Providing Meaningful Choices?

[Rechan]

Fair enough. The handful of GMs I've played with were always ridiculously adept (or even too adept?) at improv, so sometimes I think that's the norm. Also, maybe I'm a little over-prepared compared to some GMs, as I keep a binder full of hooks, pre-gen "emergency" maps & encounters, randomizing tables, etc, so the "improv" I refer to above is actually fairly well-defined. And of course unused material prepped for that session just goes into the binder.

For me I run online on Maptools. In Maptools, you have to create a Token, which has all of a monster/PC's powers programmed in ahead of time to do the math for you and you click the button to make the attack. All the HP are programmed in, you just subtract them with the right button.

And creating a MAP, just a battle map, takes longer.

An impromptu random encounter would take twice, if not three times as long to run because you have to suddenly spend ten minutes making the map, then typing in everything longhand every time the monster makes an attack. For 5 monsters.

So unless I am prepared for the fight, then they're not having the fight.

 

[Janx]

Fair enough. The handful of GMs I've played with were always ridiculously adept (or even too adept?) at improv, so sometimes I think that's the norm. Also, maybe I'm a little over-prepared compared to some GMs, as I keep a binder full of hooks, pre-gen "emergency" maps & encounters, randomizing tables, etc, so the "improv" I refer to above is actually fairly well-defined. And of course unused material prepped for that session just goes into the binder.

That's a really good point. It seems fair to me, then, for a GM to simply tell the players, "This is what I have prepared; if you blow up the place, I'll have to pull something out of my [hat], and that might not be as interesting for you."

And then the players proceed to blow up stuff anyway, because explosions are ALWAYS interesting.

I don't think it's wrong for the GM to only have 1 adventure prepared, though it may be a bit lazy. I try to run short sessions, so I can prepare the right amount of material I think I need, and little more.

I also don't think it's wrong for the players to utilize a shortcut to bypass content. I don't think it's best DMing practice to veto such ideas, soley on the basis of GM unpreparedness.

In an ideal world, I would remember to include enough material for "if they shortcut this" to make the new shortcut interesting (though still fairly short).

I also don't like the idea of the GM building a pile of barriers and nerfs just to prevent the players from getting off the trail of material they've written.

I think the "they light it on fire" problem is different than what the OP is asking.

Back to the OP and his OT:

if you have a situation that the PCs are deciding a course of action that you know has deeper ramifications, and the players don't seem to be discussing it, why don't you mention it to them. Personally, I'm not against the GM giving players advice by pointing out pros and cons of a course of action (while generally not directly suggesting any specific action).

It could easily be done by passing a note to the wisest or smartest PC, and letting them decide to bring it up. Or you could have an NPC mention it as a "what about the children?!?!" type comment to the PCs discussion.

Granted, this is one way to bring such a Choice to the attention of inattentive players, potentially correcting any GMing gaff of neglecting to relay information previously. Basically, if your players don't think about the consequences, assume you might have made a mistake in making those consequences more obvious to the PCs.

That's seperate from setting up such Dilemmas (I say Dilemma, OP says Question). I think the trick to setting up these dilemmas is contextual, it depends on what you have going on in the campaign world, and very much ties into how you can frame it.

You could turn to fiction, to see how they are set up, and emulate that. Classic dillemas are:
do you trust the enemy of your enemy to help you
what do you do with the wives and children of your enemies?
what do you do with an enemy who surrenders?
How do you ration supplies in a shortage?

Modern topics also can be setup:
Euthanasia (an ancient NPC wants to die)
Abortion (an NPC is pregnant with an alleged abomination)
Racism (D'rizzt-like problems)
Biological manipulations (a wizard is altering/enhancing people)
Drug abuse (an apothecary has a new line of performance enhancing potions)
Unfair Governance (not pure evil, just not fair)


The challenge to these dilemas is to make the player and PC vested in it.

One trick I sometimes employ is to get the PCs situated and comfortable with the status quo or "wrong" side of the argument. Basically, hide the bad stuff about it. then, when they're pretty happy with it, you start revealing how others are getting screwed by it, and eventually if feasible, make the bad stuff start happening to them.

This method assumes that there is a right or wrong, and may not work for all dilemmas. Even the term right or wrong may be used loosely. For Racism, I hope that all of us agree that real racisim is bad, and as such, can be presented as "Racism is bad, see how they're treating the elves" type example.

Other situations, can be setup where it's not truly right or wrong. Presenting the situation of the party finding out that women in a village are giving birth to abominations, or soon will, sets up the situation for the PCs to figure out what to do. In this scenario, I'd avoid making a "wrong" answer, except for "do nothing". The players may come up with a solution to the problem (teleport baby spells), or make a really hard choice thats for the good of the community (stopping monsters is usually such a choice).

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me I run online on Maptools.

One of the advantages of online gaming like this is that you can do a lot of pre-prep that gets used in various circumstances. Prepare some random encounters. When the time comes, either use them whole cloth, or change a few things here and there (extra monster, slightly different terrain, whatever), and you're good to go.

And you're good to go for any encounter that might happen in the future.

