NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8130481" data-attributes="member: 16814">So, there's a pretty big pea being hidden under this mattress, and that's the assumption that the player choice is uniformed.  This almost never happens -- players are making a choice to go in a "random" direction not because they are actually random but usually because there's some other motive at play.  Perhaps they don't like what's otherwise available, so the choice is on to not choose any of what's already up.  Or, they're engaged in some level of metaplay where they think their thwarting a GM plan they don't want, or, maybe they are random.  In each of these cases, though, the players are exerting their agency.The kind of uninformed choice that's problematic isn't one where players make a choice without perfect information, but rather when the GM offers the players a choice without sufficient information.  A T-intersection in a dungeon passage, for instance, is an uninformed choice if the GM hasn't provided any information about what on either path.  Provided the GM has prepped the dungeon, the choice can matter, but it's a coin flip at the time of the choice.  This doesn't engage agency because they players aren't actually making a choice, they're selecting a random outcome.  If the GM does provide information, though, perhaps in foreshadowing or prior fiction (like a map), then this choice is fully engaged in agency.  Illusionism happens when the GM offers such a choice but both passages lead to the same thing -- and becomes worse if there's additional information that appears to make the choice an informed one.  Uniformed choices are about what information is available before or during the choice.  Illusionism is about a forced outcome making the choice irrelevant.This is engaging in Illusionism, and is denying agency.  It's an interesting subvariant of Illusionism, because the decision to create the illusion of choice is after the fact.  By deciding after the fact that the NPC is lying, you've negated any choices made during the encounter with the NPC and forced a specific outcome.  The most important thing to do in either prepped or improved play is to honor established fiction.  Do not introduce a change to established fiction unless it makes sense as a direct outcome of current play.  In other words, you deciding as the GM that the NPC was lying is removing agency.  The players discovering that the NPC had lied because they've suffered a failure on an important task that relied on the NPC's statement can work, though.  Here, the NPC's truthfulness is a trusted fact, but the PCs have failed their task due to a bad roll or poor approach, then discovering that the reason their attempt failed was bad info can be a reasonable play.  I'd be careful about using this, though, unless you're table is strongly rooted in play that directly challenges PC beliefs.  It can result in bad feelings.  I usually find it better to not engage in such things, as I'd rather my players not develop paranoid tendencies -- they're not fun for me.</blockquote>

Verification