Illusion of choice

[Jellyburd]

As DM, do you guys ever present PCs with multiple quest options that generally achieve the same purpose?
Example: PCs approach job board, possible options:
quest 1: investigate missing mineral shipment..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 2: stop goblins from raiding a farm..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 3: protect caravan..leads to goblin attack, goblins flee to cave, magic item, larger quest.

Although there's the illusion of multiple choices (as far as choosing a quest goes) all have mostly the same encounters.

Is this common practice or generally frowned upon?
(Newish DM here)

[Toadkiller]

It’s a complex thing really. What I try to do is to have all those things (for example) existing in the world and create a interaction points. Going to the cave will lead to the mineral and the goblins. The goblins will also be at the farm, because of whatever. Then have the mobile or adaptive parts of the world react to whatever choice the players make.

[Sigreid]

I don't plan that far ahead. I consider the character's expressed interests, form an idea about where those interests might go, toss out a few hooks for what I've considered and the party is free to do anything they want with the understanding that I'm more prepared for them to follow a hook and will be winging it even more than normal if they choose something else.

Once they have selected the hook or hooks they are chasing I'll flesh that one out between sessions.

[Tanarii]

Its fine in a real sandbox to have multiple "quests" for a single location. The gice different goals to the PCs, and done well result in different missions within a large adventuring site.

What sucks is when you have one party, and you railroad them to or with a quantum ogre encounter, small adventuring site, or an adventure ehich much be entirely 'completed' by facing some final challenge.

[Emay Ecks]

I have given my players the illusion of choice before (you can pick the left path, or the right, both lead to the same encounter) but usually don't like doing so. The players have yet to notice when I do something like that, so if you're worried about someone catching on, I doubt they will. I generally only use it when I don't have enough content planned, which is a situation that's easy to avoid. Have your players visit a job board near the end of their session, with all unique jobs, and then plan based on what they picked. Your time isn't wasted planning multiple quests, and the players actually have meaningful choices.

[Kyrinthic]

if you search around for the phrase 'Quantum Ogre', there are a lot of varying opinions on the practice, but it is in general fairly common.

[MaxWilson]

As DM, do you guys ever present PCs with multiple quest options that generally achieve the same purpose?
Example: PCs approach job board, possible options:
quest 1: investigate missing mineral shipment..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 2: stop goblins from raiding a farm..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 3: protect caravan..leads to goblin attack, goblins flee to cave, magic item, larger quest.

Although there's the illusion of multiple choices (as far as choosing a quest goes) all have mostly the same encounters.

Is this common practice or generally frowned upon?
(Newish DM here)

This is frowned upon by some (Courtney Campbell has a whole series on it: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-slaying-quantum-ogre.html) but that doesn't mean it isn't common practice. Honestly I have no idea whether it's common among DMs as a whole, but I agree with Courtney Campbell's take as laid out in those articles, which I'd paraphrase as:

Never make players feel like their choices don't matter. If they took option #3 and stayed overland specifically to avoid winding up on a larger quest that takes them to the Underdark, then don't make them wind up in the Underdark. However, that doesn't mean you can't use a nodal adventure design that re-uses pieces the players have not encountered. If the players weren't trying to avoid finding the magic sword Flauntiir when they avoided the mineral cavern, it doesn't count as a Quantum Ogre for the magic sword to pop up in the cave they find after protecting the caravan.

See the Alexandrian's articles for more on nodal adventure design, for example: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/8015/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-6-alternative-node-design

The Alexandrian's advice is 100% compatible with Courtney Campbell's advice on avoiding Quantum Ogres. In both cases, player choices are still made to matter. After laying out an adventure design much like the (A) Mineral Shipment/(B) Stop Goblins Raiding/(C) Protect Caravan choice points of the OP in this thread, Campbell then says this:


One potential “problem” with this structure is that it allows the PCs to potentially bypass content: They could easily go to node A, find the clue for node D, and finish the adventure without ever visiting nodes B or C.

Although this reintroduces the possibility for creating unused content, I put the word “problem” in quotes here because in many ways this is actually desireable: When the PCs make the choice to avoid something (either because they don’t want to face it or because they don’t want to invest the resources) and figure out a way to bypass it or make do without it, that’s almost always the fodder for an interesting moment at the gaming table in my experience. Nor is that content “wasted” — it is still serving a purpose (although its role in the game may now be out of proportion with the amount of work you spent prepping it)

[RazorChain]

Of course we do! From the character perspective it doesn't matter. The character doesn't know that choices A and B both lead to C so this is just meta knowledge

We already have a lively discussion about illusiionism started by me. Negating player choice is the heart of soul of illusionism

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552870-The-Art-of-Illusionism-or-what-your-players-don-t-know-won-t-hurt-them

[DireSickFish]

I avoid full Quantum Oger. It's counter to my DMing style and really rubs me the wrong way. I like to have a living world in my head, even if the players can only experience part of it. So a Quantum path like this messes up my own internal logic and I can't plan adventures as well, or deal with unexpected events.

As a player I don't mind DMs doing this if it helps them prepare adventures. It's a crutch though, so if you lean on it to heavily there's going to be problems. You end up with a game where it doesn't matter what you do. And that feeling is hard to shake once it sets in.

[Pelle]

Having multiple clues leading to the same place isn't really illusion of choice, it's just a strong reason for going there.

[RazorChain]

@OP

This is a multiple instances of a plot hook as well as the illusion of choice.

You are presenting the player with 3 choices that all lead to the same goblin cave

Behind the curtain the players dont know that you aren't really presenting them with choice and you are forcing a goblin encounter that leads them to the goblin caves.

[Tanarii]

Behind the curtain the players dont know that you aren't really presenting them with choice and you are forcing a goblin encounter that leads them to the goblin caves.It always amazes me how sure proponents of DM's taking away player agency are that their players will never notice. :smallconfused:

[lperkins2]

It always amazes me how sure proponents of DM's taking away player agency are that their players will never notice. :smallconfused:

Yeah, it's all well and good until the party chooses D: All of the above. Then splits up to scout each of these quests to figure out which they want to do, and realises they all lead to the same thing.

I've got a binder of 'missed content', whenever I make a map, or plan an encounter, and the PCs avoid it in one way or another, my notes/maps/NPCs get dumped into the binder. Later, when I'm creating new areas, some of the pages from the binder get pulled out to flesh out the new area. This avoids the troubles with wasted effort, while letting the PCs actually decide what sort of things they want to do.

[RazorChain]

It always amazes me how sure proponents of DM's taking away player agency are that their players will never notice. :smallconfused:

In that scenario? Hardly, you have to outright tell them.

[RazorChain]

Yeah, it's all well and good until the party chooses D: All of the above. Then splits up to scout each of these quests to figure out which they want to do, and realises they all lead to the same thing.

I've got a binder of 'missed content', whenever I make a map, or plan an encounter, and the PCs avoid it in one way or another, my notes/maps/NPCs get dumped into the binder. Later, when I'm creating new areas, some of the pages from the binder get pulled out to flesh out the new area. This avoids the troubles with wasted effort, while letting the PCs actually decide what sort of things they want to do.

My hat is off to you sir! Master Illusionist playing the waiting game.

[Pex]

Playing a module is a quantum ogre, so I don't universally object to them. It's not necessarily a problem if a destination is pre-ordained, but as long as how the party gets there influences the adventure and campaign as a whole then everything is ok. I've talked about this often, but my play of Lost Mine of Phandelver is a good example. The party will be ambushed by goblins. We'll eventually get to the goblin cave to rescue the prisoner, take out the bugbear and free Phandalin from the goblin menace. However, my group was able to strike a deal with the goblins. We didn't have to fight them at all. We walked though their territory without a fight heading straight for the bugbear boss and took him out. Once done, the goblins left town on their own, and two joined our party as NPCs who helped us for the rest of the module. Other groups likely fought the goblins, killed them all, and had no goblin helper for the rest of the module. That is what's key. The DM controls what the players encounter. That can be an illusion of player choice. True player choice is letting them decide how to deal with the encounter and let the result naturally occur instead of a pre-determined outcome. That should not be the illusion.

[DarkKnightJin]

While I wouldn't want to make the players' choice pointless, I don't really see the harm in prepping some encounters (combat and/or social) that ultimately lead towards a more singular point of resolution for that arc/questchain.

But you should be prepared to make their choices matter. They sneak past that band of Goblins and the 2 Orcs on their way to the Goblin cave?
Well, they might have just condemned a (beloved) NPC to die in the raid those very enemies partake in while the party is clearing out that cave.

While it might feel like you are 'punishing' your players for skipping a combat encounter that you had planned, it's simply the world being a living breathing entity that doesn't stop moving just because the party is carvinf through a bunch of Goblins in their cave.

[GlenSmash!]

As DM, do you guys ever present PCs with multiple quest options that generally achieve the same purpose?
Example: PCs approach job board, possible options:
quest 1: investigate missing mineral shipment..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 2: stop goblins from raiding a farm..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 3: protect caravan..leads to goblin attack, goblins flee to cave, magic item, larger quest.

Although there's the illusion of multiple choices (as far as choosing a quest goes) all have mostly the same encounters.

Is this common practice or generally frowned upon?
(Newish DM here)

This is largely how real world investigations actually work. Multiple clues lead to the same source.

As such I don't really see much of an issue with it.

The players still can choose not to go to the Magic Cave.

[RazorChain]

The DM controls what the players encounter. That can be an illusion of player choice. True player choice is letting them decide how to deal with the encounter and let the result naturally occur instead of a pre-determined outcome. That should not be the illusion.

People on these forums are often obsessing over the how of it. You have to place everything beforehand and can't just place things at your convenience or you have to roll on some table else you are forcing an encounter.

[Unoriginal]

As DM, do you guys ever present PCs with multiple quest options that generally achieve the same purpose?
Example: PCs approach job board, possible options:
quest 1: investigate missing mineral shipment..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 2: stop goblins from raiding a farm..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 3: protect caravan..leads to goblin attack, goblins flee to cave, magic item, larger quest.

Although there's the illusion of multiple choices (as far as choosing a quest goes) all have mostly the same encounters.

Is this common practice or generally frowned upon?
(Newish DM here)

Your example is kinda tricky, because in this situation it IS legitimate to have all those quests lead to the same conclusion, since those goblins are a threat for the whole region and have been threatening enough different people to justify several people wanting to hire adventurers for different job, even if the trouble-makers are the same in each instance.

Adding to that, the players' choice will matter, if the circumstances are distinct enough. Ex: if you're investigating missing mineral, they might get a bigger reward, if they're protecting the caravan, they could meet a traveler who can tell them more about the next place they're going, and if they protect the farm, their reputation could increase more than with the other options. It doesn't take much to make choices have a tangible effect, even if they all lead to the same point.

IF you're just doing something like "Players can choose to go to the coastal town on the North, or the desert town on the East, but either way they're going to fight the same Yuan-Ti sorcerer in the same dungeon", then I'd consider it extremely bad form.


Frankly I'm a bit disgusted by the idea that it's fine to give the illusion of choice as long as the players don't find out.


Playing a module is a quantum ogre, so I don't universally object to them. It's not necessarily a problem if a destination is pre-ordained, but as long as how the party gets there influences the adventure and campaign as a whole then everything is ok. I've talked about this often, but my play of Lost Mine of Phandelver is a good example. The party will be ambushed by goblins. We'll eventually get to the goblin cave to rescue the prisoner, take out the bugbear and free Phandalin from the goblin menace. However, my group was able to strike a deal with the goblins. We didn't have to fight them at all. We walked though their territory without a fight heading straight for the bugbear boss and took him out. Once done, the goblins left town on their own, and two joined our party as NPCs who helped us for the rest of the module. Other groups likely fought the goblins, killed them all, and had no goblin helper for the rest of the module. That is what's key. The DM controls what the players encounter. That can be an illusion of player choice. True player choice is letting them decide how to deal with the encounter and let the result naturally occur instead of a pre-determined outcome. That should not be the illusion.

Yeah, modules always have a certain amount of linearity, but one of the reason to play TTRPG is that the world reacts to you and you react to the world in a potentially unlimited fashion.

Make PCs matter, make players' choices matter, and make the world flexible enough to grow from the players' actions.

[Contrast]

In that scenario? Hardly, you have to outright tell them.

It's relatively easy for a DM to accidentally let you see the rails.

The most common one is the DM asking for a roll to decipher the clue or follow the tracks only for the player to roll terribly...and then they manage to figure it out or follow the tracks anyway because you've already exhausted the other leads and this was the last one.

[Astofel]

I don't plan that far ahead. I consider the character's expressed interests, form an idea about where those interests might go, toss out a few hooks for what I've considered and the party is free to do anything they want with the understanding that I'm more prepared for them to follow a hook and will be winging it even more than normal if they choose something else.

Once they have selected the hook or hooks they are chasing I'll flesh that one out between sessions.

This is basically my exact DMing style as well. But on the subject of quantum ogres, I personally have no issue with them as a DM or a player. I only take issue when there's only one way to deal with the quantum ogre. For instance, if I come across an ogre and try to negotiate with it, the DM might tell me he doesn't speak Common. If I then say that's fine because I speak Giant, that DM might then tell me that this particular ogre is mute. This is what I consider bad, railroad DMing because the DM isn't willing to consider other solutions outside the ones he thought of.

I don't mind a linear plot for a game, as long as I have some wiggle room to think up interesting solutions and if I'm lucky change the course of the line entirely.

[Tanarii]

Playing a module is a quantum ogre, so I don't universally object to them.No they aren't. They are often a case of player buy-in, as in they agree not to go off the tracks and find something else to do. But the module itself isn't a quantum ogre with unavoidable things happening, unless it's a bad one. (And unavoidable is not the same thing as "PCs don't have the capabilities to do anything about it".)

[Unoriginal]

No they aren't. They are often a case of player buy-in, as in they agree not to go off the tracks and find something else to do. But the module itself isn't a quantum ogre with unavoidable things happening, unless it's a bad one. (And unavoidable is not the same thing as "PCs don't have the capabilities to do anything about it".)

True. In fact, thinking about it, many of the modules I've read for 5e specifically avoid that. If you don't do something, it'll have effects down the line.

[Pex]

While I wouldn't want to make the players' choice pointless, I don't really see the harm in prepping some encounters (combat and/or social) that ultimately lead towards a more singular point of resolution for that arc/questchain.

But you should be prepared to make their choices matter. They sneak past that band of Goblins and the 2 Orcs on their way to the Goblin cave?
Well, they might have just condemned a (beloved) NPC to die in the raid those very enemies partake in while the party is clearing out that cave.

While it might feel like you are 'punishing' your players for skipping a combat encounter that you had planned, it's simply the world being a living breathing entity that doesn't stop moving just because the party is carvinf through a bunch of Goblins in their cave.

Actually that is punishing the players. Now they have to kill everything for fear the one monster they avoid will kill someone they care about. You're making them murder hobos when they originally weren't.

The monsters avoided don't necessarily have to be gone forever. They could be reinforcements. They hear battle behind them and check it out. To avoid being yelled at for letting intruders get by them they want to make a good impression in that combat.

They could really be gone forever. The party avoided them by some means. Great. Hooray for them. The DM should not resent it and make the players pay for it.

