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?

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

I don't mind random generation, though it does sometimes leave something to be desired, because random. That said, it also doesn't take anywhere near an absurd amount of prep to not deprive players of agency. It takes next to none, really. You just don't force them down some preconceived rail that you want them on for whatever reason.
I don't think random generation is any better to the player agency (at least if they don't know the odds) than the GM deciding. In either case the thing is determined independently of the player choices. It of course reduces the GM's agency, but that's another matter.
here is a qustion, one I am not putting my 2 cents into at all just asking... if you made (or have an adventure with) a encounter table and instead of rolling on it just pick the encounter you as teh DM want to run (weather that be easiest for you most fun for table or just most sense) is that better or worse then random?


I will again add a personal story... Curse of Strahd has random encounters... and over the course of 2 days I rolled 2 that made me chuckle (but they were random) day 1 they came across a hidden stash of cloths and the adventure suggests they might be a were creature having hidden them to come back for... so I made up some drab farmer cloths and thought nothing of it... then the next day I rolled a werewolf encounter... so I had a werewolf come out of the woods, growl, howl and point to the character with the cloths... since I described it that way no one started a fight and we had a two or three minute point and make noise moment of role playe... before they relized they had the were wolfs cloths...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As a raging egomaniac, I am more than happy to discuss GM-stuff and adventure generation (with the obvious caveat that sometimes, I cannot talk about things that haven’t been resolved).

In practice, in my three regular groups, such questions are extremely rare, to the point that I am more likely to bring up GMing than my players are.
yeah in general our group has a soft rule about the DM sometimes just smiles and says "Spoilers" if asking about 1 thing would lead to another big reveal...
 

I don't think random generation is any better to the player agency (at least if they don't know the odds) than the GM deciding. In either case the thing is determined independently of the player choices. It of course reduces the GM's agency, but that's another matter.

Eh. On one hand you're not wrong, but I think it does reduce the GM's active ability to reduce player agency. As you aver, he's less able to decide they're encountering X no matter what they do. And depending on how the random tables are set up, their decisions can still have some impact (back in the day, there was a significant difference in what you'd probably run into going into the mountains rather than the swamp in D&D (hint: chose the mountains).
 

And yeah, in my experience it is the people who are also GMs who are interested discussing gamemastering minutiae, those who are usually just players tend not to care.

There can be other reasons. In my Fragged Empire game, whether something is an NPC-only trait, a PC availabe trait, or something I completely cooked up myself (and what category I'd put it in) and how its mechaniced is interesting to a number of people in my group. A number of them are also GMs, but that's not why.
 

Well, they should know the odds
to what level of granility? Do I tell them (I often do but that is me) "on a roll of 15+ on a d20 you get an encounter" or do I just say "I don't someone about 20 to 25%" or do I just say "often enough that unescorted merchants don't often make it"

up thread when someone said the bandit encounter happens no matter if they go east or north I said I would jsut say "There is a lot of bandit activity latlye and say it's bandit Rob in the north and bandit keith in the east" but does
alot of bandit activity cover it for you?

Often when I introduce new players I will have the first adventure start with the players already hired to escort someone something from one place to another and warn them about 2 threats (so maybe kobolds and goblins, maybe were rabbits and bandits, or maybe orcs and undead) and plan 3 different encounter that would all fall between easy and medium difficulty 2 of 1 threat and 1 of the other. is the warning "Kobolds and goblins have been active" enough?
 

I don't think random generation is any better to the player agency (at least if they don't know the odds) than the GM deciding. In either case the thing is determined independently of the player choices. It of course reduces the GM's agency, but that's another matter.
I prefer DM deciding to random, if the DM is doing his best to be fair and impartial. If he's doing that, then his rulings whether they are for you, against you, or require a roll, will be honoring your agency.
 

I prefer DM deciding to random, if the DM is doing his best to be fair and impartial. If he's doing that, then his rulings whether they are for you, against you, or require a roll, will be honoring your agency.
tbh I'm NOT fair or impartial 75% of the time... I am almost always on team "PCs should win this" random is MORE likely to TPK my party then anything i throw together
 

here is a qustion, one I am not putting my 2 cents into at all just asking... if you made (or have an adventure with) a encounter table and instead of rolling on it just pick the encounter you as teh DM want to run (weather that be easiest for you most fun for table or just most sense) is that better or worse then random?
I pick as often as not. When I roll on random tables, half the time the result doesn't match the specific area the group is walking in, since the game makes it very generic with regard to terrain and doesn't take location into consideration at all. As a result one of three things happens.

1. I roll and after I get three results that don't work, just get frustrated and pick the first thing I see that does work. I hate wasting time and if I have to keep rolling until I get something that works, I'm essentially picking anyway.
2. I roll and get lucky, so that's the monster.
3. I know from experience that #1 has happened a few times and just don't bother to roll, instead selecting from the chart.

The other thing is that selection isn't what makes something railroading or not. Railroading is explicitly denial of player agency somehow. What encounter I pick doesn't do that. Their choices will affect if they encounter whatever is rolled/selected, and whether it's even a fight. I give them full agency.
I will again add a personal story... Curse of Strahd has random encounters... and over the course of 2 days I rolled 2 that made me chuckle (but they were random) day 1 they came across a hidden stash of cloths and the adventure suggests they might be a were creature having hidden them to come back for... so I made up some drab farmer cloths and thought nothing of it... then the next day I rolled a werewolf encounter... so I had a werewolf come out of the woods, growl, howl and point to the character with the cloths... since I described it that way no one started a fight and we had a two or three minute point and make noise moment of role playe... before they relized they had the were wolfs cloths...
And that's cool. Nothing there is denying the players any agency. They found cloths. Could have left them behind, but didn't. When the werewolf showed up they could have fought it, run away or do the point and noise stuff. That's a cool encounter in my book. Well done! :)
 

I just don't see much point in even presenting something as a choice if the choice has no meaning at all.
What does it mean to "present something as a choice?" and what sort of meaning should it have? People say things like that like it was unambiguous, and I don't think it is at all.

Let's get back to my example of a day in the town and wild beast at the market. Was "what you are going to do today" a clear choice, and was the characters getting to do research in the library a sufficiently meaningful even if they couldn't avoid the rampaging beast at the market?

What about "What sort of clothes you wear?" "What spells you prepare?" "What you say to the bartender?" The game is full of choices that may or may not matter.

You can promise not to lie to people about what you're doing at least. I'll be honest here and say if you think you can't get people at your table to even agree on what that means, you've got a problem at your table with one or more people, one of which could be you.
Oh, I'm sure I could have people at my table agree about it just fine. But not people here. And I am not lying about what I am doing. But when I say that it is ultimately my call as GM what techniques to use, then that is me being honest.

Its not intended that way, but I also don't get to tell someone they have to react more positively to deception than they do to spiders.
And I say that even using words like 'lie' or 'deception' is an overreaction and ultimately insulting.
 

tbh I'm NOT fair or impartial 75% of the time... I am almost always on team "PCs should win this" random is MORE likely to TPK my party then anything i throw together
I'm not team PC in my decision making, but am very much team PC as a person. I create challenges and interesting things and then let them figure out what they are going to do or not do. If they get into a fight with something really hard, I love it when they do some awesome stuff and win anyway, but I'm not going to make it easy on them.

I agree that random is more likely to TPK, though. Random for me is for wandering monsters. When I make a dungeon, castle or whatnot, I select the encounters. Those random tables can with an unlucky roll, produce a dragon that will wipe the group. When I select encounters, I mix it up between easy, moderate, hard and very hard. I know the party capabilities, so I can match things up much better than the random table can.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top