Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 5947862" data-attributes="member: 5868">You've got it -- it's basically a preparation crutch for the DM.&nbsp; Let's say you've got three plot hooks ready, but have only detailed two adventure areas.&nbsp; If the plot hooks and adventure areas are planned well, you don't need a one-to-one correspondence of hook to adventure, as the PC's choice can lead in any case to the adventure you've prepared.What separates the &quot;illusion of choice&quot; approach from a railroad is that you give the players the option to follow up the other plot hooks and they lead to other, different adventures ... but by the time they back up to follow hook <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&amp;action=hash&amp;hash=2" target="_blank">#2</a>&nbsp; or <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&amp;action=hash&amp;hash=3" target="_blank">#3</a> , you've had time to prep the other alternatives.This works even at the individual dungeon level.&nbsp; Players need meaningful choices -- taking the left fork or the right fork in the passage should have different, meaningful outcomes.&nbsp; But since the players don't know beforehand what lies beyond the two forks, it doesn't matter which fork leads to which encounter, and in fact you may only need one encounter despite the two forks&nbsp; (in general -- there might be specific geographic or other environmental differences that render the two options distinct).&nbsp; Unless the PCs back up and take the other fork, they don't know their choice was only an illusion -- and if they do back up to take the other fork, the DM has an obligation to ensure that it leads to a different outcome, so that the players' choice has meaning and is not an illusion, retroactively.Schroedinger's Dungeon, if you will.&nbsp; The path ahead is only defined when the choice is made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olgar Shiverstone, post: 5947862, member: 5868"] You've got it -- it's basically a preparation crutch for the DM. Let's say you've got three plot hooks ready, but have only detailed two adventure areas. If the plot hooks and adventure areas are planned well, you don't need a one-to-one correspondence of hook to adventure, as the PC's choice can lead in any case to the adventure you've prepared. What separates the "illusion of choice" approach from a railroad is that you give the players the option to follow up the other plot hooks and they lead to other, different adventures ... but by the time they back up to follow hook [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2[/URL] or [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3[/URL] , you've had time to prep the other alternatives. This works even at the individual dungeon level. Players need meaningful choices -- taking the left fork or the right fork in the passage should have different, meaningful outcomes. But since the players don't know beforehand what lies beyond the two forks, it doesn't matter which fork leads to which encounter, and in fact you may only need one encounter despite the two forks (in general -- there might be specific geographic or other environmental differences that render the two options distinct). Unless the PCs back up and take the other fork, they don't know their choice was only an illusion -- and if they do back up to take the other fork, the DM has an obligation to ensure that it leads to a different outcome, so that the players' choice has meaning and is not an illusion, retroactively. Schroedinger's Dungeon, if you will. The path ahead is only defined when the choice is made. [/QUOTE]

Verification