Sure, but how is plausibility of different events compared? Certainly there’d be some obvious answers when two possibilities are compared. But there are also going to be some that are equally plausible, or close to it.
How is a choice made from that point?
The comparison of plausibility is grounded in what makes sense from the perspective of the world and the people in it. I look at what each faction or NPC knows, what resources they have, what their goals are, and how recent events appear from their point of view. From the character’s side, how they act depends on:
- What they know – A duke may not know the emperor is dead, or might assume someone else already took the throne. He’s acting on what he knows, not what I know.
- What they want – Is he ambitious? Loyal? Trying to keep order? His motivations shape what makes sense.
- What’s around them – Are his troops intact? Are rival lords mobilizing? Is there famine or calm? This affects his risk tolerance.
- What’s normal for them – If succession usually ends in civil war, that leans one way. If past crises led to strong central authority, that leans another.
So say the empire just collapsed. The players want to know what their home province’s duke is going to do. I consider the situation and ask:
- Is he likely to declare independence?
- Will he try to join a confederacy?
- Could he make a claim to the throne?
If none of these stands out as the clear favorite, I’ll assign weights based on what the duke values and how he views the current state of things:
- Join a confederacy: 3 in 6 (he’s risk-averse and has trusted allies)
- Go it alone: 2 in 6 (he’s confident in his troops but wary)
- Claim the throne: 1 in 6 (it’s bold, risky, and out of character)
Then I roll.
But if I think a die roll isn’t enough on its own, especially when the players’ goals, backgrounds, or actions make one outcome more compelling, I may pick. Still, I’m only picking from within the plausible range. I’m not authoring a twist. I’m choosing between outcomes that already make sense, based on what we know about the NPC and the world.
The choice to pick isn’t arbitrary. I weigh:
- How often I’ve rolled vs. picked lately (so I don’t drift into invisible bias)
- How each option fits with what the players are invested in right now
Here’s another example:
The party has been working with Lady Merrowyn, a mid-tier noble who’s been quietly backing their expeditions. Word spreads: someone tried to assassinate the Duke, and rumor has it House Durn is involved.
So what does Lady Merrowyn do?
She’s loyal to the Duke, but her sister is married into House Durn. She’s political, risk-averse, and cares more about reputation than wealth. She’s backed the PCs but isn’t close to them personally.
The players may ask what she’ll do, or they may just wait to see if she pulls support or changes direction.
I consider what’s been established and weigh her options:
- She keeps quiet, asks the PCs to discreetly investigate – 3 in 6
- She suspends support entirely, avoids entanglement – 2 in 6
- She tips off House Durn out of family loyalty or fear – 1 in 6
If none of these jumps out, I roll. But again, I might pick, say she chooses to use the PCs as intermediaries to quietly pass word to House Durn, because that’s the
most interesting given what the players are trying to do. Still, it has to be consistent with what we know about her. I’m not inventing drama. I’m resolving uncertainty in a way that respects character logic and builds off the established situation.
That’s how I handle even NPCs in the PCs’ immediate circle. It’s not about crafting a better scene. It’s about figuring out what they would actually do, and letting the world move forward from there.