That kind of stuff is harder to do at the table, where each combat requires that you set up a map for it.

Though, IMO, this is all just another vote in the bucket for grid-less encounters.

As far as the decision tree goes, you might want to think of choices like a dungeon. There's one entrance. There's one exit. How you get from Point A to Point B is up to you. Design each decision point as a "room," with paths representing the likely choices leading to new rooms.

 

[Rechan]

The challenge to these dilemas is to make the player and PC vested in it.

Yeah. This is one of the reasons I started the thread. To get the PCs vested.

One trick I sometimes employ is to get the PCs situated and comfortable with the status quo or "wrong" side of the argument. Basically, hide the bad stuff about it. then, when they're pretty happy with it, you start revealing how others are getting screwed by it, and eventually if feasible, make the bad stuff start happening to them.[/quote]
That seems more the ol' consequences of their actions, as opposed to making them stop and contemplate their next move before making it.

But yeah, I see what you're saying. You too, LostSoul. But some times you never know what the players/PCs will care about until it comes up.

I recall doing this before. Both examples - personal meaning and a decision tree. PCs were trying to find a dragon. I presented them three options that were Obvious to Them with a few skill rolls: 1) Go ask a thief who has boasted about robbing the dragon. He is a few days away and things are a little time sensitive. 2) Go ask a witch, who is very sketchy. 3) Slay a mythical beast that will answer one question truthfully and indepth upon death. The PCs chose option 2. What they didn't realize is that the witch asked a price: a personal sacrifice. So the players had to sacrifice something personal that effected thier character in a completely RP capacity (in this case, a PC lost the ability to express happiness). Another PC wanted to know the directions in order to get the question out of the mythical beast; he sacrificed his ability to ever feel love.

 

[LostSoul]

Rechan, would you like to try out a little exercise? Basically it'll be like this: You make a character for The Shadow of Yesterday; I tell you what I'd do to create those Questions.

I picked The Shadow of Yesterday since it's a traditional game that I've played and it employs flags to great effect. And it's free online: Main Page - TSOY

Let me know if you want to try it out. I have a setting ready to go, the setting of a game I played in.

[sblock=The setting]

In a world ruled by demon kings, in a vast fantastic city governed by
wise, magical, and totally indifferent immortals, one thing ,and one
thing only, matters: treasure. Whether you are an intelligent talking
monkey, an esoteric assassin, a pirate who has pulled into Oudison
Harbour to escape demon-king fleets, an outsider has only one way to
fend of the predations of a greedy criminal underworld: treasure. Can
you find love, happiness, or a little grace in Aupothert?

Key Words: Elric, Damon Runyan, Heavy Metal Comics, Roger Dean album
covers, Glorantha's Pavis, The City-State of the Invincible Overlord,
Kafka's "The Castle," Borges' "Labyrinths," Manhattan/NYC, Las Vegas,
the pirates of the South China seas, the illustrations to Exalted.

Aupothert (OWE-po-tert)
- Far from the big empires that have collapsed into dust, ruins, or shifting tides of madness
- Sheltered from the raging Great Ocean by the Desolate Sound
- The parks, streams, clearings and forests keep the Demon Kings at Bay
- The Governor's Island was a fortress island but the confident Qin have removed the human conscripts and dedicated it to peace. But they still haven't thought of some way to make practical use of it.
- To the west of the mainland lie the ruined empires of the continent
- The Western Bridge is the only connection between the Island and the the Mainland.
- The Eastern Bridge leads to the Shanties, a collection of slum hovels populated by those who work on the Island but cannot afford to live their or enjoy its pleasures.
- The Island is ruled by the haughty, beautiful, immortal, and completely indifferent Qin. For centuries they have tended the parks, squares, lakes, rivers and chanted their holy songs. While around them has grown a huge, cavernous, decadent city addicted to wealth and thrills. They continue in their daily round as if in a dream. But woe to any human, demonspawn, monkey, assassin, or pirate who so much as sullies one of the sacred precincts.​

[/sblock]

 

[bert1000]

Yeah. This is one of the reasons I started the thread. To get the PCs vested.

This has been alluded to already, but to have meaningful consequences the characters need to know (even if imperfectly) the likely consequences of their choices. In my experience most DMs (including myself) err too much on the side of less information to maintain mystery, etc.

Should we ally with A or B? go through door A or B? Save A or B (can't do both)? Only by having an idea of the likely consequences of A or B does it become a real choice vs. just a random act.

 

[steenan]

While my games are strongly player-driven, I don't usually think in terms of separate choices. I present situations and let my players decide what they want to do with them. Sometimes these situations are simple enough that a single choice and a single action is enough; sometimes a few sessions are required.

The main guidelines that I follow when creating such games are:

1. Make the situation important for the PCs.
I use what I know about characters: their backgrounds, motivations, goals, values, personality traits. I try to tie the situation to as many characters as I can, in different ways. For each of them, something they care for must be at stake.
If someone is a loyal, honorable knight, I may put him in a conflict between honesty and loyalty. If he cares for his family, I may have his brother mixed up in some criminal activity. If he focuses on money, there will be a possibility of a risky but profitable business. Etc.

