Providing Meaningful Choices?

[the Jester]

I start offering meaningful decisions by dropping tons of plot hooks and letting the pcs decide which ones to take. If they don't like any of them, they can go find something else entirely to do.

The pcs in my game have slain arch-devils, they have carved out empires, they have crafted mighty magics. The meaningful part means that those arch-devils are still dead, those empires have historical meaning, those magics can be found.

 

[Sir Wulf]

Rather than working out a plot ahead of time, sometimes it's best to just consider the adventure's antagonists and what they might do once the PCs interfere with their schemes. As the PCs learn of the villains' plans, the PCs can choose what they want to do about them. Interesting villains suggest more options for the PCs than "kill them and take their stuff".

As an example, the PCs find themselves in village A. Raiders living in nearby hills repeatedly prey on the village, attacking travelers on the roads to the area and sometimes even raiding the village itself. The adventure starts when the raiders do something that ticks off the PCs, such as robbing a caravan that was expected to deliver something they want or kidnapping some innocents they can sell to slavers.

So far, it's a standard railroad plot. To give the PCs some interesting choices, add a few curve balls to the mix: Battling one of the raiding parties, the PCs learn that the raiders aren't all blackhearted villains. Perhaps their leaders have a legitimate grievance with the village folk: The village's ruler seized their land a generation earlier, forcing their families into serfdom. Fleeing enslavement, they turned to banditry to survive. These grim circumstances forced the exiles into alliance with a murderous brotherhood of brigands. The exiles might be the only force restraining their sinister allies from more destructive rampages.

By adding moral complexity, the PCs are given meaningful options. Do they massacre the hill raiders? Do they negotiate a compromise?

Heroes make hard choices. Sometimes those involve pushing on to defeat an evil when they're not sure they have the resources to survive. Sometime they're moral choices, where the path of righteousness is murky and uncertain.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

This is a very interesting topic, but, while I get the overall basic topic, I'm not sure what exactly the OP is specifically talking about.


I get the idea of decision trees and having different decisions lead to different reprecussions...but I don't get the need for them in DMing. I like what one poster said about presenting A and B and they pick Z. A dm should be able to go with this, and that's fundamentally what I like most about playing D&D with people rather than playing a computer RPG.


NOW, that said, I can see the need for flowcharts in printed material. If I write an adventure, all of the questions regarding flowcharts, making meaningful choices and having choices appear meaningful begin to matter much more.


So, to clarify, is this thread more about writing adventures in such a way, or DMing in such a way? I think those are very different questions as DMs are fluid while printed material is static.

 

[Scribble]

Rather than working out a plot ahead of time, sometimes it's best to just consider the adventure's antagonists and what they might do once the PCs interfere with their schemes.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying- what I think Rechan is talking about (as well as the article he linked) is when you DO have a plot in mind, but still want to offer choice along the way.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah- I think it's easier to have the A-B sequence be epic and not feel like a railroad... but it can pop up in smaller ways... Something we were talking about in another thread about meaningful choice basically meaning consequences...

So PCs know a Dragon is attacking... Defeating the dragon will be much easier with the Dragonlance, but the time it will take the PCs to get the lance is time the Dragon has to keep burninatin stuff and eatin dudes.

Well honestly, looking at it, certain things pop up.

The easiest way to think of it is that in most situtaions where there's a choice, there are a few option themes.

1a) Quick, dirty and negative. This is the "Means to the End" option. It's either morally ambiguous or just harsh. The old "seal the town and burn it down to make sure all the plague-carrying zombies and those infected are taken care of."

OR

1b) Quick, suspicious, and potentially negative. This is the "making the deal with the devil" type situation. It's not harsh. It might come back to bite the PCs on the butt. Or it might simply be allowing something Bad to happen while the PCs get what they need.

2) Good, but a setback. This is the one that avoids #1, but it comes with a price. Usually it's either "Time" "Severe risk to the self" "Loss of resource" or "Putting others in danger".

3) Do not act. Move on. That can mean a morally ambiguous/gray choice.

There are more than these, but they are often variations. Like "Who do you side with in this conflict?"

As many are saying, PCs can come up with option Z. But ultimately, what you are doing is presenting a Situation where the PCs must make a choice. Pre-scripted results/choices are not necessary, but the players must do SOMETHING. "There's a riot outside." That is something that requires some sort of response - any response IS a response, but it's one that the players react to.

So the real crux of the matter is creating a situation where the response matters, regardless of the response. Choosing a door doesn't matter. How the PCs respond to a situation that demands some response will.

 

[Rechan]

While I don't disagree with what you're saying- what I think Rechan is talking about (as well as the article he linked) is when you DO have a plot in mind, but still want to offer choice along the way.

Not just that.

There are situations where the plot is the PC's response.

Let's say the PCs are building a colony on a site. They need a source of fresh water, and their supplies are low. They find out there is a Water Spirit who can give them an Endless Supply. But the Water Spirit is capricious and heartless; the spirit wants the PCs to cause the massive suffering of others, to establish some sort of balance of 'one rises as one falls'.

The PCs could say "OK" or they could say "No" and go find another source of water. Either way, their choice just decided their next adventure, and where the colony's water is going to come from.

There are situations where the PC's response has nothing to do with any sort of plot. But it's meaningful. "You're running on a clock, but these people over here need help right now. Do you stop and help, or keep moving?"

 

[Janx]

this is a gordian knot of discussion.

