• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Of course, he also doesn't address what to do about it, either. If you don't, your "invisible railroad" pretty quickly stops being either invisible or stops being a railroad.
And I feel the latter is the way to go in such a situation. I think certain subtle guiding techniques are pretty fine as long as they're just used to herd the meandering PCs towards the interesting stuff, but I feel trying to fight against the players' clear wishes is usually a bad call. That's what leads to frustration and complaints about railroading.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
Right. Observation causes the wave function to collapse. Observation can be done in many ways. And this applies to "GM decides" just like it does to random tables.

While I agree it applies, I don't think they're quite the same. The difference is that a random encounter system (at least if there's any real variety and/or an actual check to see if its is applied) keeps a GM who uses it rigorously honest; that isn't as much the case if you're just deciding because to one extent or another what the GM wants to happen is always in the background. He's not really going to entirely know himself in many cases why he decided an encounter now, and particularly that encounter (except of course when he does, but that makes it even less like a random encounter).

Honestly, scouting and scrying in these kind of situations can function as a sort of "saving throw against encounter" which is something that gives the players more meaningful choice, and is also often why GMs don't really want them to work unless the encounter is viewed as not really necessary in the first place.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What about...

If there's a 50/50 chance it's on either side and I roll?
I still don't like it. Choice still doesn't matter. It's just 50/50 whether the illusion is an ogre there or nothing there on both sides. It's different if you have a patrolling ogre and there's a 50% chance he's at the door on the left, a 25% chance he's at room #13 taking a nap and a 25% chance that he's at the mess hall getting a snack. You've pre-established 100% that there is an ogre and pre-established the route. I
If both sides have an ogre until they hear the other door open, and then it tries to run around and join it's compatriot the long way?
If it's pre-established this is not illusionism. There's nothing wrong with ogre guards on both doors. I'm not sure why the other one runs around the long way instead of just opening the door and walking around a corner, though. :p
If I hadn't had plans for anything until you opened the door and thought and Ogre would be appropriate?
That's still a railroad. It's still an unavoidable encounter and would happen no matter which door was picked. Choice doesn't matter.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Tangentially, I'm now wondering about choose your own adventure books and the early 80s text based computer adventure games and how to classify different choices in them...
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
If I hadn't had plans for anything until you opened the door and thought and Ogre would be appropriate?

Though that gets back to "Why is them avoiding the ogre completely a problem?"

(With the caveat that I don't think it matters much either way if they can't make the door choice in some sort of informed fashion).
 


While I agree it applies, I don't think they're quite the same. The difference is that a random encounter system (at least if there's any real variety and/or an actual check to see if its is applied) keeps a GM who uses it rigorously honest; that isn't as much the case if you're just deciding because to one extent or another what the GM wants to happen is always in the background. He's not really going to entirely know himself in many cases why he decided an encounter now, and particularly that encounter (except of course when he does, but that makes it even less like a random encounter).
Sure, of course in the "GM decides" method the GM has more control than in randomisation method. But the players have same amount of control in each case! I feel this is a common hidden, and perhaps unrecognised motive in these discussions. Some people say they want the players to have more control, when what they actually mean is that they want the GM to have less! But system's say is a thing, so it is possible to offload some of the control to the mechanics, so that it is off the hands of both the GM and the players.

Honestly, scouting and scrying in these kind of situations can function as a sort of "saving throw against encounter" which is something that gives the players more meaningful choice, and is also often why GMs don't really want them to work unless the encounter is viewed as not really necessary in the first place.
Then again, I think it is also rather cool mode of play when the PCs know what they're facing and get to make decisions about how to prepare.
 


Thomas Shey

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.

I suspect in cases where they genuinely do (and note there have been several anti-roader types in this thread who've said they don't--there's no meaning to those choices anyway), its because they don't necessarily expect a GM who's going to present illusory blind choices isn't going to endeavor to make less blind ones just as illusory.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
And I feel the latter is the way to go in such a situation. I think certain subtle guiding techniques are pretty fine as long as they're just used to herd the meandering PCs towards the interesting stuff, but I feel trying to fight against the players' clear wishes is usually a bad call. That's what leads to frustration and complaints about railroading.

But again, a pointer toward where things might be interesting is a pretty mild railroad at best. I doubt in many cases there's any need to be coy ("invisible") about it at all.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top