Hey gang, so on the Choice of Games blog, Dan recommends creating choices where one isn’t clearly better than the rest. I think that’s fantastic, sensible advice. However, I wonder about occasionally breaking that rule in order to allow players/readers to play the type of character they truly want. Here’s an example:
In my WIP, the MC is the first born of a royal house and is sent to meet with diplomats of a foreign faction. Along the way, an ally asks if the MC has knowledge of the meeting’s purpose, and if not, would they like to know. The MC is unaware at this point. It’s early on in the game, and the obvious best choice is to reply “I don’t know” and receive a bit of helpful exposition in order to prepare. Realistically though, I assume some people will want to play an heir who doesn’t care/is self-centered/etc, so I’m considering writing in a response to that effect. It will possibly leave the MC confused and disadvantaged in the meeting, so is less than ideal gameplay-wise, but it opens the door for more nuanced roleplaying.
Similarly, I’ve given thought to allowing the MC to be cowardly or otherwise less than heroic in other circumstances where the player is more interested to see how consequences play out than to make a “good” choice. To clarify, I’m not speaking in terms of morality here, but in regards to a choice that is objectively better from a stat perspective than another choice which may better serve roleplaying.
What are your thoughts? Is anyone interested in choices of that nature? Are there examples in previously released CoG/HG of something along these lines?