Choice as an emergent feature
When given one, you'll either have two or none.
0.
I find choice overstated.
For example, Christian claims:
Choice is the foundation of player agency. In the context of a tabletop RPG, choice refers to the myriad options that are presented to the players.
Presented by the narrator, it would seem. But presenting a set of options risks players discarding anything not included in it. In fact, there seems to lurk a paradox: the more choices put in front of the players, the lesser the potential for unexpected outcomes.
The less freedom to change the conditions of the test.
Why apply such constraints onto non-finite games?
1.
Most of the time, I see choice as an emergent feature of good situation design. The more toyetic the ROOM and its elements, the more room1 there is for choice.
I assume the following:
Players will exercise their agency by making choices when involved in rich situations.
So, rather than spending time prepping choices, I try to prep obstacles/conflicts and to optimise for interactability. Not maximise, because the more elements (and detail, and nuance) there are, the higher cognitive load on both narrator and players.
2.
There are exceptions to everything2.
Dilemmas are finite (binary) choices. They are tough, which creates drama. Chris has talked about dilemmas before. While I don't prep possible pushes3, I think it's an excellent framework.
Chris McDowall's dilemma framework:
Present two desirable, or equally undesirable, choices.
The players either Pick one OR Push for both.
If they Pick one, then they get exactly that, but they miss out on the other choice.
If they Push for both, they'll have to try something Risky, Sacrifice a resource, or come up with a Smart workaround.
Short to prep, quick to run, easy to grasp.
3.
Prep problems, not solutions.