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?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

well I don't know the players that think that you or I as a DM sat down and planned out 5,000 possible things in the woods... so I don't see why you would lie and pretend you did.

Yeah, probably not 500. But it could be ten or twelve or something. Who knows? In any case, the stuff in the OP is mostly just about making the world seem bigger than it actually is and saving prep time.

 

[jgsugden]

Frankly, I don't even get why people care how the things were procedurally generated. If it indeed looks just the same from the player's seat, what does it matter? Stop worrying about whether we live in a simulation, if it feels real, it is good enough.

Some of us have been making the point that, over the long haul, players will definitely be able to tell that you slap things together rather than plan them out. We all have to improvise some as players are unpredictable, but the more you do it - and the more you decide to do it, the more obvious it will be.

If you think, "I do this all the time and players do not know" - you may be wrong. And even when you're right - even when players lack the experience with prepared DMs and only know DMs that use this 'invisible railroad' - most will find themselves enjoying a well designed experience far more when exposed to it, all else equal.

This is not rocket science. This is not controversial. Everywhere you go in life, the people that put in the effort and prepare better generally do better at the things they try to do. The people that 'fake it' and 'make it up as they go along' generally do worse.

And I'll reiterate it once again: We all have to improvise at times. We must put things together on the spot, and sometimes that requires us to use techniques like the OP suggests ... the debate at hand is not whether these tools should exist: It is whether you should plan to use them as your primary option or if you're going to provide a better experience by providing a well thought out, internally cohesive, and systemically complementary story, adventure and setting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you think, "I do this all the time and players do not know" - you may be wrong. And even when you're right - even when players lack the experience with prepared DMs and only know DMs that use this 'invisible railroad' - most will find themselves enjoying a well designed experience far more when exposed to it, all else equal.

I'm not sure this is 100% true for all.
I think some beer and pretzel gamers, I think all new players, and I think some portion of what's left would do fine and enjoy those invisible rails more...

And I'll reiterate it once again: We all have to improvise at times. We must put things together on the spot, and sometimes that requires us to use techniques like the OP suggests ...

yup and being upfront about it sometimes my rails are WAY more forcefull then the OP... "Look, just go in the damn dungeon" is not exactly a quote from me... but it is kinda close.
IN curse of strahd I had to have my players promise when we made characters that tthey would play up the setting a bit and NOT refuse strahds dinner invite, BUT also not just try to kill him on sight even if he is a jerk.

the debate at hand is not whether these tools should exist: It is whether you should plan to use them as your primary option or if you're going to provide a better experience by providing a well thought out, internally cohesive, and systemically complementary story, adventure and setting.

very good summery

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Some of us have been making the point that, over the long haul, players will definitely be able to tell that you slap things together rather than plan them out. We all have to improvise some as players are unpredictable, but the more you do it - and the more you decide to do it, the more obvious it will be.

Yes, I made that point:

They cannot tell on specific instance, but it is likely that over a longer period of time differing principles would lead to a different subjective player experience. Like for example if the GM consistently fudges and illusionises so that the most dramatically appropriate thing happens, then it will in the long run produce a rather different player experience than if the GM sticks to the prep and lets the dice fall where they may, even though occasionally the latter will produce dramatically appropriate thigs too.

But basically if the GM would sparingly do such manipulations, I don't think it would noticeably affect the player experience. I have my of principles regarding such things when I GM, but they're really just for my own enjoyment. Like it is more exiting for me as GM if I don't fudge, so I don't.

But, yes, extensive use is likely to be noticeable. Agreed.

This is not rocket science. This is not controversial. Everywhere you go in life, the people that put in the effort and prepare better generally do better at the things they try to do. The people that 'fake it' and 'make it up as they go along' generally do worse.

Sure, but there also is such thing as overprepping. I know, I do it a lot!

And I'll reiterate it once again: We all have to improvise at times. We must put things together on the spot, and sometimes that requires us to use techniques like the OP suggests ... the debate at hand is not whether these tools should exist: It is whether you should plan to use them as your primary option or if you're going to provide a better experience by providing a well thought out, internally cohesive, and systemically complementary story, adventure and setting.

