TPK: Railroading

"Do it? Dan, I'm not a republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting the outcome?"

"I did it thirty-five minutes ago."

CHOO CHOO. I wrestled with whether to make this an episode of TPK or not, but frankly? I've seen railroading kill a lot of games. It's something we all hate, but it's also one of those things that everyone has a slightly different definition of. It's one of the villains of pen and paper gaming and you can find millions of horror stories online of shitty GMs using railroad tactics for various ends, usually to make sure nobody messes up their precious story. I'm going to go over this concept like none of you have ever heard of it before, why people hate it so much, when you're going to need to use it, and how to do it when you need to. That's the unfortunate little truth behind railroading, after all: Sometimes, it's necessary.

As a loose definition, railroading is forcing the game to go the way you want it to, either on a large scale or a small scale. It can be as large as blatantly scripting entire parts of the game, providing only one plot hook, or squashing any attempt at self motivation, or as small as forcing the players to deal with the pointlessly weird, overly quirky NPCs you made. Yes, the guy who demands you speak only in rhyme is the only blacksmith within a hundred miles. Sorry.

Remember we discussed Agency, and how I said it's hyper important? Agency is why railroading destroys your game. When people say "I'm upset that you keep railroading us", they're really saying "I'm upset that you keep removing my agency." Agency is a person's control over their surroundings, their character, their choices, the plot, anything. Railroading is more precisely defined as the removal of player agency for some purpose, usually to make the game go in the direction you want it to. When you remove a player's agency, they are going to get upset on some level. It's as simple and as childlike as this: They had something they wanted to do, and now they can't do it. This level of disappointment is primal and easily turns to anger after they reason their own way that you could have presented the plot without railroading. They WILL do that. This is why removing agency is so bad: the response is deep within us and can not be trained or "beaten" out.

Nor should you try. Pen and Paper gaming is a collaborative experience. The GM is not more important than the player, and already has much, much more input over the story than them. Removing what little say over the plot that they have just to protect your lion's share is absurd and selfish. Like I've said over and over, you are not the King of the Castle magnanimously doling out the exact plot that you deem fit, and the players are not grubby Dickensian street urchins who should be glad to get whatever scraps they get. This is a collaborative effort, and frequent railroading is an act of greed.

If you really think that, stop now. You don't have what it takes to be a GM. Close the book, close my blog, and take a break, because no game you ever run will be satisfying. Even if they finish, even if everyone tells you it was amazing, inside, they're not happy. Thinking you're King A-Rab, controller of this game, and telling people who complain that "the door's right there" will lead to failed, unfinished games. period. One of the problems is in the social aspect of PNP games: Frequently, if your railroading killed a game, the players may not tell you the real reason they're not interested. They may not even know consciously. They just know that playing your game doesn't sound very fun.

So I hope I explained why railroading is so bad. This is a collaborative experience, and even past that, punishing or outright preventing people from doing what they want is arrogant and absurd. PNP games are not video games, and they can not be compared to them in any large way. You can't just present the exact linear plot that you want and simply pause every once in a while for reactions. Pen and Paper RPGs are a completely unique beast and can't be treated like a movie, or a game, or a book.

Only, here's the thing. You may need to remove the player's agency over specific things to keep your plot from derailing. There will eventually be a moment, an NPC, a villain or an act that the players can't muddle with or else the plot won't continue. Railroading is still not okay, so we have to minimize the amount of it we do as well as its impact. Here's some tips.

Write as few 'hinge' moments as possible. When outlining your campaign, look for these moments that can easily derail the game. Write them out if you can. Create a contingency if that's possible. Think of how the players might act and plan for it.

When a person must live, do not put them in harm's way.  If I could bold this one twice, I would. Don't give the players a chance to kill someone if killing them destroys your plot. Villains can send lackeys to gloat or provide needed exposition, or employ spells to protect via spells like contingency, or show themselves via illusions. In most systems, inventing a spell isn't THAT hard and the villain often has more time for this sort of thing than the PCs do. More modern games can use phones and televisions to give the villain face time without being in the same room as the PCs. So can architectural design, depending on your PCs and their capabilities. Being too far away from the players for them to catch up or attack effectively, or being behind a fence they won't be able to hack through in time. PCs aren't always as bloodthirsty as the stereotype, but they WILL often try for the shortest solution they can think of: To stop the villain, murder him. Only give them a chance when you're okay with a villain dying and have planned for it. In a pinch, you can fudge a bit to give him more AC or more HP, but be very, very careful with doing that: The players can't know you did it.

Make the players feel like their agency was never removed. This is very tricky and a touch dishonest, but it's very important. in some situations you can control the outcome without making it feel like you did. Do this sparingly(or else they'll notice) and it can be effective. This also covers coming up with contingencies for the PC's actions: If the players are too genre-savvy to open the necronomicon and recite a spell from it, someone accidentally listens to a recording of the former owner doing the same. See what I did there?

Consider important events happening off-screen. The players don't have to be present for everything. The story can be conveyed in other ways, like the PCs showing up too late to stop something or seeing its aftermath. Telling them the story via finding the evidence of something happening can even be more compelling than just watching something happen. The feeling of "There's nothing we could have done, because we weren't there" is very different than "There's nothing we could have done, because you keep fucking with the dice.". In some situations you can even literally show them what happened, via security footage, television screens, tapes, or programmed illusion magic. I've even had one GM show us scripted "Meanwhile" scenes at the end of a session. Use this sparingly, and it can be very effective.

I'd actually like to, for the first time ever, reference the quote I used for today's post. The characters in Watchmen arriving too late to stop Ozymandias is an excellent example of this tactic...however, it's used in precisely the wrong moment. In a comic book story, it's perfectly acceptable to end on a "down note". The good guys lose, the 'bad guy' wins, and the fight that ensues is a pointless, purely emotional conflict. However...it's not okay to ever remove the agency a player has over the ending of a game. This is a big, big moment for everyone, and...I'm sorry, but the players losing in the end is going to make your game memorable in the bad way. It's a disappointment that will live with them for a long time, especially if you forced the 'bad' ending take place.

Information. This one is another tricky one. Something can happen right in front of the PC's eyes if they don't understand what's going on at first or don't think they need to stop it or kill someone. This is another variation on the PCs "showing up too late". There's a huge X-factor to this, and it's called "how bright your players are". In my experience, player's reactions can vary WILDLY, missing obvious clues but latching on to and solving extremely esoteric ones. Be careful, and always have a plan B.

In fact, I think that's my parting advice. Always have a Plan B. Never hinge your game's plot on something that MUST HAPPEN if the players are intended to be anywhere near it when it does. Plan multiple ways your plot can move forward so you don't have to force it to do so. You will have to railroad at some point, but imagine it like ninjitsu: To be noticed is to have failed.