[Asmotherion]

Not really. I don't do this, unless I'm forced to. I want my player's choices to affecy the world they are in.

1) Some choices are bound not to have an impact on the world; others might have one latter. The time it takes for the influance to take effect, is the time it might take me to figure out what I might do with something.

2) The choices they make may have them take a different approach to a quest/questline depending on the questgiver. They may have to fight in favor or against an army of invaders for example, or decide that it's not their buisness to participate in that war, and the whole encounter to become a questline of escape from the Walled Citty. The Events are happening, but the choices are theirs to make.

3) A minor NPC may come back latter as an important NPC influenced either positivelly or negativelly by the PCs, becoming an Antagonist, Villain, or Supporting Character.

4) Getting Favor with one Faction means you loose with any Rivalling. Allying yourself with a Faction means that their enemies will target you. Politics become more intence at higher levels.

5) If I can't figure out what the next quest will be, I propose downtime or end the session. I don't rush into something I'm not prepared for.

PS: That said, in the rare cases were your players don't get the hookpoint, and you just have to put them into the action, sure, it's a perfect way to deal with it. Sometimes DMing can take a toll on your free time, and you just want to actually get the quest done, wile your players want to interact with the NPCs and talk about Stew Recipies, so I wouldn't blame you too much if the recipie was written in let's say BLOOD and the first letter of each component spelled HELP US.
Here is the extended version, for referance:
-Honey
-Eggs
-Lettuce
-Pork
-Unique drop of red dragon's sause
-Saffron

A DM has to be creative. :)

PS2: In the above case, I was pulling a red hearing on my players... The encounter was a Dragoninc Origin Sorcerer, instead of an actual red Dragon, but the message got accross ;)

[Unoriginal]

Actions have consequences. Sometime not killing a group of hostile NPCs will lead to allies dying when those hostile NPCs decide to betray you after pretending to be convinced by you or to attack while you're sneaking around. Sometime not killing a group of hostile NPCs will lead to great things.

Part of avoiding the illusion of choice is to make sure the PCs aren't always guaranteed to win no matter the option they choose. Sometime, some options don't work.

[Asmotherion]

Actions have consequences. Sometime not killing a group of hostile NPCs will lead to allies dying when those hostile NPCs decide to betray you after pretending to be convinced by you or to attack while you're sneaking around. Sometime not killing a group of hostile NPCs will lead to great things.

Part of avoiding the illusion of choice is to make sure the PCs aren't always guaranteed to win no matter the option they choose. Sometime, some options don't work.

Depends on the kind of NPCs. Are we talking Demons here? I generally like to reward my good PCs for actually staying good, and not murdering every NPC who dares stand in their way.

On the other hand, it makes sence for a Demon/Devil Worshiper to try and corrupt a good person into a fall from grace.

If anything, I would go about it on an alignment interaction+percentage roll. For example, if a Lawful good lets someone escape, give them a chance for retribution, affecting more directly the Lawful good person, but not any Chaotic Partie Members (since they have no buisness aresting someone).

You don't want to punish players for playing their alignments, unless it's directly part of the plot. The same Paladin who spared 12 guys who tried to kill him, might as well think "screw that, I'll join the dark side. They get all the cool stuff anyway". And once you start the Evil Party Theme, everyone either Joins, or PvP starts, and it ends Bloody, one way or the Other. (I love Evil Party Themes, but it's kinda Messed Up and Goofy when it happens and you're not prepared for it).

[PhoenixPhyre]

You don't want to punish players for playing their alignments, unless it's directly part of the plot. The same Paladin who spared 12 guys who tried to kill him, might as well think "screw that, I'll join the dark side. They get all the cool stuff anyway".

Vaguely on topic--

I find it quite irritating if the "good" path (show mercy, negotiate, be generous, etc) only grants moral rewards and is harder and has bad consequences for those around you (like the creatures you showed mercy to running and killing civilians). Especially if the "evil" path (kill everything, steal it all, etc) is not only easier/less risky but has all the phat lewts.

It's the "return the stolen goods and get a pat on the back but no real help" vs "keep the stolen goods and get cash and no bad consequences" dilemma I see come up quite a lot.

You get what you incentivize.

[Jellyburd]

You all are amazing!
I definitely wasn't expecting this much of a response...
anyways..
I think I get the general consensus. The Goblins were def an example and not the exact encounters I had in mind.
Different quests different creatures, especially if they change their mind/run out of clues etc.

Second, I really like the idea of consequences of choosing one over the other.
Didnt choose to save the farm? might come across the owner of it in a nearby city some time later that had to sell his land and move in with family.

didn't escort the caravan? it didn't make it/find the wreckage.

didn't look into the mineral cave? Other NPCs did, they all didn't return, meaning less help for the PCs "if" (When ;)) something attacks the town.

none of the effects may even become known if they don't interact with the right people.

[FreddyNoNose]

As DM, do you guys ever present PCs with multiple quest options that generally achieve the same purpose?
Example: PCs approach job board, possible options:
quest 1: investigate missing mineral shipment..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 2: stop goblins from raiding a farm..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 3: protect caravan..leads to goblin attack, goblins flee to cave, magic item, larger quest.

Although there's the illusion of multiple choices (as far as choosing a quest goes) all have mostly the same encounters.

Is this common practice or generally frowned upon?
(Newish DM here)

Do you mean the same "larger quest"? As in all roads lead to Rome? I think it is cliche and very heavy handed.

[Laserlight]

If the players wipe out the goblins, do they get paid for completing all three quests? :-)

I hate "choices" which don't come with sufficient information to make a choice--eg "you come to a T intersection, where the left and the right paths are identical--which do you choose?" If there's no reason to choose one vs the other, then why are you asking me? So give me a choice between "a few ogres" vs "a lot of goblins", or "open fields with long lines of sight" vs "close quarters", or "you'll need social interaction" vs "you can murderhobo your way through this one".

[Jellyburd]

Do you mean the same "larger quest"? As in all roads lead to Rome? I think it is cliche and very heavy handed.

Well, this is just coming off of what was supposed to be a one shot, but they had alotta fun and I learned (it was my first time DMing) that I prefer DMing over being a PC. So I'm giving different options to keep it from feeling forced, but also trying to begin a larger story.
At the end of whatever quest they choose I plan on them finding or at least guiding them to a relic or location that is the start of a greater story.

[Pelle]

Vaguely on topic--

I find it quite irritating if the "good" path (show mercy, negotiate, be generous, etc) only grants moral rewards and is harder and has bad consequences for those around you (like the creatures you showed mercy to running and killing civilians). Especially if the "evil" path (kill everything, steal it all, etc) is not only easier/less risky but has all the phat lewts.


I don't see much problem in this. The advantage of being evil is no care for others, so you can grab stuff for yourself. The advantage of being good is people liking you, you get more friends, you build a good reputation etc, which should make it easier to get more stuff done in the future. Missing out on a magic sword is not a problem if it allows you to amass an army instead. You can reward both behaviours differently, I find that more interesting than it not mattering.


Well, this is just coming off of what was supposed to be a one shot, but they had alotta fun and I learned (it was my first time DMing) that I prefer DMing over being a PC. So I'm giving different options to keep it from feeling forced, but also trying to begin a larger story.
At the end of whatever quest they choose I plan on them finding or at least guiding them to a relic or location that is the start of a greater story.

I saw no problem with the initial choice of quests. You have foreshadowed the goblins, so the players might very well suspect the goblins are behind the missing minerals, and that they might attack the caravan. So they have a choice in how to approach the goblin problem. I assume this was the same goblins, not different ones using the same planned encounter stats. As long as they can find the missing shipment when chasing the goblins that attacked the caravan, then this is good.

