Do you put your player’s in situation when every decision they make is bad decision?
I did that… and it was a bad decision for me J….
My players where faced with the situation where they could just not win them all (at least I didn’t see any options, and they didn’t think of any ). They pretty much had to chose with of the important NPCes will live (players are good guys), a childhood friend of one of the characters, a mage who know the ritual for curing the mysterious curse plaguing the land, or very important lord (even more for one of the characters). And they didn’t know what to do, they couldn’t chose. They wanted the “we win everything” action somewhere there, but there wasn’t one. So when they situation escalated, one of my players just did the stupid thing and had her character jump on the overwhelming adversary, so she will be dead/unconscious/captured, so she didn’t have to make a choice, and the others did nothing.
And whatever actions they took, or didn’t for that matter, that was ok, I mean it was really bad situation from the beginning so there was no good course of action, and I was ok with that, but the players not so much. They had problem with that, and with me that I put them in situation like that, saying that is not fair. And now they are considering if they want to play more of my games :P…
And it’s not like they would be in this situation no matter what. All the thing they did, all the action they took, even if most of them were successful had consequences that resulted in this.
See for me, that kind of situation, where there are hard choices to be made, is one of the things that makes rpg games a role playing games, but I guesses my point of view on this didn’t agree with them.
How to you handle it? Do you make a choices like that in your adventures/campaign?
I have one player in particular that does not enjoy their not being some "and the heroes save the day" outcome that is possible, so my group does not have scenarios without that potential outcome.
The point of getting together to play the game is to play together with friends, and have fun, so I don't force my players into scenarios that they won't find to be fun, and if they are leading their character down a road that seems like it can only possibly lead to an outcome that I know they won't enjoy, it's time to pause the session, tell them outright where things seem to be leading and that I can't see how it would go any other way, and then we work together to create the possiblity of another outcome, and continue playing.
The interesting thing is, when we play different sorts of RPG (Shadowrun, for example) where there are not expectations of heroism as a theme, then the player is perfectly okay with scenarios which are survived rather than succeeded.
From the sound if it, it was not you who put the characters in such a situation, but, if I understand you correctly, the prior decisions of the characters that led to a suboptimal situation, i.e. one in which all desired goods could not be achieved and some would have to be sacrificed.
Did the players make good decisions earlier, i.e. did they do what a good player would do in a given situation, and then have you reveal that they were actually setting up the "no win" or "no good win" scenario? If so, then bad on you, since that's a bit manipulative. If not, that is, if they players could have seen how their actions, even their successful actions, were leading them to an unhappy choice later, then you might want to help them to see that. At least ask them what they might have done differently, now that they know the outcome. Be ready, though, for the possibility that, while you thought you were perfectly clear about the consequences, it was not anywhere near clear to the players. DMs need to be very careful about that. They often fear that they are "telegraphing" too much information and taking away the fun and challenge, but generally this is not the case. Players will be happy to tell you if you have made it too easy for them, since they want to have a good challenge! So, perhaps the consequences of their earlier actions were so invisible to them, that they rightly feel that they have been punished for good playing. On the other hand, you might be able to let them figure out some things that they could have done differently, things they really could and should have thought of, given the clues/information available to them.
In general, I don't like forced choices for players, and honestly, the fact that it doesn't bother you as the DM isn't particularly relevant. The players are the ones who have to make the choice, and it sounds as though they feel a bit cheated or manipulated. If players want a game like this, then fine, of course. Be mindful, though, about the assumptions. If your overall assumption is that sometimes PCs will face unavoidable choices which requires some bad outcome, and the players know this, then there's no problem. If, however, the players imagine that situations you present to them always have an optimal solution, then they will become frustrated by their inability to find it, especially if there isn't one to be found!
In the end, it sounds as though you have made a common mistake of DMs, namely, presuming that what you enjoy as a player is what other players (should?) enjoy, and you have DMed accordingly. Your players may think that heroism and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, there always being a chance to do so, is one of the things that makes rpg games what they are. If you want to keep these players, then you'll have to change your style. If you like playing with them, but don't want to or can't change your style, then perhaps have someone else DM for a while. If you want to remain DM and won't or can't find a way to meet your players expectations (or win them over to your way of playing)...well, there's not much to be done.