At the simplest, the OP's article is basically implying that its OK to shuffle content if its applicable for re-use based on the players choices.

The point about decision trees working for CRPGs and not TRPGs is apt, but also missing a point. On a CRPG we know there is a decision tree because we can replay the same game over again. You don't generally get to do that with a TRPG (possible, but not as probable).

Nextly, the decision to take on Balcot may be a Choice. However, whether you go left or right to get there will still ultimately lead to facing Balcot, assuming you were successful in the prior encounters. Thus the decision tree CAN lead to the same final conclusion.

However, the decision to take on Balcot is also a non-choice. Because the DM can imply that not choosing to take on the quest will result in the destruction of the campaign world which holds the PCs stuff. Pretty much locking the PCs into the choice by virtue of their personality.

In actuality, the GM has a choice. When the player say "no" to getting involved with Balcot, perhaps for some really valid reasons, he can make the game world punish them, or he can make the game world work around them.

In short, the GM is the one choosing the consequences for the players choices. He can choose to make things harder on the players, or he can choose to let the Balcot War rage in the background, with other heroes taking the cause, while the PCs story is about what's going on at home, away from the battle, just as many Civil War stories were NOT about the battles, but of the people who stayed home.

This is just the same as whether the GM brings in the Stupid Police when the PCs act ridiculously violent in town. In fact, discussions like this might be better off if we assumed the players have matured and the Stupid Police are no longer needed to punish or discourage pointlessly destructive behavior.


In which case, I suspect the real meaningful choices are those in which going left results in a wholly different experience and outcome than going right.

Joining the military and fighting the war is the meaningful choice, versus going to school and becoming a Wizard, or staying in town, and defending it from the dangers at home.


I think, that for that, you don't get that by writing a big adventure and mega-decision tree for the Balcot Queest. Instead, you get that by revealing opportunities in game, and asking the players what they want to pursue in the next sesssion, so you can go write material.

 

[Scribble]

So the real crux of the matter is creating a situation where the response matters, regardless of the response. Choosing a door doesn't matter. How the PCs respond to a situation that demands some response will.

I agree- and again it's one of the greatest aspects tabletop RPGs have over CRPGs in my opinion.

The ability to adapt.

So if you have a choice, and options A & B thought out, and they pick Z... you can go back and still add a consequence to that choice.

 

[MrMyth]

My approach is generally two-fold. First, try and plan out areas where the PCs could make meaningful choices. Secondly... when the PCs do something significant but unexpected, have it reflected in events down the road.

Some examples. In my game, a primordial has been released and is trying to conquer everything, etc, etc. The PCs are working with an alliance of gods and other Powers opposed to the primordial. Many heroes have been recruited - and, thus, the PCs have the options of what missions to go on to combat the threat. They went on several, with a good deal of success. However, for various reasons, one mission just kept getting pushed off. Others always felt more important. When they finally went on it - it was too late. They salvaged things as best they could, but those they went to save had already been lost. Of course - if they hadn't done this mission last, perhaps some other one would have ended poorly. As it was, they had to prioritize what was most important, and deal with the fallout.

Choice, and consequence.

In a more immediate example, they recently decided they needed to consult with the Fate Weaver, a primal spirit with a great deal of wisdom and knowledge. They were able to figure out three possible ways to get to her domain, which existed in the space between the planes (where she weaves together the mortal world with the Feywild and the Shadowfell).

They could:
-Wander the branches of the World Tree, a safe approach that could take quite a bit of time;
-Consult with the Norns, who have their own domain over fate and would know a way, but would likely demand a high price for the knowledge; or
-Try to go directly, by starting a planar crossing and then intentionally disrupting the ritual to tear open a rift in reality and get drawn into the space between the planes.

They chose the last one, knowing it was the quickest approach, but also the most dangerous. Which meant they have gone into the following arc a bit the worse for wear - but they've also gotten there as quickly as possible, and without any strings attached, which may be more useful in the long run.

On my part, it requires a bit more planning to have three approaches available - but not too much work (at least in 4E), and it allowed me to have them very directly make a choice and see the result.

As a more long-term example of the decisions they make, at one point they (while having a captive enemy in tow) stumbled across the tomb of a dead demon lord. They were tricked into defeating the guardian of the tomb - but realized in time what was inside, and drove away the spirits trying to wake the dead demon lord.

And then walked away, without thinking to do anything to seal the tomb back up. So when that enemy captive later escaped, they later find out he went immediately to the tomb to claim the power of the dead demon lord.

Now, their choices aren't always going to come around and screw them over - they've also had unexpected allies provide help because they spared enemies they could have killed. But either way, there tends to be room to let their choices matter. I just pay attention for key decisions - even ones I didn't specifically create for them - and see if there is an opportunity down the road for those decisions to matter.

Usually, somewhere, there is.

 

[redboxrazor]

It seems like Dragon Age still had the advantage of having a finite number of choices to make such "railroading" easier. I don't remember being able to set the tavern on fire or make a pass at Morrigan's mother.

At a table, players can and will make decisions that you didn't anticipate. This is impossible in a CRPG because the developers decide beforehand what you're allowed to do within the context of their game.

Yes, the decision tree is impressive, but applying that to a tabletop game requires a lot more work, and certainly more flexibility and on-the-fly thinking. You have to know your campagn world and your NPCs' motivations thoroughly. It's really not an even comparison.

Not to say that the work can't pay off.