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

Thomas Shey

Legend
Yeah, I have never understood the desire to stay so "in character" that some players and GMs won't talk about their preferences and concerns like adults. Instead, they insinuate things in play and then get frustrated when the other party doesn't pick up on their cues or whatever. It's weird.

There's a lot of little quirks like this in the hobby. The people who insist everything you say during the game be IC don't make any more sense to me; besides it feeling really artificial, it makes it hard to present things with clarity in many cases.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
It feels like there is a lot of ground between "getting the story the DM wants no matter what" and having "a.non-zero chance the party never runs into anything interesting because they kept choosing places things weren't or dies because they run into something really dangerous by happenstance."

What's the best way to have a consistent game world where the later isn't a problem, but the DM doesn't do anything at all to tip the scales?

I think if you do even a little contingency planning, worrying about a consistent tendency to find the dullest spots and ignore all the more interesting is either an indication that you've got a player group who's actually resisting doing anything interesting (in which case its time for an out-of-character discussion about what you're all there for) or you're spending too much energy pre-planning for a low-incidence event.
 

There's a lot of little quirks like this in the hobby. The people who insist everything you say during the game be IC don't make any more sense to me; besides it feeling really artificial, it makes it hard to present things with clarity in many cases.
I had this whole argument here on enworld about 'declaring actions' that someone can't just say what they are trying for they have to say what in game action (in some cases in general but in some cases needing real specifics) like it's not just a bunch of us being buddies talking around a table.

I have heard people at cons and on this site say they have kicked people from game for 'breaking character'

mean while at my games we all talk about 'how can we do this?' and interrupt because someone remembered they just saw a new trailer, and sometimes when a DM forgets a rule they ask the players "Wait how does X work again" and we only ask someone to repeat/rephrase if for some reason we don't understand... if we get the gist that's enough.

I will say though I have stopped game to ask "What is it you are trying to find/do?" when a player starts going in a way I don't understand.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
, I also think sometimes when teh PCs keep trying to find a short cut "Why can't we give it to the elder god, why can't the egales fly us there, why can't I give it to the immortal elf queen of beuity and goodness, why can't I XXXX" the correct answer for the DM is to sometimes say "Okay, you give it to X and they handle it for you" then move on to another story beat.

The problem is, if you find them that persistent about it, there's no assurance the same thing won't happen with the next. Sometimes players really act like they're not there to, well, play, at least not in any way that does anything interesting.

Were I sometimes have to say "Out of game, I want you to say no" a great example is a Ranger I played in 2e. He just wanted to be a farmer... every thing he said or did was about wanting to 'go home and own a farm' and things kept coming up. I kept reassuring the DM out of game... Yes Grant the character wants to be a farmer, Rob the player wants you to keep making me be a hero instead"

Though honestly, if he spends too much time in-game doing that, there's always a question if he's offloading too much of the effort of keeping his character in play on the GM.
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
I had this whole argument here on enworld about 'declaring actions' that someone can't just say what they are trying for they have to say what in game action (in some cases in general but in some cases needing real specifics) like it's not just a bunch of us being buddies talking around a table.

I have heard people at cons and on this site say they have kicked people from game for 'breaking character'

Yeah. To be clear, my reaction to that would be "No great loss."

mean while at my games we all talk about 'how can we do this?' and interrupt because someone remembered they just saw a new trailer, and sometimes when a DM forgets a rule they ask the players "Wait how does X work again" and we only ask someone to repeat/rephrase if for some reason we don't understand... if we get the gist that's enough.

I will say though I have stopped game to ask "What is it you are trying to find/do?" when a player starts going in a way I don't understand.

I can understand a certain desire to avoid massive side-discussions and the like, but the only-IC speaking, at the most generous, absolutely favors certain approaches to gaming as though they were intrinsic virtues rather than matters of taste, and its worst, is a clear attempt to set someone up for a gotcha.
 

The problem is, if you find them that persistent about it, there's no assurance the same thing won't happen with the next. Sometimes players really act like they're not there to, well, play, at least not in any way that does anything interesting.
I have never found a full group that didn't latch onto something. I have had individual player thought that feel like that.
Though honestly, if he spends too much time in-game doing that, there's always a question if he's offloading too much of the effort of keeping his character in play on the GM.
I don't know I was willing to run with "Can't go home gotta help these villagers, but after that..." followed by "Can't go home my buddy needs help with the castle, but after that..." it even ended up with 3 diffrent high level adventures where I promised 'this is teh last time' just to have the DM rope me into the next plot. I wasn't being abusive about it... it was more a running joke that my (2e) 5th level ranger dueled into 12th level wizard just wanted to go home and be a farmer...

btw I did. The end of the campaign I went and bought the land I grew up on and built a farm and raised a family... while my advtureing buddies became kings, arch wizard advisors, the avatar of nature itself, and the necromancer rulling a city of the dead in the underdark... I lived on a 12 acer farm
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I have never found a full group that didn't latch onto something. I have had individual player thought that feel like that.

I've seen it. Its baffling.

I don't know I was willing to run with "Can't go home gotta help these villagers, but after that..."

That's a little different; all that does is exclude some motivations from his set to adventure, but it doesn't mean the GM has to go through backflips to keep him play.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
I'm just here to see all the badwrongfun replies and wasn't disappointed.

I'm all for different experiences and that different groups have vastly different playstyles preferences, whatever.

But when an article actually has a BIG section essentially stating - don't get caught doing this - your players won't like it and will probably take it badly?

Then yeah, That IS an indicator that the proposal might be badwrongfun.
 

Dragonsbane

Proud Grognard
Personally, I find this advice not what me or my players would want. Matt Coleville said in one of his videos that when he gives the players 3 choices of which way to go, sometimes they always lead to the same place. Wow. Talk about zero player agency. I told my players about it. One said "If I found out you were ever doing that, I would never play." The others nodded. I wonder what Matt's players thought about it. "Which way do you go?" Doesn't matter! Seriously, DMs need to be trusted. I would never do this at my table, but if this makes your game fun, more power to you. I say this in the most polite and non-insulting way, stating this as intent on forums can be misunderstood. I am in no way telling people how to have fun, just disagree with the OP on that point and player agency.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top