2. The situation should not suggest a single solution
To pose a question, the situation must be ambivalent. No approach and no solution should be clearly better than others; some values should be in conflict. It may be a conflict internal for a character, or a conflict between viewpoints of different characters in the group.
For this reason, I rarely run games with a "villain". If I have a definitely bad guy, he's in the background, while the party mends the bad situations he created. More often, I have groups with conflicted interests, but with no significant moral supremacy at either side. If played well, I may even have an NPC that works directly counter to party's goals, but does nothing bad enough to legitimize using violence against him.

3. Make the choice informed
While I love secrets and surprises, to make a choice significant I need to give enough information to my players. There may be a twist to be revealed later, but majority of consequences must be known (or, at least, predictable) beforehand.
In the criminal brother example from point 1, I'll make it clear that if not stopped, he will murder someone sooner or later - and that, if he gets caught by guards, he'll be hanged for what he already did. If my players didn't know how bad things are, they'd probably ignore the situation and then be (understandably) frustrated when I hit them with consequences.

 

[bert1000]

3. Make the choice informed
While I love secrets and surprises, to make a choice significant I need to give enough information to my players. There may be a twist to be revealed later, but majority of consequences must be known (or, at least, predictable) beforehand.
In the criminal brother example from point 1, I'll make it clear that if not stopped, he will murder someone sooner or later - and that, if he gets caught by guards, he'll be hanged for what he already did. If my players didn't know how bad things are, they'd probably ignore the situation and then be (understandably) frustrated when I hit them with consequences.

This is exactly what I was talking about. I don't think it is always that easy to do in a smooth way, however. So, how exactly do folks get this type of information conveyed to the characters in game without resorting to hokey things like notes found on dead bodies, etc. ?

 

[Janx]

The main guidelines that I follow when creating such games are:

1. Make the situation important for the PCs.
I use what I know about characters: their backgrounds, motivations, goals, values, personality traits. I try to tie the situation to as many characters as I can, in different ways. For each of them, something they care for must be at stake.
If someone is a loyal, honorable knight, I may put him in a conflict between honesty and loyalty. If he cares for his family, I may have his brother mixed up in some criminal activity. If he focuses on money, there will be a possibility of a risky but profitable business. Etc.

2. The situation should not suggest a single solution
To pose a question, the situation must be ambivalent. No approach and no solution should be clearly better than others; some values should be in conflict. It may be a conflict internal for a character, or a conflict between viewpoints of different characters in the group.
For this reason, I rarely run games with a "villain". If I have a definitely bad guy, he's in the background, while the party mends the bad situations he created. More often, I have groups with conflicted interests, but with no significant moral supremacy at either side. If played well, I may even have an NPC that works directly counter to party's goals, but does nothing bad enough to legitimize using violence against him.

3. Make the choice informed
While I love secrets and surprises, to make a choice significant I need to give enough information to my players. There may be a twist to be revealed later, but majority of consequences must be known (or, at least, predictable) beforehand.
In the criminal brother example from point 1, I'll make it clear that if not stopped, he will murder someone sooner or later - and that, if he gets caught by guards, he'll be hanged for what he already did. If my players didn't know how bad things are, they'd probably ignore the situation and then be (understandably) frustrated when I hit them with consequences.

Your points actually mesh with my example of a dilema.

Let some of the players experience the benefits of the social situation, let others feel the negatives. The effect is, the players get vested.

In my example of the women who are pregnant with abominations, this situation may fail to interest the players, because as I described it, it has no direct impact to the players. Make one of the pregnant women related to a PC (or one of the PCs), and now at least one player probably cares.

This is where, as Steenan says, you've got to make the situation important for the PCs. It can't just be something the PCs happen to see going on, it has to have some personal relevance. This is the same reason some plot hooks fail to ge the players to bite.

 

[Kafen]

Your points actually mesh with my example of a dilema.

Let some of the players experience the benefits of the social situation, let others feel the negatives. The effect is, the players get vested.

In my example of the women who are pregnant with abominations, this situation may fail to interest the players, because as I described it, it has no direct impact to the players. Make one of the pregnant women related to a PC (or one of the PCs), and now at least one player probably cares.

This is where, as Steenan says, you've got to make the situation important for the PCs. It can't just be something the PCs happen to see going on, it has to have some personal relevance. This is the same reason some plot hooks fail to ge the players to bite.

I run an online game for a group that has a lot of time in on their characters. A year and some change in some cases... Anyways, I find that the toughest part is making the bait exciting for the actual players. The players need to enjoy the experience. I use small barriers/problems to give players the change to say... "Oh no, you are not doing that to my NPC friend, parent, child! Take that GM!" .. in the form of little victories which gives players the joy of thumbing their noses at me. You can usually ride that "hah!" moment into a regular plot line that is important to the overall campaign without balance issues. So, the situation does not have to be overwhelming to the rest of the party if you have a moody players among the group. It allows you target individual PCs and stroke the ego of players without creating waves in the main plot hook.

Otherwise known as a MacGuffin...