Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Musings on Choice
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4993731" data-attributes="member: 3424"><p>A couple of recent threads (on <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267646-confession-i-like-plot.html" target="_blank">plot</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267716-why-we-like-plot-our-job-dms.html" target="_blank">plot</a>) led me to muse a little about the role of choice in an RPG, in particular, for the players of an RPG. Although it was not the original intent, I think this post quickly starts sounding like a DM advice article, so feel free to criticize it from that angle if you want.</p><p></p><p><u>The Basic Unit of Player Interaction</u></p><p>I do not know who first articulated the idea, but I wholeheartedly subscribe to the philosophy that every time a character acts in a game, the character's player ought to be making a choice. In a way, choice is the basic unit of player interaction with the game, and is one of the essential features that distinguishes it from a novel. Dwarf or Elf? Fighter or Wizard? Toughness or Weapon Focus? <em>Sleep</em> or <em>flaming sphere</em>? Go right or left? Talk or fight? Slowly shift into position or risk an opportunity attack to flank now? Stop to rest or press on? Rescue the villagers or chase after the fleeing villian? Ultimately, everything that happens in an RPG ought to flow from the choices made by the players (I'll get to chance in a bit). Hence, one of the key roles of the DM is to ensure that the players get to make choices in his game. </p><p></p><p><u>Choices and Consequences</u></p><p>Of course, in order for the players' choices to be meaningful, different choices should also result in different outcomes. A scenario in which the same outcome takes place regardless of the choices made by the players is seldom well-received as it means that their choices were largely irrelevant. The consequences of certain choices (in particular, those made in combat or during the straight application of mechanical sub-systems) are enforced by the game rules. As for the rest, it is essentially up to the DM to ensure that the players' choices matter. </p><p></p><p>Ideally, the consequences should be a reasonable outcome of the choices (barring complications such as incomplete or incorrect information - see next section). Of course, the key problem is that different people can sometimes have very different ideas of what is reasonable. One person's clever solution that should succeed can be another person's abhorrent scheme that ought to fail. When this happens to people on different sides of the DM screen, the DM may find himself either wondering why the players don't take the obvious approach, or aghast that the players are prepared to do something that he never thought they would. The consequences of a choice can sometimes seem overly harsh to the players, and can be a source of player-DM conflict. Because of this ambiguity, a DM should be particularly careful when using game-ending consequences such as character death. </p><p></p><p>In fact, in more complex scenarios in which the players have to make a series of choices, it is probably a good practice for the DM to envisage more than the two standard potential outcomes of complete failure and complete success. This may consist of having a variety of possible points along the success-failure continuum, or having multiple independent goals so that the players can achieve all of them, some of them, or none of them.</p><p></p><p><u>Choice and Information</u></p><p>Player choice can sometime be hampered though a lack of information, either because the DM has inadvertently or deliberately left out important information, the latter because finding the relevant information is supposed to be part of the challenge. In situations where the players may make choices without knowing all the relevant information, a DM who doesn't want the game to end abruptly should avoid using game-ending consequences, or ensure that the players get sufficient feedback before the consequence happens. This is for pretty much the same reason that a game of Hangman doesn't end after just one letter is guessed incorrectly, and why the game of Twenty Questions is not called One Guess. </p><p></p><p><u>Choice and Chance</u></p><p>There is a strong element of randomness in many RPGs, and occasionally, this means that even if the players make all the best choices, all they gain is a good chance at success. A DM who wants to reduce or limit (without completely eliminating) the role of chance in determining whether the players succeed or fail may decide to have certain consequences follow automatically from the players' choices, without requiring any dice rolls or other elements of chance. This works well with the "multiple independent goals" model mentioned earlier - the players may be able to achieve some of the goals simply by making the right choices. Other goals require them to make good choices and have luck on their side (or at least, not against them). This way, even though good choices cannot guarantee a complete success, they can prevent a complete failure.</p><p></p><p>As a DM, how do you ensure that the players get to make meaningful choices in your game, and that the consequences for good or bad choices are reasonable, bearing in mind that good and bad may be subjective? How do you balance the need to give enough information to the players to make informed choices with the need to avoid giving the players so much information that the best choice becomes obvious? What is your ideal balance between choice and chance? Approximately how much of the players' successes would you allow to be entirely due to their choices, and how much do you feel should be left to chance?