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?

 

[pemerton]

But consider how the GM makes it so that interesting stuff happens to the characters.

Characters wake up in a tavern. The GM asks what they want to do. So they say they go to library to do some research and after that, on afternoon, they go to the market to do some shopping. When they arrive to the market, there is commotion. An exotic wild beast that had been transported for the sale has broken loose and is wreaking havoc! The characters try to stop the beast and prvent it from killing poor townspeople!

Except this was terrible deceitful illusionism! The GM had preplanned the encounter, and it didn't matter when the PCs went to the market. Had they decided on the morning to go to the market first, the encounter would have happened then. Had they decided to spent a longer time in the library and go to the market next day, the encounter would have happened then. This is basically the same thing than all those false choice doors and roads and whatnot

I would not do this. If they chose to go to the library before going to the market, the encounter would happen without them. If they delayed going off to an important location, the world goes on without them. I won't be a HUGE stickler over time things because I don't want to be a dick. But if they intentionally delay on something they know is important, e.g. repeatedly putting off addressing a known threat (as my group did with the black dragon gang), that threat becomes more dangerous

This one is a strange example to cause such a stark split.

@EzekielRaiden: in your treatment of this matter, who at the table decided that what was at stake in choosing to go to the library, rather than go to the market, was that the players wouldn't see and confront the escaped beast? As best I can tell, the answer is the GM. Did the GM tell this to the players? As best I can tell, the answer is No. So the players made a choice - to have their PCs go to the library rather than the market - which had a consequence that they didn't, and couldn't, have known about. That looks to me like straight-out GM control over the fiction, and the meaning of the players' choices. Which I thought was exactly the thing you've been complaining about in your posts!

The more general point, it seems to me, is this: If the GM frames a scene or encounter, and in that framing does not negate or override something that the players chose to make a focus or stakes of play, than no meaning that the players introduced into the game is being overridden or disregarded. So it can't be railroading.

There is an approach to play that slightly - but only slightly - complicates the preceding: the "hidden gameboard/secret notes" approach, where the players know that the GM is referring to secret material to tell them what happens next, and a big part of the point of play is for the players to learn these secrets and exploit that knowledge to do well in the game. Gygaxian dungeon crawling is a paradigm of this; procedural hex crawls can be seen as a variant. In these games the players make choices that have stakes/consequences they are ignorant of - by design - but the skill of play is in overcoming that ignorance and gradually, as a player, taking control of the direction of play. These games also work best when the players have resources (like detection spells, or scouting abilities) that make it clear how they can acquire knowledge of the GM's secrets without just blundering around and risking losing the game (eg by having all their PCs swallowed by the devil mouth).

But the sort of thing that @CrimsonLonginus has described - where the PCs are doing research at libraries, shopping at market places, etc, and may or may not encounter escaped wild beasts - does not look to me like an example of hidden gameboard play. The very fact that the GM is not sticking rigidly to a prepared gameboard or set of notes reveals as much! So there seems to be no particular virtue in having secret consequences of the players' decision-making that only the GM knows, and can know, about. That would just be the GM telling a story to themself.

Say you have a cool setpiece encounter planned. But, you don’t want to risk the possibility that the players will miss it, so rather than keying it to a specific part of the dungeon or whatever, you decide it will occur wherever the players happen to go.

Are you assuming "hidden gameboard" play? Crimson Longinus, it seems to me, is not.

In non-hidden-gameboard play, why would the players assume that the stakes of going first to the library then to the market are different from those of going first to the market then to the library? And if the players have made no such assumption, then in what way is the meaning of their choice vitiated by the GM deciding to frame their trip to the market as an exciting encounter with a wild beast? How is that railroading? What choice which was presented as meaningful has been rendered meaningless?

If you present choices that are supposed to matter, but they specifically do not matter, how is there any degree to that?

Are you really saying that travelling due west and travelling due north are choices that aren't supposed to have ANY physical significance or consequences on the people making the journey, that they will have literally exactly the same experience, travel to EXACTLY the same places, etc., etc.?

Well, this is the crux, isn't it?

If it is the GM who is deciding what is west, north etc, and the only way the players learn any of that is by declaring their movement and having the GM tell them, there is no meaningful choice. It's just the GM telling a story, treating the players' action declarations as cues. The GM is presenting these as "supposed to matter" only in the sense that the players have some vague sense that what the GM tells them might differ depending on what actions they declare.

Again, if we're talking "hidden gameboard" play then things are slightly different, but nothing you have posted makes me think that that's the sort of RPGing you're doing.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I see the disconnect.

