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?

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?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’ve had to resort to invisible railroading on occasion and it’s never been a problem for me or my players. If you’re having fun in a game and realize during the game that your on an invisible railroad and become crappy about it, that’s on you. You are ruining the fun you were having by holding onto your idealized version of D&D. How about just enjoy the fun while your having it?

Frankly, this is a cheap excuse to write off people who don't like being lied to about what's going on. Don't want people to respond negatively? Tell them you'll do it upfront. If you're unwilling to do that, you have no right to complain when they don't like it and tell you so--you asked for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t think secretly feeding people rats is really equivalent to invisible railroading.

You're not the one who has a right to the judgment.

 

[Oncewasbenji]

If all doors lead to the same place, why have three doors? If you had one, the story would.move quicker and be more honest. The three doors aren't about creating a meaningful choice there. They are about covering something up. And why are you covering it up? Becuase you know that this is a disingenuous way to design and run. You can run a game any way you like but I personally have decided not to be in future games run by dms who espouse this method when talking to me as a 'dm equal'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I always think of fudging as not obeying the die roll...

In that case, if it's "I didn't use what the die said" in literally any situation ever, then yes, I do """fudge."""

I just never, ever "fudge" in a way that is all three of (a) secret, (b) not learnable by the players, and (c) actually affecting the results of play. So if I do it openly, I don't consider that fudging...because there's nothing untoward going on, players know what's up. Or, if I do it "secretly," but in such a way that the players can tell SOMETHING is going on, and by digging deeper they can learn exactly what is going on and how to counter it, that's also fine. Or, finally, if the die roll doesn't actually interface with the rules or the consequences in any meaningful way (e.g. rolling up a random NPC's eye color, if for some reason I was doing that, has no impact on anything, so there's no reason why I couldn't decide after the roll "actually, purple sounds more interesting than brown, I'll go with that.")

The vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of the time, when people speak of "fudging," they mean secretly ignoring die rolls and/or rewriting monster stats (same thing mathematically), almost always while specifically making it so players THINK you're using those things fully legitimately, and doing everything in your power to make it so your players never, ever discover that you deceived them.

normally because there are OTHER things that it matters for they wont ONLY meet the PC NPC, they will then be on different plot hooks.

Okay, so...I don't understand quite what's going on here. If the NPC shows up in either place, why not just flavor it as "the NPC was following you and only just now caught up to you here." That way, there's no need for quantum superposition--the NPC ends up where they do for fully natural, understandable reasons. Or perhaps multiple NPCs were sent out, going to multiple locations, so that the person who sent them would be quite sure ONE of their messengers would meet the PCs. That's another perfectly cromulent explanation.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I needed to. Point being, there are tons of ways to have fully legitimate, non-railroad reasons why an NPC will be there regardless of where the party goes. You don't need to resort to railroading.

yeah had an earlier conversation said that he could NOT do it I wouldn't change that,

Then it seems to me you and I don't really disagree very much here.

I do not do things that deceive my players. I rely on a mixture of planning (but not too much, because I know that that's a huge temptation for me), dynamic improvisation, and scrupulous self-consistency.

I will choose not to use dice, or choose to disregard the rules, should that be a useful thing to do--but I will either do so in a way that is fully explicit and open with the players, or which is not fully explicit and open, but which is clearly hinted at, turning my choice to ignore the rules into an adventure hook for the players to dig into. (I very, very rarely need to do this.) My prep-work plus my improvisation is enough to handle essentially everything I run into. I've literally only once had to even bend things a bit, and even then, it was more "I can fix this diegetically by exploiting an already-established fact that just hasn't yet been applied to this specific fight." Sooo....yeah.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Re: performance magic and other such things, again, I am incredibly confused as to how people can think this is the same as illusionism at the gaming table.

Magic--at least, of the type performed as "magic tricks"--isn't real. Anyone who believes magic is real is simply mistaken. The illusion of performance magic being real, rather than being cleverness, cold reading, sleight of hand, and other such techniques, is necessary for the "tricks" to appear impressive. You cannot even in principle impress people with sleight-of-hand where from the very start they can see exactly what you're doing and how you're doing it. It's like (in fact, essentially identical to) explaining a joke: if you explain the trick, you kill the trick. The trick doesn't work without the illusion.

But DMing is completely different. In fact, diametrically opposite. The illusion IS NOT necessary. It is completely, 100% optional. You can (as I have) completely avoid all illusionism, of any form whatsoever, and run a game your players consistently love. (I hesitate to say I run a great game, but my players have liked it four four years running and almost never have negative feedback, so...) You DO NOT have any need, whatsoever, to trick anyone about anything in order to run a successful and enjoyable game.

The fact that the one thing critically depends on the illusion--that, without the illusion, the there is no magic--while the other has no dependence on the illusion whatsoever--that the game may be good, bad, or indifferent regardless of whether there is the illusion of choice or not--is a vital difference which demonstrates the failure of the analogy.