My campaigns have no-win scenarios... I wouldn't say frequently, but often enough that my players know they can happen. That said, even if a situation in my campaign is designed as a no-win scenario, that doesn't mean the PCs can't figure out a way to win. There's always the possibility that they'll come up with something I hadn't thought of, and that's great. That's why they're the heroes.
That playstyle isn't for everyone, though. It's definitely something you should see if your players are OK with.
My campaigns have the occasional no-win scenario that grows out of the actions of both the PCs and the NPCs reacting or responding to them. The villains in my game aren't static monsters waiting in the bottom of a dungeon to be killed off--they have their own plans and goals which have nothing at all to do with the PCs (except when the PCs interact with said plans and goals). The villains occasionally manage to respond to PCs mucking about their plans with nasty situations. The times the PCs get into these situations tend to be quite memorable, and I try to leave them at least a few outs. Since I run intrigue-heavy games, there's no real "heroes win forever" option--the goal of the PCs is to leave the world a better place than they found it, not solve all the problems.
I've done this several times. There's a good adventure for L5R that puts the players into this situation (Lesser of Two Evils), and it works if you have a mature group. For many, the story side of RPGs is about the consquences for your actions, and hard decisions make for great RP. Some players are more interested in the game as a game, and feel that it can be "won." For those people, this is an awful idea, and they will resent it for a long time. Obviously your group is more the latter.
TrueManiek wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
Well, if you received a negative review, now you know what NOT to do. And remind your friends that you (probably) won't do that in the future. At least not to that severity. Punish them for making bad decisions, sure, but forcing them to choose WHICH punishment to take is something some are for and some against.
I've done this before to mixed reviews. Some really like it, as it adds intruige and gets them wondering "What WOULD my character do here?" but still others feel emotionally attached to their characters, and thus the situation, in a different way. So making them choose is saying, "Hey, Dave, if I asked if you'd kill this box of puppies, a crate of kittens, or your mom and dad, what would you choose?" That's a situation they personally don't want to be in, and is something they'd rather not see their character in either.
So! I do intriguing things that everyone enjoys. Depending on the group, it might verywell be a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Or it just might be a lesser version of "Boy, this is a HUGE pickle, how can we fix/overcome this?" so as to not go overboard
iserith wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
It's still a little hard to tell what was going on, but it sounds like they needed some help in determining what their various options were and you didn't communicate those clearly, so they just kind of gave up. It also sounds like the situation was overly complicated. As the GM, it's your responsibility to have clear, strong choices available for them. If they can't decide what choice to make, spell out their options for them - sometimes players need a nudge forward to keep the story moving. In this case since they were struggling, it would have been perfectly fine for you to say, "It looks like you guys are in a no-win situation and will have to make a difficult choice... A, B, or C. What's it going to be?"
And keep it simple - players will always complicate things on their own anyway.
@TrueManiek, on the plus side, now you know what to say to your players, namely, "I think I didn't give you enough information to know the consequences of your earlier actions. I also see that you didn't much enjoy the kind of situation I put your characters in. I hope you'll still play in my game, and I'll do my best to make clear the possible consequences of your characters' actions. Pax?"
You never need a "you win everything" option if it just isn't in the cards, but don't attempt to railroad it that way. If the players come up with something creative, good for them.
Now saying that it is ok for there to be a "you don't win everything" scenario is a very different thing from saying it's ok to Kobayashi Maru your players. There should never be a spot where you put them into harms way to a grevious degree and they have no means to save their own hides whether the correct solution be to fight, talk their way out of it, run their arses off, figure out a puzzle, etc. If they decide to bite off more than they can chew or otherwise make poor choices however, that's on them.
I don't, but the players do.
I never force them into that kind of situation without their prior knowledge, but if it's the result of their prior actions and they can't find a way out of it, then so be it.