No, that's not the debate. I don't remember anyone suggesting that these should be used extensively and as your primary methods.
The sides are "fine occasionally to smooth things over" (like you suggest) and "NEVER!!!"

 

[jgsugden]

...Sure, but there also is such thing as overprepping. I know, I do it a lot!

As discussed repeatedly in this thread, the capability over-prepare is not an argument against preparing, just as the possibility of getting in a car accident doesn't mean nobody should drive.[/quote]No, that's not the debate. I don't remember anyone suggesting that these should be used extensively and as your primary methods. The sides are "fine occasionally to smooth things over" (like you suggest) and "NEVER!!!"[/QUOTE]Except that the OP themself, while half heartedly saying that this technique can be overused as a hedge, suggests that some players prefer it. Further, they go on to say, "it is fine to make sure every road goes where you want it to, as long as that is to somewhere amazing."

Then three posts later we start to see the DMs that post about using this as their primary approach, and indicating they think it works to make a good game for the players with small criticisms on the edge of the approach:

It’s a nice OP.
I feel as DM that I deliver a story influenced by players.
I can’t have infinite rooms, encounters and npcs prepared.
I use floating plot and encounters that can be place on need.
The overall need to be coherent, feel real, and a Dm should be a good story teller and have a good poker face.

I have no problem with linear sessions - in fact I often prefer them, as long as they are honestly presented as linear. It irritates me when a session is presented as open ended yet turns out to be anything but.

I've found VERY few players who don't share in that view, the linear adventures are not the problem, the deception is.

So why deceive?

This is the way me and the people I knew used to DM all the time when I was a kid. Turns out players like it, and even kind of expect you to do it, as long as you make their characters look cool and incorporate pay-offs to their backstories in the game. Incidentally it's a style I came to dislike profoundly, because it's all manipulation and keeping the players happy so they'll like you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the GM's improv, or random rolls, negate prior player choices and outcomes, then that would be a problem too.

I think that's a muddy spot; except within narrow contexts, its possible for a decision to have potential meaning but because of later events a player (and his character) has no control over, that doesn't end up being true. The only way it can't be a thing at least some of the time is if consequences are a very quick follow-up to the decision.

As an example, a set of players can decide they're going to going to choose the road that has less reports of bandits on it, on the hope that they'll manage to avoid them on their way to an objective. That doesn't mean that avoiding bandits is a given from doing that. If the GM has a table that puts lots of bandits on the first, and few on the second, but they still come up, I don't see an intrinsic reason that's inappropriate; the situations was never described as doing more than them putting their thumb on the scale.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but if a player consistently acts like I am not trustworthy despite my best efforts, I am definitely within my rights to stop playing with the person. All players, including the GM, need to be having fun.

Absolutely, but its simply reality that players that have been taught by prior experience that GMs will lie to you at their convenience are not going to stop making that assumption just because they hit one that doesn't. And it can take a long time to win that trust, and the fact its not fair does not change that. Like it or not, as a GM (or far as that goes, player) you're carrying the baggage of ever other GM/player the other person has dealt with for at least a while. It would be nice if that wasn't true, but that's not how people work.

 

[Krachek]

There is an interview with Crawford on the Challenge in DnD, release near the launch of monter of the multiverse.
He clearly say that the DM can make vanish or add hit points to a monster during a fight.
Not before, during a fight.
That is my new reference to railroad issue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think it is. I think the defualt of many published adventures for every edition is though.

I'll go as far as to suggest this is the case for the vast majority of published adventures for most game systems, far as it goes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There is an interview with Crawford on the Challenge in DnD, release near the launch of monter of the multiverse.
He clearly say that the DM can make vanish or add hit points to a monster during a fight.
Not before, during a fight.
That is my new reference to railroad issue.

This still requires that you don't think designers are entirely capable of having feet of clay. I've known a few too many over the years to consider their opinions on the matter of procedural (rather than mechanical) decisions to have any special weight.