How the Flawed Hooks in Descent Into Avernus Might Make D&D Players Feel Railroaded

Everyone giving Dungeons & Dragons advice tells dungeon masters how to start an adventure with a hook. This includes me, last week. That advice usually stops after the first hook, and it shouldn’t. Sure, adventures that lure characters into the unknown seeking treasure only need one hook. But just about every adventure with a more complicated premise serves hooks from start to finish. Those hooks offer choices and lure characters along a course that shapes into a story.

The hooks that come after an adventure’s start often go by names like clues, secrets, or leads. In earlier posts, I favored the term “leads” because the word matches one essential purpose: Leads reveal ways for the characters to reach a goal. (If the idea of leads seems unclear, see instead of plots, prepare secrets, clues, and leads.) The word “hook” emphasizes a second essential: Hooks entice players to chase a particular goal.

By either name, hooks and leads must accomplish two things: They entice characters to pursue a goal and they reveal ways to reach that goal. Skipping one of those parts causes adventures to stumble.

Leads point a direction, but sometimes they still need to sell a new goal.

When an adventure needs to point characters toward a new goal, the leads need to sell that new goal. Many adventures fail to close the sale. Most often, an adventure starts with a promise of gold, and then presumes that a band that may only include murderous treasure hunters will happily switch to, say, battling princes of elemental evil—for free.

My last post describes how Baldur’s Gate: Descent Into Avernus attempts this sort of flip. The opening hook appeals both to the treasure hunters and the do-gooders. Later though, the adventure asks players to send their characters to Hell for the slimmest chance of rescuing a damned city. The paladins might volunteer, but any sensible rogue would say, “I’m out.” Still, the rogue players want to play D&D, so their characters dutifully tag along.

In an adventure like this, either the dungeon master or the players can rethink the party’s motivations, smoothing the rough patch. Often, no one does. Many longtime players face such situations often enough to feel numb to the dissonance of having to do something their characters wouldn’t do just to keep playing. The rest feel railroaded.

Hooks sell a goal, but they need to offer a sensible direction too.

When an adventure runs short of hooks or leads, everyone notices. The party gets stuck and the DM finds a way to drop new clues. The adventure may stall, but the obvious trouble invites a solution.

Imagine trying to start an adventure by only revealing that long ago a mighty warrior hid a magic sword in a long-forgotten location. That tidbit would only leave players waiting for more, because without any clues, the incomplete hook rates as backstory. Every adventure starts with a hook that (1) entices the characters to follow some goal and (2) reveals ways to reach that goal. Number 2 rarely gets discussed because DMs seldom botch it. At the start of a scenario, no DM dangles a hook that lacks any clues the characters can follow to the goal.

The more insidious problem appears when an adventure offers clues that don’t seem to lead closer to the goal. The players see a lead, but no reason to follow it. Few players want to derail an adventure that plainly offers a direction, so the players dutifully follow the lead while ignoring that dissonance that comes from doing things just because the DM pointed the way. Following an apparently useless lead makes players feel confused at best, railroaded at worst. To the DM, the adventure seems to run smoothly, so the problem goes unnoticed by the person who could have corrected it.

Descent Into Avernus suffers from this trouble. (This discussion includes spoilers, but hardly more than the adventure’s title.) D&D blogger Merric Blackman writes, “The trip to Hell offers no reason for the characters to believe they can improve things. You stopped a threat to Baldur’s Gate. Why now to Avernus?

“‘If the characters think they have any chance to rescue Elturel, Liara strongly urges them to pursue that quest.’ That’s why the PCs descend into Avernus. Not great, huh? Why do the PCs think they have a chance?”

Game designer Justin Alexander is more blunt. He explains how Descent Into Avernus keeps asking players to follow directions just because they lead to more D&D. “The entire campaign is just this one structure repeated infinitely: A non-player character tells you where to go, you go there, and then find another NPC who tells you where to go.” This pattern works when the NPC’s directions show a way closer to the goal. The leads in Avernus fail that standard. “The problem is that the designers aren’t designing a situation. They aren’t thinking of the game world as a real place.

“Why does the adventure assume the characters will simply plane shift to Hell without having any reason for doing so? Because an NPC told them to! Why not also have the NPC give them a coherent reason? Because it doesn’t matter!”

The design only aims to route players from scene to scene. In play, the party sees a lead that they know the adventure expects them to follow, so they do. To the DM, the adventure appears to work, but unless players feel numb to dutifully playing DM Simon says, they feel railroaded.

Alternately, when hooks clearly point characters toward their goals, even linear adventures, even railroads, can work magic.

“A good railroad, at a certain level, is like a good magic trick: The players won’t really believe that magic is real, but a good magic trick will let them suspend disbelief just long enough to be amazed. The most important technique for the railroaded scenario is to frame the meaningful choices in such a way that the players legitimately want to make the predetermined choice.” writes Justin Alexander.

“The GM never forces a card on them. In the end, they do the magic trick to themselves. When a railroaded scenario pulls this off, the suspension of disbelief is perfect: Players never feel as if they were forced to do something. They’re able to remain completely immersed in their characters, feeling as if the world is unfolding in direct response to their actions.”

In a successful narrative adventure, the DM keeps laying track by dropping hooks. Each one shows a course that brings the characters closer to their goal, so the players willingly choose to follow. 

Good hooks power meaningful choices even better than linear scenarios. When players find enough leads, they face choosing which one to follow. Making choices and seeing outcomes generates the fun of role-playing games. Leads also offer more flexibility than plots. DMs can reveal them whenever players need to find a direction or to face choices.