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 4993731, member: 3424"] A couple of recent threads (on [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267646-confession-i-like-plot.html"]plot[/URL] and [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/267716-why-we-like-plot-our-job-dms.html"]plot[/URL]) led me to muse a little about the role of choice in an RPG, in particular, for the players of an RPG. Although it was not the original intent, I think this post quickly starts sounding like a DM advice article, so feel free to criticize it from that angle if you want. [U]The Basic Unit of Player Interaction[/U] I do not know who first articulated the idea, but I wholeheartedly subscribe to the philosophy that every time a character acts in a game, the character's player ought to be making a choice. In a way, choice is the basic unit of player interaction with the game, and is one of the essential features that distinguishes it from a novel. Dwarf or Elf? Fighter or Wizard? Toughness or Weapon Focus? [I]Sleep[/I] or [I]flaming sphere[/I]? Go right or left? Talk or fight? Slowly shift into position or risk an opportunity attack to flank now? Stop to rest or press on? Rescue the villagers or chase after the fleeing villian? Ultimately, everything that happens in an RPG ought to flow from the choices made by the players (I'll get to chance in a bit). Hence, one of the key roles of the DM is to ensure that the players get to make choices in his game. [U]Choices and Consequences[/U] Of course, in order for the players' choices to be meaningful, different choices should also result in different outcomes. A scenario in which the same outcome takes place regardless of the choices made by the players is seldom well-received as it means that their choices were largely irrelevant. The consequences of certain choices (in particular, those made in combat or during the straight application of mechanical sub-systems) are enforced by the game rules. As for the rest, it is essentially up to the DM to ensure that the players' choices matter. Ideally, the consequences should be a reasonable outcome of the choices (barring complications such as incomplete or incorrect information - see next section). Of course, the key problem is that different people can sometimes have very different ideas of what is reasonable. One person's clever solution that should succeed can be another person's abhorrent scheme that ought to fail. When this happens to people on different sides of the DM screen, the DM may find himself either wondering why the players don't take the obvious approach, or aghast that the players are prepared to do something that he never thought they would. The consequences of a choice can sometimes seem overly harsh to the players, and can be a source of player-DM conflict. Because of this ambiguity, a DM should be particularly careful when using game-ending consequences such as character death. In fact, in more complex scenarios in which the players have to make a series of choices, it is probably a good practice for the DM to envisage more than the two standard potential outcomes of complete failure and complete success. This may consist of having a variety of possible points along the success-failure continuum, or having multiple independent goals so that the players can achieve all of them, some of them, or none of them. [U]Choice and Information[/U] Player choice can sometime be hampered though a lack of information, either because the DM has inadvertently or deliberately left out important information, the latter because finding the relevant information is supposed to be part of the challenge. In situations where the players may make choices without knowing all the relevant information, a DM who doesn't want the game to end abruptly should avoid using game-ending consequences, or ensure that the players get sufficient feedback before the consequence happens. This is for pretty much the same reason that a game of Hangman doesn't end after just one letter is guessed incorrectly, and why the game of Twenty Questions is not called One Guess. [U]Choice and Chance[/U] There is a strong element of randomness in many RPGs, and occasionally, this means that even if the players make all the best choices, all they gain is a good chance at success. A DM who wants to reduce or limit (without completely eliminating) the role of chance in determining whether the players succeed or fail may decide to have certain consequences follow automatically from the players' choices, without requiring any dice rolls or other elements of chance. This works well with the "multiple independent goals" model mentioned earlier - the players may be able to achieve some of the goals simply by making the right choices. Other goals require them to make good choices and have luck on their side (or at least, not against them). This way, even though good choices cannot guarantee a complete success, they can prevent a complete failure. As a DM, how do you ensure that the players get to make meaningful choices in your game, and that the consequences for good or bad choices are reasonable, bearing in mind that good and bad may be subjective? How do you balance the need to give enough information to the players to make informed choices with the need to avoid giving the players so much information that the best choice becomes obvious? What is your ideal balance between choice and chance? Approximately how much of the players' successes would you allow to be entirely due to their choices, and how much do you feel should be left to chance? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Musings on Choice
Top