An example might be that if they choose to ignore someone who got kidnapped until the last minute, they might not have enough time to both fight off the invasion and save the person. I would make sure to let them know the deadlines of both, but if they make decisions that result in delays and in the end they can't do both, I'm not going to rewrite anything to make sure they can win everything. They made their choices, they live with them.
My view is similar to a few stated here. I run a fairly gritty/dark fantasy game so my players already know that their actions can and will have serious and potentially devastating effects. I don't try to engineer a "no win" situation but sometimes the players walk themselves into one. I'll give you an example from a campaign I did a few years back.
The BBEG was going to stage an assault on the PC fortress town, we'll call the actual fight scene F. Before the fight goes down the PCs were in scenes A-E each of which had an effect on scene F such as cutting off reinforcements, gathering their own allies, sabotaging the enemy siege weapons, and fortifying their position. In scenes A-E, by combination of poor choices and terrible luck, my players only managed to be "successful" in one of them which left them in a terrible spot when it came time for scene F. In the end they ended up sacrificing a large section of the town (and a handful of important NPCs) so they could trap and defeat the BBEG. Had my players done well in the previous scenes then they could have won the fight without casualties.
TrueManiek wrote:
So you gave the players some rope and then let them hang themselves with it, more or less. If that sounds bad, it probably is to an extent. Not that I'm blaming you - it was more than likely yet another case of different expectations and imperfect communication - but often the DM is held to a higher standard, or at least attributed more responsibility, when it comes to shaping the outcome of an adventure. If you realize things are headed in a direction your players may disagree with, consider whether it's going to be bad enough that you should nudge things in a different heading. You don't have to coddle them completely, but dumping Sophie's choice on them can definitely be out of order for some groups.
iserith wrote:
DM'ing is, in many instances, more consulting than storytelling/adjudication...
I have done this a number of time to my players over a number of campaigns and I've found that age, experience (both personal and playing the game), and their PC motives are all contributing factors to their decision-making. I've also been blessed with players whom I can admit the occasional screw-up to with no hard feelings.
However, when I have done this intentionally to force the players to think further into the long-term effects of their actions I've had responses ranging from self-destructive to whiny to applauding the idea of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. As we all know this occurs all too often in real life and I would venture to guess this is where many players have an issue.
Being a fantasy RPG (in the make-believe sense, not genre classification) we are often led to go for the fairy tale ending rather than what we would normally do with a real world dilemma. Further, being RPG players we not only look for the perfect resolution (since we are in "control" of the world) but we expect it.
I suppose it has more to do with individual perspectives and expectations in our game, but I have found it to lead my players to tell stories of the "hard decisions" for years afterward.
The only problem I'd have with it is where it's one of those 'we RP for hours but never actually get any XP or gold during that time'.
If there's some opportunities for XP and maybe gold as well every RL thirty or forty five minutes or so, then okay it's a tough decision to make but it's good play.
If there's no XP and NPC's are gunna die - it just sounds a downer.
Apart from choosing which NPC dies, game wise what do they get to look forward too? Some large amount of XP for choosing which NPC will die?
I get it, and it was probably my fault that they felt bad. I mean they were doing a good thing (and mostly succeeding at it), and it became a hopeless situation. Now I see that it really can be frustrating for players. Well that was my bad, and at least I learned something.
But how do you handle a player who (playing previously in exalted system exclusively), was accustomed to winning most challenges without trying to hard, especially when you have another player who want a though and hard game with no easy wins? 
TrueManiek wrote:
When facing the player characters with a lose-lose scenario proper telegraphing of this fact is imperative. Feel free to be overly obvious. Example;
Bad: "A huge green dragon are holding two captives and sadistically asks which one it should kill."
Good: "A huge green dragon are holding two captives and sadistically asks which one it should kill. You realize deep in your heart that there is no way to save them both."
Might be a tad cheesy storytelling, and might be considered meta-DM:ing. But it removes the frustration from the situation.
kalil wrote: