Meaningful Choices in RPG's

[RazorChain]

Coming off the debates about Railroading and Player Agency


What do you consider meaningful choice in a game?

It can be said that the first meaningful choices is if you are going to participate in the game to start with and what you are going to play. But what about when the game starts? How do you as an GM make the players choices matter?

[PersonMan]

It depends on how you define 'meaningful'. For some people, having a "core" linear plot means there can be no truly meaningful choices, while others will say that being able to cause a friendly NPC to survive the destruction of Port Doomed-to-Explode or ensure that an annoying rival is present when it goes down is enough.

The question of how to make it work as a GM stems from the answer there - it can be "don't have a full plot, only parties who have goals and do things" or it could be "don't refuse to allow PC action to change the world at all".

[hymer]

Coming off the debates about Railroading and Player Agency


What do you consider meaningful choice in a game?

It can be said that the first meaningful choices is if you are going to participate in the game to start with and what you are going to play. But what about when the game starts? How do you as an GM make the players choices matter?

I consider it a meaningful choice if an adventure hook can be swallowed or left behind as the players decide - and that a line of adventuring can be abandoned partway through, that failure is an option. Or that you can choose groups or individuals in the game world you want to be with or against. Or that NPCs listen to what PCs say, and if they make a good point they will change their plans or views accordingly. Or that there's time enough for the PCs to come up with their own projects, rather than simply the ones handed down from the GM.

[Yora]

For something to be meaningful, an action that the players take in this scene will determine what happens in the next scene. If you save the cat but it has no consequence later on, then it's not a meaningful choice. A meaningful choice changes the world of the game permanently.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For something to be meaningful, an action that the players take in this scene will determine what happens in the next scene. If you save the cat but it has no consequence later on, then it's not a meaningful choice. A meaningful choice changes the world of the game permanently.

Change this to "in a future scene" and I'd agree. Some consequences are delayed.

[mephnick]

To me, it's any choice that has a future payoff, good or bad. No one in my group (me included) gets too invested in characters or NPCs. We're not murderhobos, but we don't go out of our way to interact with NPCs much and if they live or die "..eh". So making a choice like..emotionally meaningful or impactful isn't really a thing for us. If we can see "we did this...and this happened later. Should have seen that coming." that's enough for us.

[Quertus]

At first blush, I'd say that a choice is meaningful - or, perhaps, that player actions are meaningful - if what they do, and how they choose to do it, has logical and different consequences than making other choices.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think a choice CAN be meaningful without directly affecting / setting up a future scene, IF it provides a chance to illustrate something about the character who is presented with the choice.

[OldTrees1]

The very minimum is:

• The choice has different outcomes for different options
• The players are sufficiently informed such that they can decide on an option based upon the outcome

Note: A complex choice may contain a Meaningful Choice without the entirety qualifying as a Meaningful Choice. This is commonly due to incomplete information.

Those 2 factors allow the Player to knowingly interact with the system.

From there people have preference for the kinds, frequency, and scale of interaction they can do with the system.

• Kinds: Categories of choices (Example: Choices about reactions, Choices about adventure direction, etc).
• Frequency: How often do the Players get a Meaningful Choice. Preferences here can be deceptively complex.
• Scale: How large of an impact does the choice make? Is it a choice about what the PC thinks? Is it a choice about what an NPC will do (social influence)? Is it a choice about the fate of a nation? Is it a choice about which planes will be aligned?

For example:
In a horror campaign-

• I would expect to control some of my PC's thoughts (although I would no control over things like fears or delusions). (Very frequent, very low scale)
• I would expect some meaningful choices about navigating the setting, however a lot of the navigation would be blind choices instead. (Low frequency, low scale)
• I would expect some meaningful choices about acting against the threat, but the horror feeling of powerlessness would imply a lot of false choices (hitting it with a sword does nothing) and the choices would tend towards low scale. (low frequency, low scale)

In a sandbox campaign-

• I would expect meaningful choices that further progress towards my character's goals. (Medium frequency, medium-high scale)
• I would expect meaningful choices about exploring the setting. (Very high frequency, low scale)
• I would expect meaningful choices about interacting with sections of the setting. (Medium frequency, high scale)

[Roland St. Jude]

Coming off the debates about Railroading and Player Agency
What do you consider meaningful choice in a game?

Sheriff: Please don't restart locked threads.