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

Now though I have (and will continue) to defend the DMs right to use illusionism to augment their game, there are aspects of it that are more efficient than others.

The 3 doors scenario is one of those, which is effectively a "directly invalid choice". In such a case its better just to remove the choice entirely, the one door leads to one room, and we move on.

But if my group chooses path A (versus B and C), and they always meet a Nymph no matter what, that to me is a soft railroad. THeir choice of path might have still mattered for other reasons, might even affect some of the conditions of the Nymph. If the choice has impact, even if I remove some of the impact through a soft railroad, its still a valid scenario.

There is also an important aspect of believability that sells a notion. Finding a nymph in a forest (and all my paths were forest paths), sure that makes sense. Finding a sand crawler by going through a forest path.....ok that's weird, its going to need an explanation. Maybe the DM comes up with a cool explanation to sell it, but I do agree that the DM wants the world to make a certain amount of sense. If things are happening "just because", than that removes beliveability even if you aren't using illusionism.
yeah this sounds more like what I think of..

in my above example about the boat if there was a dead PC that needed to bring in a new Aasimar tribe member on the mainland of the new world... I would 100% not feel bad that what ever way they went scouting they run into him/her
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jgsugden

Legend
When these types of threads come up, people inevitably turning into the notion that "The Dm lying is inherently bad".

And that is simply not true. ...
That is a bit of an oversimplification of the breadth of statements against this approach.

When a DM uses these approaches, the DM is slapping things together to follow his railroad and connecting the dots by convenience, rather than plan. That is going to be messy. That will result in nonsensical elements being attached to each other. It will not result in immersive world building that has cohesive senssibility for the functionality of the dungeons and spaces in which PCs are adventuring.

This has nothing to do with the DM lying to players being 'bad'. It has to do with the DM's design not having cohesion.

If you put together a murder mystery and want players to put together the puzzle pieces, they're discouraged from trusting the significance of clues when so much of the setting is nonsensical. Is the lack of a privy in a manor house a sign that the residents are undead, or just that the DM didn't leave room for one? If the PCs enter a room and find three doors, explore one and determine it is a dead end and then come backl to the next ... onlyto find out there is a roaringly loud sound on the other side of the door - why didn't they hear the sound when they first found the door?

There is a reason we plan. There is a reason we tie things together. It makes it easier to be immersive and suspend disbelief. There are times when we have to either stop the game or 'wing it', but 'wining it' as a primary plan you use every game has limitations that players will feel.
 

Reynard

Legend
That is a bit of an oversimplification of the breadth of statements against this approach.

When a DM uses these approaches, the DM is slapping things together to follow his railroad and connecting the dots by convenience, rather than plan. That is going to be messy. That will result in nonsensical elements being attached to each other. It will not result in immersive world building that has cohesive senssibility for the functionality of the dungeons and spaces in which PCs are adventuring.

This has nothing to do with the DM lying to players being 'bad'. It has to do with the DM's design not having cohesion.

If you put together a murder mystery and want players to put together the puzzle pieces, they're discouraged from trusting the significance of clues when so much of the setting is nonsensical. Is the lack of a privy in a manor house a sign that the residents are undead, or just that the DM didn't leave room for one? If the PCs enter a room and find three doors, explore one and determine it is a dead end and then come backl to the next ... onlyto find out there is a roaringly loud sound on the other side of the door - why didn't they hear the sound when they first found the door?

There is a reason we plan. There is a reason we tie things together. It makes it easier to be immersive and suspend disbelief. There are times when we have to either stop the game or 'wing it', but 'wining it' as a primary plan you use every game has limitations that players will feel.
"Immersion" is not a universal goal. Some people don't really care about it at all.

the reason the "GM lying" is bad is because it robs players of the most important aspect of playing an RPG: agency.
 

Stalker0

Legend
That is a bit of an oversimplification of the breadth of statements against this approach.

When a DM uses these approaches, the DM is slapping things together to follow his railroad and connecting the dots by convenience, rather than plan. That is going to be messy. That will result in nonsensical elements being attached to each other. It will not result in immersive world building that has cohesive senssibility for the functionality of the dungeons and spaces in which PCs are adventuring.

This has nothing to do with the DM lying to players being 'bad'. It has to do with the DM's design not having cohesion.

If you put together a murder mystery and want players to put together the puzzle pieces, they're discouraged from trusting the significance of clues when so much of the setting is nonsensical. Is the lack of a privy in a manor house a sign that the residents are undead, or just that the DM didn't leave room for one? If the PCs enter a room and find three doors, explore one and determine it is a dead end and then come backl to the next ... onlyto find out there is a roaringly loud sound on the other side of the door - why didn't they hear the sound when they first found the door?

