/tg/, how do you put choice into your games? How much choice

>>55177904
>/tg/, how do you put choice into your games?
Play in rich settings that allow many ways of approaching a task.

>How much choice for the players is too much?
As long as they have a clear goal then I don't think there's any amount of choice that's too much. They'll generally pick one method and go with it.

>Have you ever used the illusion of choice?
Yes, but I regret it and don't bother with that any more. I'm not one of those lazy GMs who are OK with "what they don't know doesn't hurt them", it's disrespectful and the hallmark of a GM who can neither improvise or prepare properly.

>>55177904
In a scene in an RPG, there are three kinds of choice that a player can make
>The first is what conflicts to engage. If they hear bandits are attacking the locals do they intervene, do they negotiate with the town's leaders first? The first choice is deciding what their character cares about and prioritises.
>The second choice is in how they approach the conflict in broad terms. Once they've decided they will solve the bandit problem, how exactly do they solve it?
>The third type is all the little tactical decisions which go into the conflict itself. The things you say or do which determine how the conflict resolves itself.

It's pretty easy to mix and match which you allow or disallow.

If you're playing a game where it's agreed that the PCs will stick together and go along with the main plot, then you've opted to play without the first type of choice.

If you're playing a system which heavily favours a particular method of conflict resolution (usually violence) then there's no removal of the choice, but usually, heavy incentive to make a particular one. This can be easily counterbalanced even playing those kinds of systems by the GM providing other incentives though.

The only way to remove the third type of choice is by deliberately minimizing the impact of the PCs tactical decisions. Deliberately making encounters they will definitely win or lose or fudging the dice for example.

Personally, I like to have as much freedom of choice in my games as possible, so I tend to run games with PC-goals driven plots, PvP is assumed, in systems with about even conflict mechanics or social, physical and violent actions, and I run as much of the GM stuff transparently to prove I'm not manipulating anything.

>>55177904
fuck man i dunno
we discuss the options and then do some rolls and have what happens with option A and what happens with option B.

You should always have the biggest picture in mind and them making choices is easy and simple, even if they're dumbfuck choices such as we're gonna kill the king and go rogue or let's ignite the master wizard. Just have the world react to their dumbfuckery, and when in doubt, roll 1d6; 1 is the worst case scenario with choice in mind, 6 is the best case scenario, and apply modifiers depending on how sane their plan is.

Say, hostage rescue vs. inexperienced thugs way over their head; if your players decide to storm the house, the inexperienced thugs decide to shoot a hostage to show they mean business and barricade themselves in further, and are now ready to kill all hostages and go down in a blaze of glory. A different course of action would've been preferable, such as lying or "meeting" ransom demands.

here to create games not stories, we just fly by the seat of our pants and the "stories" we create as a group are shitty, but kinda lifelike because real life can be shitty too

>>55177904
I put very little choice into my games, but I like to think I've gotten pretty good at presenting the illusion of choice.

That, or my players don't actually care about choice and are just along for the ride, which would explain why they still let me GM.

>>55177904
>"left" and "right" labelled as such, implying there's an allegory, because it certainly isn't necessary to convey the literal situation of the image
>the illusion of choice is a common criticism of elections and specifically two-party systems
>>>/pol/

>>55180983
>tfw can't even see words describing simple directions without thinking it's allegorical to politics
Please be bait.

>>55181488
It's bait

>>55181488
Why else would the signs be there? What kind of idiot sees two doors, one on the left, one on the right, but can't tell which is which without signs, yet isn't too retarded to learn to read? The signs don't add any information that isn't already obvious. It would be like having a large door and a small door that are labelled as such. Also, cows definitely can't read so that's doubly nonsensical.
The only reason to have the signs there is a sort of wink and nod to the viewer, drawing attention to the words "left" and "right" so you think of their other meanings.

First session I semi-railroad things. I drop my players in a setting and through gameplay lay out multiple hooks to different adventures. I trust my players enough to believe at least one will pick up one hook, and if they wanted to do something entirely different and related to their special snowflake background they'd tell me ahead of time.

After that I know my players and their characters and craft the encounters to match their personalities. In other words I give them multiple choices, knowing at least one player will veto the ones I don't want.

For example: Players are in a town being harassed by bandits. They have no loyalty to the town and one of them wants to get rich. The bandits gives them an opportunity to join them and split the loot. The greedy player wants to join them so they can steal from the local baron. The ranger who's family was killed by bandits refused. After some wheeling and dealing they came to the conclusion to play along with the bandit plan, then betray them and act like heroes. Just as planned.

Knowing your players also helps you with your ability to drop inciting incidents on them to keep them moving where/when/how you want them to. If the players are milling around too much you can drop a piece of info on the players to get one of them to suddenly want to move.

As for in the encounter itself? Know the beginning and what your NPCs' goals are. Beyond that, roll with it.

File: s7h3R9O_d.jpg (110KB, 540x750px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 540x750px

Here's a question from a new GM; what do you do when a player doesn't seem to want to take any of the choices available to them?

The cleric of the group I'm running is played as a jaded healer who's basically given up on their craft. The player does this really well but the result is in character they're constantly trying to go against what's happening and undermine every situation, but with no real alternative in mind since the character doesn't want to do anything else.

I've given that player an NPC apprentice as an avenue for character growth but beyond that the character as a while kind of goes against the player/GM cooperation that the game requires.

I'm not really sure how to deal with it since giving the player what their character wants would turn the whole thing in to a 'drown your sorrows' simulator which is no fun for anyone.

If their character drops out after the prologue and is replaced by another (hopefully with more motivation) have I failed as a GM?

>>55180983
>>55181662
The signs add to the context that the cow is being presented with an illusion of choice. It clearly shows the intent of whoever built the slaughterhouse to deceive the cows into thinking there is a difference between the two paths. Without that, the function of the divider is less clear.

But by all means, throw a tantrum because someone used an illustration that reminds you of the boogeyman.

>>55178132
First answer best answer. Keep your setting open.

>>55177904
>Have you ever used the illusion of choice?
All the time, it's the reason I am apparently an awesome GM iand a friend of mine is a raidroading fuckhead.

File: On tg everything is pol, even you!.jpg (49KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x540px

>>55180983

I ran a campaign where the PCs fot to choose the missions they went on. Had an encounter and consequence for each that influenced the ending.

>go into the game totally unprepared
>lob 4 random hooks at the players
>watch them try to puzzle them together
>the explanation they come up with that I like most is the truth
>commend them for looking through my evil schemes

The greatest thing is when they players complain that the plot was too railroady, but I developed strong mental discipline to avoid laughing like an idiot on these occasions.

>>55177904
Every arc has pre-planned consequences for "best scenario" & "worst scenario", with a few in between. If they go off rails or do something clever, I can consult the planned endings to frankenstein up a suitable replacement.

People need to plan more. Improv DMing is impossible for most people.

>>55183603
>If their character drops out after the prologue and is replaced by another (hopefully with more motivation) have I failed as a GM?
Nope, shit like that happens and it's not just only because of the GM. For example there's bad group chemistry, like 1 character having zero interest in what everyone else wants to do. If neither the player nor the group see a way to turn this around without dropping their entire concept, it often feels better to just give the problem character story some closure, remove him and introduce the player with a new character that might fit better.