You could give them options to go fight ogres instead, but that's not really necessary, especially for a one shot. Not all players like or want many options as long as they are free to choose their own approach with the current challenge.

[Tanarii]

I don't see much problem in this. The advantage of being evil is no care for others, so you can grab stuff for yourself. The advantage of being good is people liking you, you get more friends, you build a good reputation etc, which should make it easier to get more stuff done in the future.Where is this coming from? There's no particular reason evil goes solo and disliked, and good is grouped and liked.

[Pelle]

Where is this coming from? There's no particular reason evil goes solo and disliked, and good is grouped and liked.

True, I guess you can keep up a good image as evil in theory. But if you are murdering people all the time, soon or later people will discover it. But my response was also to a comment about where showing mercy, negotiating and being generous would not get any loot, just moral rewards. I can see how that past "good" behaviour could be leveraged by the pcs though, so a material reward isn't necessary in my opinion. I agree, you could still be evil and show mercy etc, but then who cares if you are really evil?

[PhoenixPhyre]

True, I guess you can keep up a good image as evil in theory. But if you are murdering people all the time, soon or later people will discover it. But my response was also to a comment about where showing mercy, negotiating and being generous would not get any loot, just moral rewards. I can see how that past "good" behaviour could be leveraged by the pcs though, so a material reward isn't necessary in my opinion. I agree, you could still be evil and show mercy etc, but then who cares if you are really evil?

The issue is that with that way, being good means that you might get some help (what help? unspecified and at the DM's whim) later. Maybe. Whereas the loot is guaranteed, and many DMs don't impose really negative reactions to "evil" behavior. That's what I meant by moral rewards--the only reward for goodness (in cases I've seen) is that you feel good about playing a good character. In character, and in universe, your character suffers from it. Maybe you get a "reputation point" but it never amounts to anything. And taking the good route usually also means you're weaker (because you're eschewing certain methods or whatever) or that the opposition is fiercer (because you let things live that then are against you).

I've played lots of games where I saved people and in return got a "good boy" dialogue and nothing else. Or just nothing at all. Whereas by killing them you at least get their stuff and usually don't suffer any negative consequences. That's my problem

[Tanarii]

True, I guess you can keep up a good image as evil in theory. But if you are murdering people all the time, soon or later people will discover it. But my response was also to a comment about where showing mercy, negotiating and being generous would not get any loot, just moral rewards. I can see how that past "good" behaviour could be leveraged by the pcs though, so a material reward isn't necessary in my opinion. I agree, you could still be evil and show mercy etc, but then who cares if you are really evil?
Evil =/= murdering people all the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Evil =/= murdering people all the time.

But evil PC behavior often manifests itself in behaviors like murder (or not showing mercy), extortion, theft, etc. If these are both more expedient/easier and have better rewards than being good, then you're giving massive incentives to be evil (or take the more evil path through things, even if you're not evil per se).

[Unoriginal]

The issue is that with that way, being good means that you might get some help (what help? unspecified and at the DM's whim) later. Maybe. Whereas the loot is guaranteed, and many DMs don't impose really negative reactions to "evil" behavior. That's what I meant by moral rewards--the only reward for goodness (in cases I've seen) is that you feel good about playing a good character. In character, and in universe, your character suffers from it. Maybe you get a "reputation point" but it never amounts to anything. And taking the good route usually also means you're weaker (because you're eschewing certain methods or whatever) or that the opposition is fiercer (because you let things live that then are against you).

I've played lots of games where I saved people and in return got a "good boy" dialogue and nothing else. Or just nothing at all. Whereas by killing them you at least get their stuff and usually don't suffer any negative consequences. That's my problem

That's an issue with your DMs not making your actions matter more than anything, I'd say.

It's no secret that being an amoral ****head can let you shortcut your way to power. Taking things by force or trickery will make you rich faster than if you have to pay for them, it's true for the local thug, for the robber baron, and for the guy who fakes an injury to get payed compensation. Having your rivals assassinated is much quicker than having to beat then legitimately.

People wouldn't do evil if it had no benefit. That's how Asmodeus manages to still attract people despite them knowing the fate of all those who fall for his bs.

Thing is, actions have consequences. People will catch up that you're a dirtbag, sooner or later, unless you're that good at hiding it or interact with people corrupt enough to keep it hush-hush.

Meanwhile, helping people and gathering allies should lend you benefits, too. People who hear of you could be more disposed to help or hire you, just for starter. And it's far more comfortable to not have society wanting to punish your crimes as soon as they're pinned on you.

Of course, not all bad actions have bad consequences, and not all good actions have good consequences.

In my ToA campaign, my PCs stopped a thief who had just stolen a valuable item from a merchant, then used the favor the merchant felt he owed them to get the thief free without punishment. The merchant complied, but the thief is not going to be grateful. In fact he might try to kill them to salvage his reputation in the criminal world rather than being seen as a complete loser.

Of course said thief is just a not-very-bright Commoner with a dagger, so he's pretty much no threat, but still.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I'd be fine with it if there were actual consequences that actually mattered, not the illusion of consequences. I've just seen too many times where the objectively best course was to be a jerk, because it cost nothing and gained everything (while the reverse was actively harmful--you lost rewards, spent extra resources, and helped the threats). That's what I have a problem with.

[Unoriginal]

And I'd be fine with it if there were actual consequences that actually mattered, not the illusion of consequences. I've just seen too many times where the objectively best course was to be a jerk, because it cost nothing and gained everything (while the reverse was actively harmful--you lost rewards, spent extra resources, and helped the threats). That's what I have a problem with.

I agree with you. It shouldn't happen, or at least not all the time.

[GlenSmash!]

But evil PC behavior often manifests itself in behaviors like murder (or not showing mercy), extortion, theft, etc. If these are both more expedient/easier and have better rewards than being good, then you're giving massive incentives to be evil (or take the more evil path through things, even if you're not evil per se).

To me the "Dark Side" path should be quicker and easier, but it should also take a toll on you. But the "Light Side" should later on end up being more rewarding.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with you. It shouldn't happen, or at least not all the time.

Yup. It's fine if occasionally the dark side is better. But not always, or not usually (unless you want evil campaigns).


To me the "Dark Side" path should be quicker and easier, but it should also take a toll on you. But the "Light Side" should later on end up being more rewarding.

Agreed, as long as that toll isn't just informed but actually happens. And for game purposes the "later on" should be pretty soon. Otherwise the incentives are all wrong.

[GlenSmash!]

Yup. It's fine if occasionally the dark side is better. But not always, or not usually (unless you want evil campaigns).



Agreed, as long as that toll isn't just informed but actually happens. And for game purposes the "later on" should be pretty soon. Otherwise the incentives are all wrong.

There's definitely a fine line for "Later on."

Too soon and you make it as quick as the dark side, to late and no one cares.

I could see it being best as sometime between the next session and three sessions out.

[Amdy_vill]

my dm does this by waving major story beats into every choice we make. if we go for the path he finds a way to make a new path.

[Sigreid]

So, having multiple hooks that wind up in the same location because a group of bandits or whatever having multiple things going on isn't an illusion of choice. Having them wind up at the same cave no matter what they want to do, even if its specifically saying no thank you to the jobs, that's railroading.

[Pex]

And I'd be fine with it if there were actual consequences that actually mattered, not the illusion of consequences. I've just seen too many times where the objectively best course was to be a jerk, because it cost nothing and gained everything (while the reverse was actively harmful--you lost rewards, spent extra resources, and helped the threats). That's what I have a problem with.

You just described a 2E Planescape game I was in playing a Lawful Good fighter. When I spoke with the DM about it he dismissed me as whining.

And you wonder where my hostility to tyrannical DMing comes from. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

In D&D, the toll the Dark Side takes is generally that a bunch of people will meet in a tavern or a jail, start working together due to circumstances and kind of stumble into a position where they will stop you for good.

[Vogie]

There's always an illusion of choice - The band of PCs almost always can ignore the job board, settle down, get married and farm peacefully in the local town. They just choose not to... because that's part of the game.

Just like you all have "free will" yet always wear clothes when leaving the house.

If a DM's story arc involves fixed points happening, the PCs will eventually get there. Sure, you CAN just have a spare "skipped encounter" list, or sit out and try to pre-envision any possible choices they could make, but in most cases, you're going to hit the story beats. That's how stories go.

If the party goes north from Tavernshire, they may experience an ogre at random.
If the party goes west to help out John Peters (you know, the farmer), with his Ogre problem, they may experience an ogre.
If the party goes south into the wilds, they may take shelter in a cave, which is also home to an ogre.
If the party goes east with the caravan, the entire caravan may experience an ogre. Or three.

But unless the party knows about the Ogre ahead of time, they still have perfect agency. Looking at that situation and crying "Quantum ogre!" is just lazy. If that's something the party will encounter, they will encounter it, and have to react in some way. Just because your knuckles hit wood or stone when you punch a wall doesn't mean your agency is removed, even though it's still a quantum issue.

[kyoryu]

If you want to run a set of linear adventures/encounters where the players go through the prep you've done, just be up front with them about that. Lots of people love that style of game. Then you don't need machinations to get people to go where you need them to go.

[Sigreid]

If you want to run a set of linear adventures/encounters where the players go through the prep you've done, just be up front with them about that. Lots of people love that style of game. Then you don't need machinations to get people to go where you need them to go.

This is a good comment. While I usually do sandbox I do occasionally say "this time I'm running a module, please play along with it."

[KorvinStarmast]

. However, my group was able to strike a deal with the goblins. We didn't have to fight them at all. We walked though their territory without a fight heading straight for the bugbear boss and took him out. Once done, the goblins left town on their own, and two joined our party as NPCs who helped us for the rest of the module. Other groups likely fought the goblins, killed them all, and had no goblin helper for the rest of the module. That is what's key. The DM controls what the players encounter. That can be an illusion of player choice. True player choice is letting them decide how to deal with the encounter and let the result naturally occur instead of a pre-determined outcome. That should not be the illusion. Nice post, and tip of the cap to your group.

You get what you incentivize. In 1e, we got into an argument one time when a few of my players went off the rails with their bloody handedness. There was a local noble whose nephew ended up being killed in one of the barroom brawls the party was in. The party had a little local rep for having taken down the bandit who had been raiding merchant caravans. Local noble: what do I have him do? Hire an assassin. I checked the Assassination table. I asked one of the players, during a night in town, to roll percentile dice. He did. I set the dice on a shelf behind me, with the score as he rolled it. The roll had came up with a successful assassination per the table. Next morning they meet to head out to investigate the map they'd found the day before. At which point I told the player with the bloody handed Ranger

"Not so fast! You are still in you room at the tavern, and it's not your turn yet."

Needless to say, a rather vigorous conversation erupted and I simply said

"Which of you is wondering where he is, and why he's not down at breakfast."
The magic user said "I'll go check on him."
My reply: "You do, and you find him lying in a pool of his own blood in his bed, throat slit. Two bloody partial footprints lead to the window, and there is a bloody partial foot print on the window sill."

Vigorous discussion commences so I stand up. I hand over the DMG, open to page 75.
"Read the table, you guys have all DM'd."
Eyes begin to comprehend.
"Go look at the dice the thief rolled."

Ranger gets pissed off. (Gee, there's a surprise).
"What I don't get a saving throw?"
"No. You get to play the monsters until the rest of the party gets you raised." (That was going to be costly, but within their budget and one three day trip to the city).
"Whether you want to raise him first, or first track down whomever killed the ranger: what's your choice?"

Interestingly, the decision was unanimous: track down the assassin. (I thought they were going to get him raised, so they surprised me with that decision).

So they did. It took two days (in game) and they cleverly did not simply kill the assassin. (They interrogated him first).

Then they raised the Ranger. (He did a decent job of playing the monsters for the encounters on the trip to the city once he had cooled down).

Then they visited the viscount. That was a fun discussion, and they ended up not killing the viscount all said and done.

Consequences.

In D&D, the toll the Dark Side takes is generally that a bunch of people will meet in a tavern or a jail, start working together due to circumstances and kind of stumble into a position where they will stop you for good.
Yeah, getting set upon by a party of adventurers can make for a thrilling fight.

[Asmotherion]

If the players wipe out the goblins, do they get paid for completing all three quests? :-)

I hate "choices" which don't come with sufficient information to make a choice--eg "you come to a T intersection, where the left and the right paths are identical--which do you choose?"

See, this is a narrative form I personally don't use, for this particular reason. I simply describe the players what they see, hear, or other sensations such as smell. In cases of magic influancing their emotions, I describe how they feel about a particular person or place. If they recall lore, I give them a cut-scene. I don't actually get into their mind, forcing them to choose option A or option B. If they don't, they face the concequances.

Players do make choices all the time. The ones that will actually influance the campain, you can note in a notebook for referance. Since this is not a Console/PC game, you don't need to present the players with a bubble, or even making them aware that they are making an important, campain-defyning choice for that matter. It makes things that much more interesting this way (as well as more unpredictable, both for you and for the players).

[Unoriginal]

There's always an illusion of choice - The band of PCs almost always can ignore the job board, settle down, get married and farm peacefully in the local town. They just choose not to... because that's part of the game.

Just like you all have "free will" yet always wear clothes when leaving the house.

You're mixing up things to further your argument.

There is a conceit that, in order to have continuous adventures, the PCs must want to adventure.

It's not an illusion of choice, the players have decided to play the game.



If a DM's story arc involves fixed points happening, the PCs will eventually get there. Sure, you CAN just have a spare "skipped encounter" list, or sit out and try to pre-envision any possible choices they could make, but in most cases, you're going to hit the story beats. That's how stories go.

And now that's plain circular logic.

Saying "of course it's always the illusion of choice, because the DM will force the illusion of choice on you" isn't an argument, it's just stating that if someone does X they do X.

The world should react to the PCs' actions, they shouldn't be stuck in a strange universe out of the Twilight Zone where things don't change no matter what they do.

And it's not "how stories go". RPGs aren't already-written stories, not even published modules. They're stories that *are being written* by the players, DM included.





If the party goes north from Tavernshire, they may experience an ogre at random.
If the party goes west to help out John Peters (you know, the farmer), with his Ogre problem, they may experience an ogre.
If the party goes south into the wilds, they may take shelter in a cave, which is also home to an ogre.
If the party goes east with the caravan, the entire caravan may experience an ogre. Or three.

But unless the party knows about the Ogre ahead of time, they still have perfect agency. Looking at that situation and crying "Quantum ogre!" is just lazy. If that's something the party will encounter, they will encounter it, and have to react in some way. Just because your knuckles hit wood or stone when you punch a wall doesn't mean your agency is removed, even though it's still a quantum issue.

And now you're being insulting to those who call out that kind of illusion bs.

It's perfectly reasonable that while the PCs go on their business, they end up encountering an Ogre, maybe even the same Ogre that if they had chosen a different path. But it doesn't mean the circumstances are the same, or that the PCs' choice is meaningless. Helping Farmer Peters will have different consequences that just wandering into a cave or traveling with a caravane.

The "Quantum Ogre" problem is when you're told to choose Door A or Door B, and it turns out that the same things happen anyway.

THIS removes agency.

[Tanarii]

There's always an illusion of choice - The band of PCs almost always can ignore the job board, settle down, get married and farm peacefully in the local town. They just choose not to... because that's part of the game.That's the test and the trick, isn't it? It's not that they can always ignore the job board and retire. It's that they can ignore the job board and go wherever they can (within their means) and try to do whatever they think they can accomplish.

What happens if they ignore the job board and go hire a boat to go to Chult and track down whatever's stopping people from being ressed? What if they're hired to go track down whatever is stopping people from being ressed and they go to the North to see what's up with the pesky giants instead?


Vigorous discussion commences so I stand up. I hand over the DMG, open to page 75.
"Read the table, you guys have all DM'd."
Eyes begin to comprehend.
"Go look at the dice the thief rolled."Did you remember to roll to see if the PC was surprised first? That was the best defense as a player against AD&D 1e DMs going "screw these guys I'm sending an assassin". Only a 1 in 3 chance it'll even get to the assassination table.

[sithlordnergal]

As DM, do you guys ever present PCs with multiple quest options that generally achieve the same purpose?
Example: PCs approach job board, possible options:
quest 1: investigate missing mineral shipment..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 2: stop goblins from raiding a farm..leads to cave, magic item, larger quest
Quest 3: protect caravan..leads to goblin attack, goblins flee to cave, magic item, larger quest.

Although there's the illusion of multiple choices (as far as choosing a quest goes) all have mostly the same encounters.

Is this common practice or generally frowned upon?
(Newish DM here)

I have done this in the past, and video games use it all the time. It is a good way to make sure players find plot hooks. That said, you do need to be careful when doing this. As long as the payers only take one of the choices, you won't run into any trouble by leading them directly to the cave. They won't realize all the choices led to the same place if they only do one.

If they try to do all of the choices, you need to be a bit craftier. Leave clues that will end up leading them all to the same place. Leave some dead goblins in one mission, tell them about a goblin infested cave in the other, and let them find some book detailing a powerful magic item in a nearby cave.

This will weave everything together, and if the players put together that the goblins in the cave have the item then they'll feel smart for figiuring out what they need to do, even though they'd be doing it no matter what.

Also, if you can, make it so encounters of such choices can be put into multiple environments. Say choice A leads to a cave, but choice B leads to a farm. Can your goblin encounter work on the farm? If so, put it at the farm. You may need to change a few things flavor wise, but you wouldn't need to change the encounter.

[Pelle]

Evil =/= murdering people all the time.

Sorry, I was just using evil as shorthand for murdering people and good for showing mercy etc, don't worry about actual alignment. I know you can be Evil and still behave good, that wasn't the point. The point was that you don't need to get any immediate material rewards for showing mercy etc, since the characters still can use their past good history as leverage if they want. Also the reward for negotiating/stealthing is that you don't have to fight. Why should you get extra rewards? Meeting the goals of the character is satisfying. If you still get the same loot if you murder or help someone, then that choice isn't really significant.


The issue is that with that way, being good means that you might get some help (what help? unspecified and at the DM's whim) later. Maybe. [...] In character, and in universe, your character suffers from it.

That's why it's fun to play a good character!



I've played lots of games where I saved people and in return got a "good boy" dialogue and nothing else. Or just nothing at all. Whereas by killing them you at least get their stuff and usually don't suffer any negative consequences. That's my problem

Then you and the DM should be more creative in making those actions count. That doesn't mean that you always should get the same amount of gear as if you murdered them instead.


And I'd be fine with it if there were actual consequences that actually mattered, not the illusion of consequences. I've just seen too many times where the objectively best course was to be a jerk, because it cost nothing and gained everything (while the reverse was actively harmful--you lost rewards, spent extra resources, and helped the threats). That's what I have a problem with.

But in this case, if you choose not to be a jerk, then your actions actually have meaning. That's an interesting game. If you are rewarded equally, what is the point in playing?

[Unoriginal]

But in this case, if you choose not to be a jerk, then your actions actually have meaning. That's an interesting game. If you are rewarded equally, what is the point in playing?

Equally doesn't mean "the exact same way". Being put in a bad situation doesn't give "meaning" to consequences.

Of course, as I've said before, actions will have a variety of consequences. Sometime they'll be desirable, sometime not. Sometime the nice option is the one that is the best, sometime it'll cost you.


But if the evil choice always lead to benefits, and the good choice always lead to more troubles, there is no point in playing. Because your DM is just torturing you for not choosing the "correct way".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry, I was just using evil as shorthand for murdering people and good for showing mercy etc, don't worry about actual alignment. I know you can be Evil and still behave good, that wasn't the point. The point was that you don't need to get any immediate material rewards for showing mercy etc, since the characters still can use their past good history as leverage if they want. Also the reward for negotiating/stealthing is that you don't have to fight. Why should you get extra rewards? Meeting the goals of the character is satisfying. If you still get the same loot if you murder or help someone, then that choice isn't really significant.

That's why it's fun to play a good character!

Then you and the DM should be more creative in making those actions count. That doesn't mean that you always should get the same amount of gear as if you murdered them instead.

But in this case, if you choose not to be a jerk, then your actions actually have meaning. That's an interesting game. If you are rewarded equally, what is the point in playing?

Not the same loot, equivalent rewards. Give up the pile of gold and get an item (for example). Show mercy to the goblin and get a follower. If everyone you're merciful to betrays you, and every villager you save is ungrateful, then only the most die-hard "good" players will take that route. So you'll get more of the anti-social, murder-hobo, mercenary, cash-up-front types.

It's about balancing the risks and rewards. The good path has higher entry requirements and is more narrow/easier to fall from. And so the rewards should be comesurately greater. And the evil path (which is wide and easy) should actually have risks to balance the obvious rewards. The non-trustworthy should get betrayed. The loot ends up cursed (or worthless). Killing everybody should make people not want to ally with you or should motivate people to actively oppose you. Both sides should have risks and rewards. Different risks and different rewards, but if one choice has all risk and no reward, while the other has no risk and all rewards...you're going to end up with a lot of people who choose the easier path. Especially in a game where those moral actions don't feel real. "They're just imaginary creatures anyway, so what's the harm if I do <evil action> to them?"

[Pelle]

Equally doesn't mean "the exact same way". Being put in a bad situation doesn't give "meaning" to consequences.

Of course, as I've said before, actions will have a variety of consequences. Sometime they'll be desirable, sometime not. Sometime the nice option is the one that is the best, sometime it'll cost you.


But if the evil choice always lead to benefits, and the good choice always lead to more troubles, there is no point in playing. Because your DM is just torturing you for not choosing the "correct way".

I agree with this. Not sure if you were disagreeing?


Not the same loot, equivalent rewards. Give up the pile of gold and get an item (for example). Show mercy to the goblin and get a follower.

If it's always like this, it sounds very boring to me.



If everyone you're merciful to betrays you, and every villager you save is ungrateful, [...]


Why would this happen? Doesn't sound like plausible consequences.



It's about balancing the risks and rewards. The good path has higher entry requirements and is more narrow/easier to fall from. And so the rewards should be comesurately greater. And the evil path (which is wide and easy) should actually have risks to balance the obvious rewards. The non-trustworthy should get betrayed. The loot ends up cursed (or worthless). Killing everybody should make people not want to ally with you or should motivate people to actively oppose you. Both sides should have risks and rewards. Different risks and different rewards, but if one choice has all risk and no reward, while the other has no risk and all rewards...you're going to end up with a lot of people who choose the easier path. Especially in a game where those moral actions don't feel real. "They're just imaginary creatures anyway, so what's the harm if I do <evil action> to them?"

I don't agree that every situation should have balanced risk/reward for good/evil behavior. In some situations there is a better opportunity if behaving good, and in some if behaving evil. Of course, it is not an enjoyable game to play if you always are punished for being good, but to me it's more fun to play as good because of the sacrifices you make.

When GMing, I believe I don't tend to reward evil behaviour so much though. I use milestone leveling instead of XP for killing stuff, there's few opportunities for getting significant gold and there is no market for magic gear anyways. I asked in session zero for good pcs, but don't bother with alignment in-game. They are becoming more and more cynical with regards to their enemies, but that doesn't stop them from negotiating and making new friends in hostile situations. They very much use good behavior to reach their goals, even though they don't get a reward every time. If they knew that they will be rewarded in some way for every good action they make, those actions would feel a lot more hollow.

[Unoriginal]

Why would this happen? Doesn't sound like plausible consequences.

Some DMs make it happen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some DMs make it happen.

Amen. Seen it too many times. "Virtue is its own reward" or other such phrases.

[Pelle]

Some DMs make it happen.

Sure, but that some DMs always punish good actions is still not a good argument for rewarding good actions in every situation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but that some DMs always punish good actions is still not a good argument for rewarding good actions in every situation.

I'm not arguing for rewards every time, just sometimes. Just like negative consequences for evil acts. Punishment for good acts should be pretty rare and should have massive in universe justification.

[Pelle]

I'm not arguing for rewards every time, just sometimes. Just like negative consequences for evil acts. Punishment for good acts should be pretty rare and should have massive in universe justification.

I suspect we agree more or less. I don't like it to be completely balanced though, prefer it to be slightly more challenging as good. Facing dilemmas is fun!

[Zilong]

This thread, as well as the other couple similar threads in a different subforum, has me rather bemused. Having "different" routes that effectively end in the same place is how I've always run my games. I typically make things up as I go with a few "set piece" events. Those events happen whenever it feels appropriate. So in the instance of a forking cave both A and B will often lead to the same place. The only reason there is an A and a B in the first place is because, in my mind, many, if not most, caves have diverging paths so the fork is there for narrative verisimilitude.

And no, no one I've DM'd for has noticed or, if they have noticed, made a complaint about this style. So I'm just baffled by the seemingly widespread antipathy that is directed toward the so called "quantum ogre". Maybe it's just a view that's more common around this forum?

[Unoriginal]

This thread, as well as the other couple similar threads in a different subforum, has me rather bemused. Having "different" routes that effectively end in the same place is how I've always run my games. I typically make things up as I go with a few "set piece" events. Those events happen whenever it feels appropriate. So in the instance of a forking cave both A and B will often lead to the same place. The only reason there is an A and a B in the first place is because, in my mind, many, if not most, caves have diverging paths so the fork is there for narrative verisimilitude.

And no, no one I've DM'd for has noticed or, if they have noticed, made a complaint about this style. So I'm just baffled by the seemingly widespread antipathy that is directed toward the so called "quantum ogre". Maybe it's just a view that's more common around this forum?

Having two caves that rejoin into the same place is of little importance. Whenever you go right or left in a dungeon, you tend to end up exploring most if not all of it anyway.

But if the DM offer a so-called choice to the player, ex: take the boat to go to a mysterious island, or go in the desert to look at something the Mage Guild wants info on, and it ends up being a non-choice, aka going any of those direction lead to the same dungeon being there waiting for the PCs, well, why even bother giving a choice?

[CantigThimble]

There are a few different ways to approach this and I think some of them are useful and some are pointless (or even actively bad).

The situation proposed in the OP, that's an example of a pointless choice. At least, the way it's presented there. 3 vague, arbitrary jobs on a board that all turn out to be the same job. The players make a basically arbitrary choice and get the same end result. At best, it accomplishes nothing, there may as well have been one job on the board. At worst, your players spend half an hour arguing over which one to pick for no good reason or find out what you were planning and stop caring about options you offer.

A way this can be done productively is by adding some story elements to the jobs. Let's say one hook is offered by a farmer whose daughter has been kidnapped/killed, one is offered by a priest of a particular god and another is offered by a wealthy merchant. Even if all the hooks lead to the same adventure, the characters' motivations are revealed and shaped by which hook they decided to follow. The decision meant something even if the resulting adventure uses the same maps and monsters.

Another similar situation is how I try to handle open-ended problems, like investigations. When there are any number of ways that players can approach a problem then planning for all of them is impossible and waiting for them to guess ones that work is boring. Instead, players do whatever they think is best and if they're going in a direction that sounds promising then I'll try making up some clues that seem plausible for them to encounter to lead them to the goal I had planned. Sure, I'm not accurately simulating a world and plot is ruling reality, but I can't simulate a world and we're playing the game for the plot anyway.

Long story short, even if the destination is the same no matter what, the journey can matter. If you aren't going to make the journey matter then just be frank with your players and tell them "Look, this is what I had time to prep for so you're gonna have to take the plot hook or else the session won't be much fun."

[MaxWilson]

I just have to say this:

Every time this thread pops up on my computer screen, visions of Christopher Walken dancing in a hotel lobby flash through my head, and I hear Fat Boy Slim say, "Walk without rhythm... you won't attract the worm."

[Coffee_Dragon]

And no, no one I've DM'd for has noticed or, if they have noticed, made a complaint about this style. So I'm just baffled by the seemingly widespread antipathy that is directed toward the so called "quantum ogre". Maybe it's just a view that's more common around this forum?

Some of the concerns in this thread are mostly relevant to certain styles of play. In play with a narrativist slant where "player agency" refers to player authorship and stakes in scenes of thematic significance, the "quantum ogre" is not a problem because if it does have thematic significance then it's just part of calling the next scene, and if it doesn't, well, either there's no reason for it to be anywhere or it's dressing anyway. In that context, choices like "I take the north corridor"/"I take the east corridor" or "I hit goblin #1 with my sword"/"I target goblin #3 with a Prismatic Volley" are ephemera that it would be absurd to invest with "player agency". In other types of play that is no longer true because those choices are your toolbox for engaging with the game, and if the game world doesn't proportionally care about those choices, it doesn't need you for anything.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Also I'm guessing people who aren't fine with the thematic merits of virtue being its own reward are perfectly fine with the reward structure in CRPGs like Fallout, Baldur's Gate or KotOR, where invariably the material and meta rewards would be skewed so that character-level "good" behaviour equated to player-level pragmatism, and in-character "bad" behaviour would effectively be punished with lower xp rewards and such in addition to opportunity costs and other in-world inconveniences.

[Zilong]

Having two caves that rejoin into the same place is of little importance. Whenever you go right or left in a dungeon, you tend to end up exploring most if not all of it anyway.

But if the DM offer a so-called choice to the player, ex: take the boat to go to a mysterious island, or go in the desert to look at something the Mage Guild wants info on, and it ends up being a non-choice, aka going any of those direction lead to the same dungeon being there waiting for the PCs, well, why even bother giving a choice?

Mine was just an easy example of something i ran a few days ago. The caves don't reconnect necessarily, but the rooms at the ends of the tunnels will shift to match what needs to happen.

As for your example, this is why I mentioned making stuff up as I go. Either getting the prompt from the mage guild or going to a mysterious island could very well end up in the same encounter in my games. I only need to prep one major thing and the players get the satisfaction of "choosing" a path. I can make up incidental encounters with a wizard apprentice or old fisherman lending a boat much more easily than making up a large scale dungeon/encounter. They will be different enough in flavor, but mechanically will amount to the same thing.

[MaxWilson]

Also I'm guessing people who aren't fine with the thematic merits of virtue being its own reward are perfectly fine with the reward structure in CRPGs like Fallout, Baldur's Gate or KotOR, where invariably the material and meta rewards would be skewed so that character-level "good" behaviour equated to player-level pragmatism, and in-character "bad" behaviour would effectively be punished with lower xp rewards and such in addition to opportunity costs and other in-world inconveniences.