You view the game is open, whatever happens is fine and fun. It's a fine way to run a game.

Nothing like my game, however.....

Players show up on time, no excuses. If anything less then your house exploding happens, you are expected to be at the game. If not, you won't be invited back.

Players show up ready to play. They have everything they need to play, and they want to play the game. When the game starts, players must focus only on the game.

Game play will be fast, focused and intense. I want to get to intense scenes of drama, comedy, action, adventure and combat, all with in a detailed heavy story with a plot(s). Players must pay attention and engage in game play.

Infamous Three Second Rule: Any time during the game when we switch from role playing to roll playing, such as an action, adventure or combat scene, the player has three seconds to state their action. If they don't, their character stands in place confused for the round(and often a target in combat).

You must play the agreed upon adventure. It's a vote, majority rules. If you really don't like the vote: LEAVE. No one, least of all me, wants you slogging along "just so you can play".

And, yea, no side stuff: you agreed to go on the adventure, remember? There are times (often AFTER the main adventure segment of the night) that the DM will call for Free Time, and the players may vote for Free Time. Otherwise you may NOT abandon the adventure and group to go off and do a solo thing like "pretend to drink in a tavern". If you really feel that your character "must go", then just leave the game.



So, you see a slight difference in our two games.

Sure. I could tell from the get go that our games are very different. All I'm saying is that if you have the player buy-in before the campaign begins, it's all good. They opted into those rules and have accepted them. If they then break those rules, shame on them. If on the other hand you are springing that sort of stuff on players after the campaign starts, then it's shame on you.

There's nothing wrong with playing that way if everyone is on board with it.

 

[Remathilis]

 

[Mort]

View attachment 254132

If the players have no idea what's in any of the towns - there's no actual (meaningful) choice because essentially, they're just picking at random. So all three towns are not "the same" as they don't all exist yet (you've only filled out one, the first one they go to). Now if/when the go to town 2 and town 3 they will NOT be the same.

If the players do know what's in the various towns (at least some details) then they can't be the same. The players know the great sage they seek is in town 1 but the great warrior they seek is in town 2. The towns are not "the same" from that fact alone, there is a meaningful choice in picking one of them. As for the stats of the town? Again, town 2 won't be the same because the DM will probably not even fill them out until town one is done (unless he does, which works too).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I have never really had problems with railroading as a player or as DM - except when it was being done by published adventures. First time I can remember it becoming an issue is with A3-4 in the Slaver's series. PC's are all ko'd and captured. No saves. No other possible outcome. No alternative means even suggested to get them from the end of A3 to the start of A4. But that was excusable because those were tournament adventures and while it's uncreative as hell and obnoxious, it's still kind of a necessary evil (until you sell it unchanged as a general adventure series to drop into otherwise unmodified campaigns). The ones I recall that really set the gold standard and started the whole, "The DM is a storyteller and the PC's are just the little puppets dancing to a predetermined tune, and the players are just there to enjoy the part prepared for them - not to actually CHANGE it," were the Dragonlance adventures. Was not sad to see the end of those and have not cared to revisit them even a little bit.

Since then I've seen it now and again, but it's become easy enough to spot ahead of time and I've learned to ignore or get around the practice. A few times I think it's even been a good DMing exercise or betterment challenge to fix such things. Really I just learned to skip most published adventures and just let plots and adventures emerge more naturally from other ongoing play.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Meh. Player choice is overrated.

Maybe you aren’t choosing players sufficiently carefully?

 

[Lord Rasputin]

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

Depends on whether or not you define what is described in the essay as "fun." A lot of us don't.

 

[Stalker0]

Similarly, if they decide to go into a town and no matter what they do or where the go I decide that they will be attacked by a street gang, that is railroading.

Again I consider this a matter of degrees.

A player of mine goes into a town, and does the following:

1) Decides to put on their extra special shoes. Nothing magical of course, they just think they look cool.
2) Wears some loose summer clothing, because its quite hot in the city.
3) Puts their money pouch tight around their leg, because they have heard of bandits around.
4) Prepares the absorb elements spell today.
5) Decides to go the west part of town to talk to the blacksmith.

I as a DM, do the following:

1) I make no adjustment to any of my encounters due to the shoes.
2) I do not make any checks for the hot weather, and would not have done so even if they wore "normal clothing"
3) The PC was not pickpocketed at any point in the day, so the choice of money pouch location has no meaning.
4) The PC is not hit with any elemental damage spells, and so this spell preparation choice was meaningless.