And that's before we even get into the fact that adults should absolutely know, in advance, that a magic trick--given it's literally called a "trick"--should be understood as an illusion right out the gate. The magician is putting on a show, and the audience knows, in advance, that they will be presented with something that is not what it appears to be. That is emphatically the opposite of railroading. With railroading, as @Charlaquin said, the goal is to prevent the players from ever finding out that there was an illusion. It is to enforce upon all players that they be, as @bloodtide put it, "the clueless."

Thing is? People don't like being made to be "the clueless." In fact, a lot of people really, really hate being made to be "the clueless." It makes them feel hurt and angry. It makes them feel like their goodwill has been exploited, and like the trust they placed in the person who made them "the clueless" has been pissed on. If the person happens to be "the clueless" just because, e.g. they just never thought about the issue before, it wasn't something hidden from them they just literally never realized it, they will usually feel embarrassed and self-conscious. Those may not be as bad as feeling angry and betrayed, but they're still negative feelings that I wouldn't want my players to feel as a result of my actions at my gaming table.

A magician does her tricks with a wink and a nod, and people willingly play along. A railroading/fudging DM does his deception totally silently, actively trying to deny even the possibility that someone could find out, actively working to lock all participants into "the clueless" role and ONLY that role. The two are not the same, and the fact that someone likes the former and HATES the latter should not be surprising to anyone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, railroading generally is bad and player choices should matter, but I also don't see a reason to be fundamentalist about it.

Running a game is full of illusions, illusions of making the world seem real, making it seem bigger and more full of interesting things than it actually is. Whilst those literal three doors are silly, in broader sense similar things are common. The world is infinite, the GM prep time is not. So interesting things "just happen to happen" in the time and place the characters happen to be. That is extremely common. And yeah, sometimes choices that might seem to matter don't, and sometimes choices that seem not to matter do.

It's all make believe, GM makes stuff up. Everyone knows this, no one is being deceived. Also, I don't get this desire to police people's GMing techniques. If I have good time, I don't care how the GM achieved it (except perhaps in a sense that I could copy their techniques for my own GMing.) I want them to run the game the way they feel comfortable with.

 

[Reynard]

If you ask for a roll, ignore the result in favor of whatever result you actually want (presumably because the roll did not conform to the desired result) but tell the player the roll succeeded/failed when it was actually the opposite, how is that not a deception?

It is, but the actual fudging part is complete once you change the result. You could tell the players and it would still be fudging is what am saying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally, you know what I think is much, much, much worse than knowing my DM is lying to me on occasion during the game? The DM naming their NPCs like 'Fredd Dirst' or 'Yngelina Jolee'.

That shows you right there what I truly find important when I play D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, railroading generally is bad and player choices should matter, but I also don't see a reason to be fundamentalist about it.

Running a game is full of illusions, illusions of making the world seem real, making it seem bigger and more full of interesting things than it actually is. Whilst those literal three doors are silly, in broader sense similar things are common. The world is infinite, the GM prep time is not. So interesting things "just happen to happen" in the time and place the characters happen to be. That is extremely common. And yeah, sometimes choices that might seem to matter don't, and sometimes choices that seem not to matter do.

It's all make believe, GM makes stuff up. Everyone knows this, no one is being deceived. Also, I don't get this desire to police people's GMing techniques. If I have good time, I don't care how the GM achieved it (except perhaps in a sense that I could copy their techniques for my own GMing.) I want them to run the game the way they feel comfortable with.

Again, the techniques themselves aren’t necessarily a problem. The problem is using controversial techniques without the players’ knowledge or consent, which illusionism is specifically designed to do.

 

[pemerton]

I think we can also debate the notion of DMs offering a "false choice" vs players imposing a "choice outside the plot".

The 3 door scenario is an example of the former. The DM is directly implying to the players, "I am giving you a choice" but then is not.

In the latter example, the DM goes "alright you all are heading head back to Balwick city right?" The players nods and the DM gets his encounter ready, when one of the players goes, "hey all, maybe we shouldn't go the direct way back, maybe we should take that longer route Gurney told us about, could be safer" The players debate for 10 minutes, going through teh pros and cons. The DM honestly doesn't care, they didn't have any bandit encounters planned, they just wanted the players to meet NPC X to kick off the next plot. Whichever way the players decide to go, NPC X will show up.

So in the second example, the players have "imposed" a choice on the DM, its just not a choice that will have any impact on the plot.

In your second case, why is the GM not just telling the players that it doesn't matter which way they go back to the city? Why let the players waste time thinking they're making a meaningful decision if it's not?

If you have never had a group of players get into a long debate about an absolutely pointless decision, than no wonder you don't see the value in a soft railroad

Again, why is the GM not making it clear that nothing is at stake?