also against DMs fudging rolls or modifying encounters in the PCs favor? For example, calling a nat 20 a regular hit rather than a crit to avoid killing a PC outright, or secretly lowering a monster's HP because you overestimated the CR of a creature? Or are you 100% play the die as rolled and if it's a tpk, so be it?
Yes, I’m against fudging, either in the PCs favor or against them.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top