As for Descent Into Avernus, the adventure brings evocative locations and vivid characters to an unforgettable journey through Hell. Your heroes get to adventure in Hell! Fixing the weak connections merits a bit of creative work. For ideas, see Merric Blackman’s account of running the campaign, Justin Alexander’s Remixing Avernus, and my own post Improve the Start of Baldur’s Gate: Descent Into Avernus With These 2 Add-On Adventures.

Related: Why Dungeons & Dragons (and roleplaying) took years to leave the dungeon.

10 thoughts on “How the Flawed Hooks in Descent Into Avernus Might Make D&D Players Feel Railroaded

  1. alphastream

    I wonder to what extent this problem coincides with using different authors? Authors often write under the expectation that the other parts, and the overall premise, works. They expect that the characters are already hooked on, say, going to Avernus. Authors also expect someone to sand down the edges where what they writes fits in with what someone else is writing. I think that’s proper author behavior. But the project manager may not be seeing how those disparate parts don’t translate to an engaging whole. I suspect that higher level of plot development is something that could be improved, because we see it in several adventures (even going back to Tomb of Annihilation).

    1. alphastream

      Adding a bit more here. It can especially happen if authors are brought in to write a specific thing (“write a chapter where characters explore a dungeon and find a magical sword”) rather than being involved at the very beginning with design. I’ve been involved in both kinds of projects. When authors are part of the design, the end result will be far superior. Confrontation at Candlekeep, Vault of the Dracolich, Acquisitions Inc… these are projects where several authors were involved, but they help design the overall narrative. Even though the authors separated to write their pieces, it all fits together in a compelling fashion. (In my perhaps biased opinion)

  2. Tracy

    If these hardcover adventures are professionally written by teams of designers, what are all these designers doing if the adventures don’t really work? Shouldn’t it be the Editor or the Lead’s job to make sure the adventures work as a whole? And if the designers are assuming the DM will tailor the adventure to their players, what good is it spending money on the hardcover book if no work is really saved?

  3. DM_Bill

    This is the reason that if I use a module, it’s only in the context of an overarching campaign.

    Recently I ran AD&D First Edition. For fun and nostalgia, I threw my players into Tomb of Horrors, the original PC destroyer. The mission was not to destroy Acererak but to make contact with him and inform him of the goings-on of the outside world.

    So basically I used a module to further my overarching campaign story.

    My players loved it. They got to use their real brains in a real PC meat grinder, then turned an infamous D&D villain into an ally.

    Using the modules as-written doesn’t do them real justice, because their maximum potential can’t be realized that way.

  4. Mark

    “Why does the adventure assume the characters will simply plane shift to Hell without having any reason for doing so?”

    Maybe because the players have all signed up for an adventure called “Descent Into Avernus”? Like, that’s a basic part of the whole premise. At some point, with every single one of these adventures, you gotta take the obvious hook and just go with it. You know you are going to descend into Avernus, so take that as a given and then work back from there to come up with a reason your character decides to do it. You don’t need the module and/or the DM to come up with every single reason your character has for doing anything, especially when the thing is a core part of the story that is literally spelled out in the title of the adventure.

    1. Manticool

      I hear what your saying but as a player I would have trouble with that, I like my characters to act like themselves and I love dnd when it sells itself as intuitive roleplay in a heroic setting, I often find railroady [ahem jade regent] adventures to be unfortunate blips in an otherwise awesome experience.
      I get if your running an adventure you should probably look out to play that adventure, thus you go to avernus but honestly that’s not really what’s best about dnd, and its a valid criticism to say it could have been done better. For me the draw of the game is creative agency to interact with an incredible fantasy world, we should be able to make up a strong in story reason to do crazy things if were going to write an adventure about crazy things.

  5. Marwan al-Jabali

    I haven’t told players the name of the adventure currently being played in the Campaign for the last 25 or so years. That leads to the situation where all hooks by me must make sense to the characters, not just to the players, and where railroading can’t usually be utilized as an adventure advancing method, except in very rare instances, really carefully hidden. Still, my players are like bloodhounds. If they smell the slightest smell of railroading, they’re instantly out of the deal. This approach has kept our campaign vividly alive for 39 years, with mostly the same players playing mostly the same characters.

  6. Tommy Bahama

    I think I’ve come up with a solution to buying into the mission to save Elturel. Use the opening from the Adventurers League modelue DDAL09-01 Escape from Elturel. The adventure opens with the players on the road to Elturel either as a caravan traveller, a survivor of Elturel, or having a personal connection with someone from Elturel. This is rather weak but works for Adventurers League. They party meets with a Joan of Arc figure that rallies them to help form a caravan of refugees headed to Baldur’s Gate for safety as random devils and demons are scouring all of Elturgard.

    For Descent into Avernus, it is the fifty year anniversary of the sudden appearance of the Companion that saved Elturgard from the undead hordes. The players should be travelling to Elturel to take part in the celebrations surrounding the fifty year anniversary. Play up that it will be the greatest celebration in fifty years! Spread rumors that Fai Chen’s Fantastical Faire will be there with opportunities to buy and trade some of the most powerful and wonderous magic items in all of Toril!

    Have some players include in their background that they are travelling to Elturel to meet a close friend or family member to enjoy the celebration together. Entice your players by offering up a very minor magical item for someone who takes the either the Celebrity Adventurer’s Scion, Inheritor, or Noble (Elturel) background. Maybe grandma was a Hell Rider and you inherited some minor magic item that gives a +2 to some minor skill like Animal Handling or Grappling.

    This gives the party a meaty hook for giving a damn about Elturel.

  7. Rodrigo

    In my campaign, there was a corrupt prince being manipulated, and the King itself waa sent to Avernus. So, the main reason for them to travel to Avernus is to try to rescue the King itself.


Leave a Reply