Have I railroaded so far? A lot of player choices have had 0 impact on the adventure so far, so am I a bad DM? Should I have improvised some pickpockets or had them get struck by lightning to ensure a few of these choices were impactful?

5) Now we get to the blacksmith. I as the DM decide to do an assassin encounter, and yes would have done that regardless of which direction the PC goes. However, because they choose to go to the blacksmith before the end of the day, the blacksmith is there, and they have a long talk and get some key info about the bad guy they are pursuing. And with a great persuasion check, gets 5% discount off some wares.


So for 5, the players choice absolutely mattered. Their decision to go to the blacksmith did not have any impact on their combat encounter, but it did absolutely have impact on what information the player was able to obtain, which now impacts the plot.

So does a player choice have to impact every single element of my story in order for it be impactful, or can we agree that as long as the player choice had some key impact, that's its not required for it to have ABSOLUTE impact over everything?

 

[Stalker0]

This gets me to my ultimate point.

Players absolutely want agency in the game, but I don't think they expect ABSOLUTE agency. I don't think most players expect that every little decision they make will have plot altering consequences. Sometimes their decisions are life and death, and sometimes you just pick a door and walk through it, and it doesn't really matter.

Its all about the experience in total. If the player is given enough interesting choices of impact that they feel like they are a key piece of the story, than congrats you've done it. And if they feel that you have denied them too many choices and that they are a character in a tv show....than you have created a true railroad and failed. But in between, there's time for a bit of A and a bit of B.

 

[Maxperson]

Again I consider this a matter of degrees.

A player of mine goes into a town, and does the following:

1) Decides to put on their extra special shoes. Nothing magical of course, they just think they look cool.
2) Wears some loose summer clothing, because its quite hot in the city.
3) Puts their money pouch tight around their leg, because they have heard of bandits around.
4) Prepares the absorb elements spell today.
5) Decides to go the west part of town to talk to the blacksmith.

I as a DM, do the following:

1) I make no adjustment to any of my encounters due to the shoes.
2) I do not make any checks for the hot weather, and would not have done so even if they wore "normal clothing"
3) The PC was not pickpocketed at any point in the day, so the choice of money pouch location has no meaning.
4) The PC is not hit with any elemental damage spells, and so this spell preparation choice was meaningless.

Have I railroaded so far? A lot of player choices have had 0 impact on the adventure so far, so am I a bad DM? Should I have improvised some pickpockets or had them get struck by lightning to ensure a few of these choices were impactful?

No.

1. The player had full agency to put on the shoes or not. You have no obligation to go out of your way to make what the player did meaningful beyond what the player did. However, had you rolled or decided prior to the player's declaration that it was going to rain, those shoes might get muddy.
2. You are under no obligation to alter the weather for the player, either. I would assume that you informed the player before hand that it was hot out, which is why the player said that he put on loose summer clothing. This is just RP on the part of the player and the player had full agency to make that decision or not.
3. You don't have an obligation to make the player's choices matter. Railroading would have been if a pickpocket was determined by you to be successful no matter what the player did. THAT would deprive the player of agency.
4. You don't have an obligation to make the player's choices matter. The player made a decision with full agency just in case something happened.

5) Now we get to the blacksmith. I as the DM decide to do an assassin encounter, and yes would have done that regardless of which direction the PC goes. However, because they choose to go to the blacksmith before the end of the day, the blacksmith is there, and they have a long talk and get some key info about the bad guy they are pursuing. And with a great persuasion check, gets 5% discount off some wares.


So for 5, the players choice absolutely mattered. Their decision to go to the blacksmith did not have any impact on their combat encounter, but it did absolutely have impact on what information the player was able to obtain, which now impacts the plot.

So does a player choice have to impact every single element of my story in order for it be impactful, or can we agree that as long as the player choice had some key impact, that's its not required for it to have ABSOLUTE impact over everything?

It's about agency, not mattering or impact. Above the players have no agency to avoid the assassin. It's going to encounter them no matter what. That's railroading and without player buy-in, is bad. The assassin should be avoidable. Not that you can't have an assassination or attempted assassination no matter what, but the players shouldn't be forced to be there.

What I would do is if they learned information at the blacksmith(and he had that info prior to the players deciding to show up), then it's all cool if that leads them to the assassin. They had agency to go to him or not. They had agency with their questioning. And they had agency to decide to go confront the assassin or not. If they fail to learn in advance, then they will presumably hear about the assassination later.