Providing Meaningful Choices?

[ExploderWizard]

good stuff[/I]

As an example from my own campaign regarding the consequences of decision making, the PC's recently discovered a secret door which led into a temple complex filled with evil priests and their followers. The party sneaked into the chamber of the high priestess (unoccupied at the time)
and discovered treasure and some information. Included in the information was a record of victims who were sacrificed and more importantly the names of captives still alive and the scheduled dates of their
upcoming executions.

The party now has knowledge that there are living captives somewhere in the area and based on the information one of them is scheduled to die sometime the next day. The PC's decided to loot the place and set it on fire.
They did so but the fire attracted attention and let to an exhausting combat with two very tough mercenaries employed by
the temple. The PC's won, killing one foe and capturing the other. They went back to the keep to turn in the captive and rest up.

In game time it is now the next day (the day of execution for one named captive) and the PC's went back in fresh, to locate and free the living victims. Their previous foray had raised the alert level in the complex and a small army of undead awaited them beyond the secret door. The undead were reinforced by some tough lieutenants resulting in another
difficult battle. The decision to rest and return had consequences.

We pick up at this point in the next session. The PC's resources are low, they have just defeated the first wave of resistance and know that more will be coming. They also know that an innocent will die today unless they can effect a rescue. What they don't know is that the victim has money and connections and can reward them with both wealth and favors upon rescue.

The players have no way of knowing this until the rescue actually happens. The party has two paladins and will have to decide
how to proceed without this information. The true meaning of their choice might only be known to them once they decide. Life happens that way sometimes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Steading is in a nasty damp area, where hard rain is a daily occurrence and wet fogs a nightly event. All wood in the place is very damp.

It is still possible to light it on fire....just difficult. Indeed, that is what the tournament-winning party actually did.

(They failed to find the major treasure, including the item that allows a party to move onto the next scenario, instead using speak with dead to determine where they should go next.)

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

It is still possible to light it on fire....just difficult. Indeed, that is what the tournament-winning party actually did.

(They failed to find the major treasure, including the item that allows a party to move onto the next scenario, instead using speak with dead to determine where they should go next.)

RC

It does say that all giants from location 11, The Great Hall, escape to the lower level if the PCs set the place on fire. I wonder if these notes were added in reponse to the tournament-winning party's actions.

My feeling is the reason it's been made so difficult to set the steading on fire, and for it resulting in what I would call a failure - no treasure, main foes escape - is that bypassing that amount of content is deemed to be undesirable. There's supposed to be an adventure, the GM's prepared material has to last a certain minimum amount of time. If a session is intended to last five hours and it's over after one then that's regarded as an unsuccessful session.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It does say that all giants from location 11, The Great Hall, escape to the lower level if the PCs set the place on fire. I wonder if these notes were added in reponse to the tournament-winning party's actions.

Could well be. Smoke and carbon monoxide are denser than air, though, and in the environment of 1e, I would have the giants escape outside if at all possible.

My feeling is the reason it's been made so difficult to set the steading on fire, and for it resulting in what I would call a failure - no treasure, main foes escape - is that bypassing that amount of content is deemed to be undesirable. There's supposed to be an adventure, the GM's prepared material has to last a certain minimum amount of time. If a session is intended to last five hours and it's over after one then that's regarded as an unsuccessful session.

It may be deemed a failure now, back in the day this was the first-place team. How "smart play" became equal to "bad play" I'll never know; but I suspect it had something to do with 2e and the rise of the "Plan out what will happen in your game session" meme.


RC

 

[billd91]

It may be deemed a failure now, back in the day this was the first-place team. How "smart play" became equal to "bad play" I'll never know; but I suspect it had something to do with 2e and the rise of the "Plan out what will happen in your game session" meme.

Since the bit about the steading being hard to light on fire and the giants retreating to the dungeon both appeared long before 2e, it's certainly not true for that particular case. That said, I'd have the giants come out of the steading as well... and be hopping mad, too. Instead of a room to room fight with a loud party going on and its screening noise, the party would be dealing with a lot of pissed off giants more out in the open.

Frankly, if the players can figure out the weakness in the environment (or exploit a DM's weakness) and cut a 4-5 hour time slot down to a 1 hour trick, nobody's getting their money's worth. Certainly not at a convention event where you're paying for a slot's worth of entertainment. That was true in 1e as much as in 2e, 3e, or 4e.

 

[Barastrondo]

It may be deemed a failure now, back in the day this was the first-place team. How "smart play" became equal to "bad play" I'll never know; but I suspect it had something to do with 2e and the rise of the "Plan out what will happen in your game session" meme.

I don't think "smart play" ever became equal to "bad play." I think instead you saw one of the earlier (of oh so many) divides in play style. I couldn't fault any GM of less than veteran caliber for being disappointed if the players bypassed a lot of content, and I can definitely see how it would make a GM develop a "why bother?" attitude. Now, yes, in these days of the internet you can find a lot of advice to help you work past that -- it doesn't take long to find someone who'll give you decent advice for adventure preparation and, more importantly, how to take your players into account. Back in the day, though, you might not have had contact with other gaming groups, much less veterans who had good advice about keeping players happy. And just as an unsatisfactory experience with a GM has made plenty of players quit the hobby, I wouldn't be surprised if unsatisfactory experiences with players has made a number of GMs quit the hobby.