There is a reason we plan. There is a reason we tie things together. It makes it easier to be immersive and suspend disbelief. There are times when we have to either stop the game or 'wing it', but 'wining it' as a primary plan you use every game has limitations that players will feel.
I think your expanding your scope too high.

There is a big difference between "winging" a random dungeon that is a side quest, and winging the major murder mystery plot. There are things where cohesion and immersion are quite important, and other places where its not that big a deal.
 

"Immersion" is not a universal goal. Some people don't really care about it at all.

the reason the "GM lying" is bad is because it robs players of the most important aspect of playing an RPG: agency.
Yeah... there are beer and pretzel gamers I have meet and what I would call 'war gammers' that would both 100% be down for the railroad. I could even be convinced to play in such a game (and I bet about 1/3 of my group) if someone pitched it. We would not make the same type of characters though.
 

I could swear there have been people in various threads on here that would disagree with that. And it's sometimes hard for me to parse what folks mean by the former so it isn't the later.

What are your favorite definitions? (Links to some are just fine too, thanks!)
I think I can tackle that one. A linear adventure is one like Call of the Netherdeep, that I am running at the moment (aside from a few either/or bits). It has a series of plot hooks, which players choose to take because their meta-knowledge tells them they are likely to lead to more interesting adventures. They don't have to take the hook; they have a choice. It's more like a signposted footpath "this way to the adventure" than a railroad.

A railroad gives players no choice. They are either forced into a certain course of action, or whatever choice they make leads to the same outcome.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I love that... but I often play with the 2 and 20 bringing you to a separate chart... and/or some encounters can not be duplicated but when it happens it doesn't make that number a no encounter but it moves a new encounter in it's way...

a 5 is 2 hobgoblin archer 'scouts' but after you encounter them the next time it is rolled it is 3 hobgoblin legioniares, but after that encounter the next time it is rolled it is a hobgoblin warlord with 2 archers and 2 legioniares. woe to the low level party that chooses fight and beats the 1st two but some how keeps rolling 5s...
Oh yeah, you can do all kinds of fun stuff like that if you have the prep time. For my last Curse of Strahd campaign I made separate tables for day and night encounters that did a bit of environmental storytelling. So, for example if a 5 on the daytime encounter table was a swarm of ravens picking at a carcass, a 5 on the nighttime encounter table would be a skeleton. Or during the day you’d find an overgrown tombstone and during the night you’d find the same tombstone and a ghost. Or during the day you’d find a flameskull and at night you’d find a dullahan looking for its head.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Clues can work. I also am comfortable with the possibility that some hand-designed content will just get missed, and that’s ok. Especially because, in a location-based sandbox campaign, just because the players didn’t get to explore room 34b. today, doesn’t mean they won’t do so on another day.

I’m a big fan of the old 1d12+1d8 table, so 19 possibilities, weighted in favor of the numbers in the middle of that range. Then I’ll make multiple such tables for different areas. You can assign each area a target level, and have 2-4 be trivial encounters or non-threatening events, 5-8 be easy encounters or simple hazards, 9-13 be medium encounters or moderate hazards, 14-17 be hard encounters or complex hazards, and 18-20 be deadly encounters or deathtraps. That creates a nice balance of challenge, which should be suitable for characters of the target level and one level above or below it.

Do you adjust frequency of rolling or how you use the chart based on party health or the like?
 

Do you adjust frequency of rolling or how you use the chart based on party health or the like?
I know it wasn't me you asked, but I usually have a % chance of encounter THEN roll on the chart if you get one. In the CoS game eveyr hour you roll 1d20 and depending on day or night and on road or off depends on where from 15+ to 19 or 20 only on a d20 roll is the encounter... but you roll every hour until you have 3 encounters in a day/night then I let it pass.

In my last island hopping game it was D% and depending on day/night or in dangerous water or not could range from 50% chance to 20% chance
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
this is why I come clean. "Yeah... that dessert goes off the map, and I didn't plan for off the map, so if we want to wrap game now for the night and maybe depending on my time skip next week I will work on that, or do you want to pick some other way?"

THis also follows from when in 3.5 one player (thank the gods he moved) used to brag "In real life I have the 'avoid DM plot hook' feat" and would go out of his way to avoid joining the party, go to unmapped area's do dumb out of character things just to be diffrent... we finally instituted the rule that doesn't get used much
-If your character doesn't fit the game/group you are going to have to retire them to NPC and create one that does-

Its absolutely legitimate to look at a player and go "Do you actually want to participate in this campaign with everyone else? Then find a way to do so."
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top