I really don't mean this as a criticism of your gaming or your group (as people), but it seems like you want something out of your game (complex, intercharacter tension; player agency but still GM-generated story; and so on) that PF2 isn't (and maybe can't) provide. System really does matter. Have you thought about soliciting advice from those who have more expansive gaming experience as to what games might come closer to providing what you desire?
Does it not? I have a lot of experience in creative writing(15yr+), and improv, voice acting, and drama, as well as game design and mathmatical balancing/theory crafting. I don't have however much experience in juggling the expectations of four people in a rapid pace and dynamic environment, but I believe those things are achievable in a pen and paper system, if not then where? It's something I'm trying to improve on as a DM, and by trying a semi-sandbox approach. Obviously I'm no where near perfect on this.
How does the cleric player think
HIS agency would be involved in the paladin player’s actions? Agency isn’t protection from the consequences of your actions.
I agree, he just feels it wasn't fair that while he was asleep the paladin ratted before he could even react.
it’s possible to prepare plot without being prescriptive.
I think so, I like to think I'm laying track inches before the train runs over it, and if they want to run off the rails I let them.
If you are deciding what will happen before any player actions you are explicitly being prescriptive.
I agree, but I don't think that's what is happening here.
They choose to take a job offering
They choose to take the body from the crypt
---
After that I had nothing else planned and was only following their lead. They were all fine at that point with the story. They were suppose to give the body to the noble outside the manor, and then be paid and leave. But I wasn't going to force that narrative, obviously. I was fine with them being curious about what was going to happen with the body. (The story that had been curated and balanced by me was over, besides this offscreen detail)
---
They choose to attend the ritual
The paladin choose not to stop it
The group choose not to follow the necromancers after the ritual to see what they were up to
The group choose to take the money and go to the pub and all get drunk that night (They had a drinking contest until passing out)
In the early morning, The paladin choose to go rat out the group about what they had done.
I didn't pre-plan them to get caught, as they had no evidence to suspect the parties involvement until they were ratted out.
---
I suppose the argument could be made to say. "well maybe they shouldn't have been necromancers then, let the party discover what they actually are when they get there?" I suppose, but wouldn't it derail the story in a way that makes no sense? I mean I suppose I could have the noble been genuine the entire time and he really was a good guy and just resurrects his father and it was all fine, but then aren't I tailoring an outcome to suit the players desires of outcomes, instead of creating a situation where they can explore the consequences, or not?
---
In theory, if I have a deep dark pit, and it is unknown what will happen if they jump into it. Do I pre-determine this pit leads to death, or do I wait until they jump in to determine what happens? Am I creating situations with random events then that hold no strong basis in a defined reality, that simply reacts to the players wishes? Then when they jump in logically they shouldn't die, but should be met with an outcome they find at best acceptable. Maybe it's just not that deep after all? Maybe there is treasure below?
---
If that's too abstract, the ranger in the game 'loves' to explore useless trash. Literally. He sifts through every garbage pile he can find, he looks through empty pots, under beds, in drawers, tears apart shelves, digs in the muck in sewers. It's amusing, but I can't pre-determine what is in every possible spot in the world. So I often roll a dice to determine the outcome.
But in this scenario, am I in the wrong if he happens to dig into a pot that I pre-determined would have a snake in it if he 'happened' to get curious? Wouldn't then traps in dungeons be pre-determining scenarios? Or placing monsters in a room? What actually is the point at which it is defined what takes away a players agency when pre-determining details?
---
In this instance, the necromancers ritual was a kind of pit that I didn't force them to jump into, or even very strictly mention. It was a theoretical one from which they became curious to see, and found conflict with.
---
I'm not meaning to sound overly defensive, but genuinely curious as to what violates players agency, and the expectations a player can have over what a DM can reasonably dictate into existence. If I don't create 'some' details. Then the world becomes blurry and undefined, until examined, and perhaps even then random and unsatisfying to observe. If I create too many details, then the world becomes confining and like a dark room you must feel around on the walls to define.