"Smart play" is, I think, something that is far more table-specific than many people assume. Some of the smartest play out there isn't about figuring out what's likely to happen in the context of a realistic game world, it's about reading the GM and anticipating the designer's intentions. A gambit that would work at one table might not work at the next because of differing styles. In some places, carefully checking every room for traps and secret doors is the smartest play. In others, it's something that slows down the game immensely and erodes at your fellow players' enjoyment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Frankly, if the players can figure out the weakness in the environment (or exploit a DM's weakness) and cut a 4-5 hour time slot down to a 1 hour trick, nobody's getting their money's worth.

The Dragon write-ups (one by one of the players) certainly made it seem as though they felt they had gotten their money's worth; I guess you know better.

Outside of tournament play, in a dynamic environment, where more exists than just the GM's session plans, cutting a 4-5 hour slog down to a 1 hour victory means 3-4 hours to get more done. That's smart play, and it is rewarding.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Apparently they only burned the hall after they'd killed the giants, so there was no content bypassing. It's in Dragon #19 - The Battle For Snurre's Hall.

The first round led us to the hill giant’s stronghold charged with the
dual purpose of punishing the giants and of finding out who or what was
behind their alliance. We gained entry through the east side entrace,
which turned out to be the kennel. After casting a silence 15’ radius spell,
the dire wolves inside were quickly dispatched. We then searched a major
portion of the upper level and killed four or five giants in the process,
including an old matron whose potions and treasure we took.

We made a brief and fruitless entrance into the lower level only to set
off a trap which left six members of our party locked in combat with four
insane manticores. The manticores were killed without serious injury to
the group, and a passwall spell brought about an escape from the room.

We returned to the upstairs and charmed a hill giant into pointing
out which giant at the feast going on in the Great Hall was the chief. We
surrounded this room from two sides and sent the charmed giant into the
Hall with the order to point out the chief by kissing him on the cheek. This
was also to be the signal for our two groups to attack. Two fireballs, a
javelin of lightning, a confusion spell, and a good deal of slashing and
hacking later, the giants were wiped out to a man and the Steading was
aflame. The group, still intact, cut off the hill giant chiefs head and
quickly left by the front gate. The cleric blocked pursuit by casting a blade
barrier across the entrance. We then cast a speak with dead on the head,
and subsequent questioning revealed the next step to be taken on our
quest.

Ultra-violence and two hill giants snogging. Now that's what I call entertainment!

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Outside of tournament play, in a dynamic environment, where more exists than just the GM's session plans, cutting a 4-5 hour slog down to a 1 hour victory means 3-4 hours to get more done. That's smart play, and it is rewarding.

That's how I see it. Seems to me a GM who can't compensate for a major bypass of his main session point is falling down on the job. Surely most good GMs have a plan B in mind, or are able to improvise something on the spot.

Frankly, if the players can figure out the weakness in the environment (or exploit a DM's weakness) and cut a 4-5 hour time slot down to a 1 hour trick, nobody's getting their money's worth. Certainly not at a convention event where you're paying for a slot's worth of entertainment. That was true in 1e as much as in 2e, 3e, or 4e.

I draw a distinction between exploiting facts of the game world and environment, and exploiting the DM. The first, imho, is truly smart play; the second is smart interpersonal skills.

I'm not saying one or the other is inherently wrong, just that they're different, and elicit different feelings of accomplishment among the players.

 

[Janx]

...snip of true stories of choices...
So I think if you want the choices themselves to seem like they should be cared about, you need to have readily visible consequences (they might not be the ONLY consequences, but they will be visible.)

In my first example, it wasn't a choice I really thought about. "This place is beat, I'm goin to the 7..." was pretty much my whole thought process. There weren't any readily apparent consequences... Both places had beer, women, and music, so they were essentially the same. It was only much later that I realized how important that choice actually ended up being.

In the second example, I knew from the get go the choice I made would have a dramatic change on my life, so the choice was much more involved.

I think both are good from a role playing standpoint.

So in the case of the begger child, if you want the choice to be thought about more, make some of the consequences more apparent. Perhaps they see the town guard about the haul a man away.. The child begs for a coin because that's the back taxes his father owes. Now the consequences are more apparent- without the coin the man goes to jail, and the kid is left without a father.

As a GM, it could be a lot of work to build a ton of relationships and such for the beggar child to be tied to the man who owes money. Things that independently, I could generate as random sights on a city happenings table.

But then, as a GM or even as the author of a story, I can attach meaning and relationship to these random encounters and choices. Making the world more complex and rich, at a fairly low cost.

As in the case of changing venues and meeting the girl, who's to say your future wife wasn't in the first bar? The significance of such a choice is revealed after the fact, such that coincidence and meaning are just a matter of perspective.

The short of it is, after PCs do stuff, try to make some future stuff tied to past stuff the PCs have seen or done. A simple literary trick.

Seperate from that, is to try to produce situations and supply information such that the PCs see a distinct choice to be made. If the PCs don't havee information, in some ways, they're not really making a Choice (with a capital C).