If that choice, however uninformed, has consequences (you went left and therefore the townsfolk were sacrificed), how is that not a meaningful choice? That choice had great meaning. The players just don't know how meaningful it is.
First, for clarity: I am talking about a scenario in which (i) the players have a left and a right path to choose between, (ii) there is nothing that suggests either is an unreasonable choice, and (iii) if the PCs go down the left path, and try to examine the documents, it will be fruitless/pointless (foreign language, no info, etc) and the time taken will mean that when they then head down the right path the prisoners will be dead (or whatever - the players will have failed in their goal for that episode of play).
In that situation, I contend that (1) the left/right choice is not meaningful, and (2) the scenario has not been well-designed - as I said upthread, it's effectively a microcosmic version of "rocks fall", triggered by the players making one rather than another of two apparently reasonable choices.
The reason it is not a meaningful choice, in my view, is because making the choice reflects no skill on the part of the players, nor does it reflect any values or commitments. Choosing left rather than right is - under the conditions I specify - basically random. And so the players make an essentially random choice, with one of the choices meaning auto-fail.
The fact that the
players' choice is what triggers the auto-loss doesn't make that choice meaningful, in my view. Here's an analogy to explain why: the GM could have a black ball ("PCs lose") and a white ball ("PCs win"), and put them behind his/her back and then invite the players to choose left or right. The players' choice, in those circumstances, will causally determine the outcome in the fiction, but it is not meaningful as a choice: the making of the choice does not reflect or express any contribution (of reason, or value) from the players.
If you flesh out the scenario somewhat then the situation is a little different, but in my view no better as scenario design.
Here's one fleshing out, and perhaps the most natural: (a) the players (and PCs) can see that the left path is probably an office or library, whereas the right path is into the heart of the evil lair; (b) there is information that the players (and their PCs) know they lack, and that they have reason to think would be worth having (eg earlier events give them reason to think there might be an as-yet undiscovered accomplice or lieutenant helping with the evil plot); and therefore (c) the players choose to detour via the left path, which looks like it might lead to clues, rather than via the right path.
Again, as per the first version I outlined, going left will (i) yield no useful information, and (ii) will result in a fail, due to the time taken.
The reason that I think this is bad scenario design is that it creates an impression, for the players, that an option is available - to go and look for clues, and thereby gain information - but choosing that option is an auto-fail. In effect, the GM is dangling a lure into loss.
If the question is about player agency, then the uninformed choice with a meaningful consequence is infinitely more empowering than a meaningless choice due to railroading.
I don't see why.
At the craps table, am I more empowered if I get to roll, or if the croupier does? Assuming the dice are fair and no one is going to try and cheat, it makes no difference. If I roll, there is at best the illusion of agency!
The thing is, it's not a pure gamble. It's more of an educated guess. They're betting on A rather than B, because they have some reason to believe that. If the DM is being honest about the world, and the players are engaged with the world, then the PCs should end up making the right decisions more often than the wrong ones.
See my comments above.
Two more points. First, the players' educated guess will almost certainly involve metagaming (the players' sense of what the GM's inclinations and preferences are, what tropes are in play, etc). Second, short of the GM telling the players that the writing will be in a foreign language, or that the sacrifice is going to happen
right now, how are the players going to know that they will lose if they choose to go left? The GM has written a scenario in which players who act on a completely reasonable set of preferences and expectations - that by searching for clues they can find information that will help their PCs make progress through the game - in fact end up losing with no control over their fate beyond that initial choice. An erroneous choice, but one who's erroneous character was not epistemically accessible to them.
I was recently rereading the scenario Q1 (Queen of the Demonweb Pits), for use in my 4e game. One aspect of that module which I ignored is the presence of gates to various alternate Prime Material Planes. Here is the GM advice in relation to those elements of the published adventure (Q1, p 13):
Each door is accompanied by several sections of description. The first paragraph describes what the players see when they look through a door. The paragraphs that follow provide the DM with a more complete description of what the world is like and what might be found there. . . . Because each world could be of great size, the DM may not wish to have the players exploring these worlds. In such a case, the DM may suggest to the players, "It doesn't look like Lolth lives here" or give some other discouraging clue.
Ridiculous advice! If the GM doesn't want the players to explore these other worlds, don't include them in the module. If options are included in the GM's world, and from the perspective of the players there is nothing to suggest that interacting with them is a waste of time relative to the players' goals for their PCs, then a GM who configures things such they are in fact a waste of time is, in my view, hosing the players. And to then try to cover up for that by giving "discouraging clues" is just supplementing poor initial design with poor run-time technique. What's the point of presenting the players with an option if you are the, as GM, going to discourage them from the option precisely because you know it's pointless or silly? Are you deliberately setting out to create balance-of-power issues at your table?
The DM has to arrange the world in some configuration, but that doesn't mean creating leads for them to find. It's just a fact of the world that the information you want is out there, somewhere; because the world is in some configuration, evidence within the world will naturally reflect that.
Kind of like how, in real life, you can accomplish goals without having any higher power there to make sure that your searches are fruitful.