Hmmm. Quick poll:

Say your players accept a plea for help from a bunch of NPCs in a primitive village somewhere and are given a "sacred" artifact (Staff of Fire) to help them accomplish it. The mission turns out to be harder than they expected, and instead they just abandon it and keep the sacred artifact. How many of you DMs would go out of your way to punish the PCs for this action, and how many would shrug and say, "Making choices is why we play RPGs"?

I'd shrug it off.


I can make up incidental encounters with a wizard apprentice or old fisherman lending a boat much more easily than making up a large scale dungeon/encounter. They will be different enough in flavor, but mechanically will amount to the same thing.

From the player agency perspective, that "flavor" might actually be quite important. It means that their choice made a difference.

[Tanarii]

I'd shrug it off.
Hell, I'd expect it. Unless the party was intentionally made to be goody-do-gooders from the get go. Who hands a magic item to a party in advance of sending them on a quest and doesn't expect them to just make off with it? If you want that, you need to add some lies. "The McMuffin of Sacred Bopping will open a rift to the nine hells and drag you down screaming if you don't save us from the McMonster in three days!" Or whatever.

[Zilong]

From the player agency perspective, that "flavor" might actually be quite important. It means that their choice made a difference.

Exactly, the players feel they have agency and I have saved myself some hassle and kept the narrative going. I need not change anything about my plans or how things work out in the end.

[Pelle]

But do the players really care about that choice? I think for the choice to be worth anything to the players they need to know more about the choice they didn't make, be able to estimate what could have happened, what the consequences of that choice could have been.

Say you are standing at a crossroad, and have to choose left or right. You don't know anything about either direction and choose randomly, and you never learn what was the other direction. If so, you don't think back on that choice later.

So regardless of if players are fooled by the false choices or not, I don't think they feel important either way, so kind of pointless.

[Unoriginal]

Exactly, the players feel they have agency and I have saved myself some hassle and kept the narrative going. I need not change anything about my plans or how things work out in the end.

Why would you know how things work in the end that precisely? You're a DM with players, not the writer of a novel.

Giving the feel of agency without the actual agency is just plain lying.

[Zilong]

Why would you know how things work in the end that precisely? You're a DM with players, not the writer of a novel.

Giving the feel of agency without the actual agency is just plain lying.

Because players and stories are ultimately fairly predictable. Not once has a scenario played out so radically different that i had to change anything major. Maybe that will change one day, but it hasn't happened yet. Also, I didn't say "precisely". Little details like who kills what and who has a dramatic near death certainly occur, that's part of the fun. Overall however, party does X at Y location has been fairly consistent.

Opinion that will definitely catch some flak: lying is not necessarily a bad thing.

Granted all of this likely only applies to my table as my main group has a number of people who have read quite a lot and also know my literary background so will often latch onto various thematic threads I throw out. The other group I GM for switches off the GM seat so no one person's style gets examined very hard.

[Unoriginal]

Because players and stories are ultimately fairly predictable. Not once has a scenario played out so radically different that i had to change anything major. Maybe that will change one day, but it hasn't happened yet. Also, I didn't say "precisely". Little details like who kills what and who has a dramatic near death certainly occur, that's part of the fun. Overall however, party does X at Y location has been fairly consistent.

That's circular reasoning.

Of course party does X at Y location, you've admited you made so that the party would end up at Y no matter their choice by turning their destination into Y.

[Zilong]

That's circular reasoning.

Of course party does X at Y location, you've admited you made so that the party would end up at Y no matter their choice by turning their destination into Y.

Yes that's kind of the point. The important points of whether they succeed, retreat, die, make a deal, is still up to the players and the dice and they get to think that every little choice is of utmost importance.

I should also note that the settings I've run are either homebrewed or carefully studied. So basically no matter where the party goes I know what's there and can fit things in without it being too obvious (hopefully).

Example: characters are aware of BBEG A and B. They go to find information and usually get sidetracked by something dumb like getting drunk at the inn/bar/casino. They'll find hooks X, Y and Z. X is a lake, Y is a forest, Z is a town. Depending on my mood BBEG A or B's plotline will appear.

I only have one scenario for each prepared for this step in the story. BBEG A involves slave trading and BBEG B involves a stolen artifact. The scenarios will be flavored with either lake, forest or urban ambiance but will essentially be the same regardless of location. So the party will likely end up with the same result regardless of which hook they take, but the flavoring will be different and appropriate enough that they are unlikely to notice or care.

[MaxWilson]

Because players and stories are ultimately fairly predictable. Not once has a scenario played out so radically different that i had to change anything major... *snip*

Granted all of this likely only applies to my table as my main group has a number of people who have read quite a lot and also know my literary background so will often latch onto various thematic threads I throw out. The other group I GM for switches off the GM seat so no one person's style gets examined very hard.

Yeah, I think this part at least is table-specific. When I ran 5E I often found that when I prepared for three possible courses of action the players might embark on, half the time they wound up choosing option #7 instead.

It's also possible though that you are just much better than I am at framing scenes. I still have a lot to learn about DMing.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Hmmm. Quick poll:

Say your players accept a plea for help from a bunch of NPCs in a primitive village somewhere and are given a "sacred" artifact (Staff of Fire) to help them accomplish it. The mission turns out to be harder than they expected, and instead they just abandon it and keep the sacred artifact. How many of you DMs would go out of your way to punish the PCs for this action, and how many would shrug and say, "Making choices is why we play RPGs"?

Responding for a hypothetical CRPG:

Finish the subquest, return the artefact: hefty XP reward, potentially irrelevant alignment/reputation boost, quest givers tell you to keep the artefact.

Don't finish the subquest, keep the artefact: quest left pending, no XP.

Finish the subquest, keep the artefact ("Sorry, your staff was irretrievably... uh, eaten... by a frog"): lesser XP reward, potentially irrelevant alignment/reputation hit.

Responding for myself:

Assuming your average no-theme series-of-things-happening sandbox game, don't see why I would do anything barring some in-world logic by which it might happen. Might needle a godly LG/LN character by telling them they receive a sign of displeasure during their daily devotions. If I counted the quest as void for the purpose of any fuzzy milestone levelling considerations I wouldn't do it specifically for keeping the thingy.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, I think this part at least is table-specific. When I ran 5E I often found that when I prepared for three possible courses of action the players might embark on, half the time they wound up choosing option #7 instead.

It's also possible though that you are just much better than I am at framing scenes. I still have a lot to learn about DMing.

Or it's simply that as a DM you're giving the PCs the freedom they should have.

[MaxWilson]

Finish the subquest, return the artefact: hefty XP reward, potentially irrelevant alignment/reputation boost, quest givers tell you to keep the artefact.

Ah! It never occurred to me that players might expect to keep the artifact permanently. (Indiana Jones gave back the Sankara stones instead of keeping them.)

It always puzzled me that my players showed so little guilt about blandly ripping off poor villagers this way, but if they were expecting to keep the artifacts like you say, that might explain it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It always puzzled me that my players showed so little guilt about blandly ripping off poor villagers this way, but if they were expecting to keep the artifacts like you say, that might explain it.

Sad to say, the most likely explanation is probably still that they were content to play massive jerks.

[Tanarii]

Sad to say, the most likely explanation is probably still that they were content to play massive jerks.
A lack of consequences often turns people into jerks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A lack of consequences often turns people into jerks.

Or allows people to let their inner jerk (which basically everyone has) out to play. This is universal (not just in games). A little push-back, applied consistently and honestly, solves a whole lot of behavior problems.