The differences from real life are so many and varies it's hard for me to know where to begin. Probably the main one is that real life is
real. It takes place in a world in which events really take place, constrained by and driven by causal laws.
In a roleplaying game, the players only have access to information that is narrated by (and hence authored by) the GM (subject to some exceptions around player backstory authorship). Their option-space is framed by the events and circumstances that the GM authors (subject to the same exceptions). There are no author-independent processes taking place that generate information and outcomes at a RPG table.
In real life, rain makes puddles. In an RPG, the GM choosing to narrate puddles, rather than one of the indefinitely many other things the GM could have spoken to fill that 10 seconds of table time, is a choice. It is a choice that provides information to, and triggers choices by, the players. (Not every puddle is Chekhov's puddle, but many will be. I can't remember ever coming across a key in a published RPG adventure, or in an episode of RPG play, that was not of relevance to the broader adventure context. Have an NPC's boots or socks ever been mentioned but for being magical, or having a dagger hidden in them, or being colourful and hence providing a clue that is picked up elsewhere in the scenario? If at all, not often.)
I never said that one path was auto-loss. I just meant to imply that they're different. The players could go right, or they could go left, and they would find different things. If they go left before they go right, then they might have a better result than if they just go right. (I did mean to imply that right was the known goal, and that the left path was an unknown; it may have been unclear on that point.)
If the difference is not epistemically accessible to the players, then we are still talking about the players taking a gamble on the GM's secret backstory. If the difference is partially accessible, but the relationship between the choices and success is not epistemically accessible, then were are in the same general area as my modified example above: the GM's choices about how options connect and interrelate have become the pre-eminent determinants of the outcomes of play. It is a GM-driven game.
If the players don't feel like their choices matter, then it could be a failure of the DM to present the world, or just a mis-match between player and DM expectations for the game. One of the problems with a strong-DM system is that it is prone to failures of the DM.
By "matter" I think you mean "affect the GM's narration." It's clear in the example being discussed that the players' choices affect what the GM narrates. So would the players choosing whether the GM should reveal his/her left or right hand (one with the black ball, the other with the white). But that wouldn't make the choice meaningful from the player perspective.
To the extent that "mismatch between expectations" is in play, that seems to be an issue of metagaming - the players aren't able to read the GM's preferences for tropes, plotlines, narrative elements etc. Which strikes me as plausible, but somewhat at odds with what I took your preferences to be. (Eg upthread when [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] talked about the importance of metagaming the GM in this sort of way, I thought you disagreed.)
The players don't choose to encounter the mysterious stranger. Encounters are determined by chance and circumstance.
The players don't choose to encounter the stranger, no. My point is that
the GM chooses whether or not they do, by choosing where the stranger is imagined to be.
If the GM makes that choice independently of the players' choices (eg writes down on a bit of paper the inn the stranger is in, and doesn't change that regardless of the players' later choice of inn for their PCs) then the fact that the PCs never meet the stranger is not reflective of the players being in control of their destiny (which is how you described it upthread). It is a result of the
GM being in control of secret backstory.
There's a difference between players deciding to undertake actions - to pick up one of many plot hooks - and the DM deciding that something will happen regardless of player actions.
There are many possible differences, but from the point of view of meaningful choice none is guaranteed.
If the GM decides that if the players choose to have their PCs go left then rocks fall, and if the players choose to have them go right then there is a chance of a PC victory (eg a combat will ensue, to be resolved via the combat mechanics), the players' action declarations for their PCs will affect the outcome of the campaign. But by my lights no meaningful choice will have been made. It's no different from choosing the white ball or the black ball at random.
Suppose that the GM provides the players with three plot hooks, and one leads to B1, one to B2 and one to B4 - let's say that, in the inn, the PCs hear rumours of the Caverns of Quasqueton, they meet a rider from the Keep who mentions the Caves of Chaos, and they meet a mercenary captain wanting to hire guards for a desert caravan crossing. Is this meaningful choice? Not really - the players, at this stage, don't know what any of the adventures involve, what level of threat their PCs will confront, what treasures they might gain, etc. It's basically random.
The players would probably have more meaningful choice if the GM just laid out the three modules, let the players see the covers and read the blurbs, and asked "Which one shall we play tonight?"
Is this non-railroading? I don't really see it. I mean, the GM could just as easily ask "Do you want to play Dragonlance, or this Paizo AP?" - but that woudn't mean that the adventures weren't going to be railroads!
Conversely, if the the GM decides that whichever inn the PCs go to the mysterious stranger will be there, there is no railroading. No outcome has been dictated.
As you yourself said, the choice to meet the mysterious stranger is not a player-side choice - hence the GM deciding where the stranger will be is not negating any player agency, and hence is not any sort of railroading.
If the PCs choose a particular inn because they heard about how great their mead is, in then that's a real reason which needs to be respected.
Of course. But how is that choice disrespected by the GM deciding that the mysterious stranger is also there (perhaps because she, also, likes mead).
there have been games which attempt to blur the line between player and GM, by granting some authorial control to the players.
This is a total red herring. No one in this discussion is talking about player authorship of backstory. The discussion is about the basis on which the GM makes decisions about backstory and consequences.
