PDA

View Full Version : curiosity vs. caution



Kol Korran
2013-02-16, 02:49 AM
Talakeal's "ship of the damned in the middle of a desert" thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270636), along with changes in the way my group approaches play got me thinking... in the thread the OP posted about a very bizzare, but highly intriguing and mysterious situation he presented to the players. granted, the situation looked like a probable trap (perhaps too obvious a trap?) but it had so much flavor, background and story connected to it! he asked the people of the board for opinions.

I was ofthe minority who wanted to explore this thoroughly, even at the price of risking my character. I wanted to find out what this was all about! the majority vote however was on the lines of "whatever you do- don't get in! either walk away from it, or burn them all from a distance! (fireballs)- too risky too engage." which frankly- surprised me a lot! :smallfrown: it seemed all so... well... boring! on the other hand, it turned out that inside there was a chance of meeting some sort of a disturbed god- which would have been cool! but quite possibly also lethal, if not handled properly.

So as I said, it got me thinking... curiosity vs caution- exploration of mysteries, vs character preservation. before we get all inflamed about this, I know most people are probably not to one total extreme or the other, but lie somewhere in the middle. but even they tend more towards one end or the other, no? there are no right answers, but I was wondering how prevalent each attitude is, and would just like to see different opinions.

In my group one player is very cautious (the "voice of reason" in the group, but the others like to dare, and take the game in more interesting routes. a few examples:
- a sort of an enchanting fey (on the lines of a succubus really) came into the camp one night. we all had an idea of what it was, but one player felt it would make a much more interesting story if he fell enamored with her. we played it somewhat cautious, but allowed the story to develop. this led to him being incapacitated by her kiss ("but what a kiss!" as he laughed later on) and a desperate fight against her, which was close to fatal for the group.
- while being pursued by the law, the party was in a city. one of the characters' brothers was in, but he was also a major character in the guard, and she have shamed him greatly. she still went to see him, not knowing really how he will react. this led to a great roleplay scene, though quite a tense and unexpected one.
- in the mournland (Eberron) the party meets a strange creature who offers to exchange a "part of themselves" for an organ from a magical being (angel, dragon, displacer beast, and so on). but he would not much detail aboutthe nature of the deal. all characters took the deal, though after heavy (not quite helpful) questioning.

I guess this highly depends on the level of lethality the group chooses to play with, and whether you're interesting in making an interesting cool story, or if this is mostly a survival game. (again, for most groups I imagine it lies somewhere in the middle).

So what is your take, your group's take on this? opinions?

ArcturusV
2013-02-16, 03:06 AM
Well... it does kind of depend on the type of game. If I'm playing some post apocalypse (Or current apocalypse) game where Survival is the point... my characters are generally going to be Survival based. Though they may let false hope delude them for a moment (Because it makes sense to me and so Bad Things have a chance to happen).

But generally I follow the theory of saying Yes to whatever is going on. I've DMed enough to know how... sad... yes lets say sad... sad it is when you craft up this interesting little tidbit, adventure, hook, item, artifact, ritual, whatever. And your players get too gun shy about it and won't go within a mile of it no matter what treats, neon signs, bait, etc, you hang on it.

The game is just more interesting for me in general when you go with it. Now I'm not saying I run around being a prick at the table, purposefully tugging on superman's cape or spitting in the Death God's Eye, etc. But if you put something in the game... I'm going to TRY to interact with it in a method other than avoiding it, or disposing of it. My guy might be cautious, scared, sneaking aboard, jumping at sounds, always at the ready, etc. But he's still going to get on board the ship.

If the Fey shows up, he's still going to interact with it rather than stick his fingers in his ears, run the other way going "LALALALALALALA!" until he is out of range and lost her.

Badgerish
2013-02-16, 05:10 AM
Both curiosity and caution are important and need to be weighed against each other.

I think a lot of the caution in the OP's link was due to the creatures strongly resembling Ghouls. Ghouls are very much a swarming enemy; 1 Ghoul is a threat, but 2 is much more dangerous due to how their weakening/stunning touch tends to work. The large number of ghoul-likes will certainly have pressed peoples 'caution' buttons.

Things I will avoid is almost every game:
D&D-style Ghouls
trust situations with D&D-style Demons (e.g. My characters may consider bargaining with Devils or Genies, under sufficient duress, but Demons who want to talk get put to the sword right away)

NichG
2013-02-16, 08:01 AM
I believe in remaining fluid, adapting to both the in game situation and the DM's style (as you learn more about it). I'd say for me, the goal is to be as far along the Curiosity side of the spectrum as I can get away with and still function in the campaign. I'm the guy who will find a random dragon skull somewhere decorating a fireplace and will use Reincarnate so I can chat with it and see what the dragon's story was.

For instance, if I were playing a 1ed D&D module-style campaign, I might find that curiosity gets me killed 9 times out of 10, so I'd be forced to dial it back. Really though, I wouldn't dial back the curiosity, I'd just try to dial up the paranoia, attentiveness, and character power level first. Paranoia and curiosity don't have to be enemies here. You can be paranoid in your preparations for the worst outcomes while taking actions that encourage or still allow for the best (most interesting? most revelatory?) outcomes. For instance in the ship scenario, some people were saying 'burn it from orbit' while others were saying 'don't trust them, but investigate with divinations/etc'. Both would survive the scenario being a trap, but the second approach still allows one to explore the scenario while the first just bypasses it.

I want to engage as much as possible with whatever the DM has created. If I'm in a campaign that is highly lethal, filled with gotchas, etc, I can still attempt to engage the mystery safely without just throwing myself into peril. If it comes to the point where I'm fireballing every plothook before it has a chance to manifest, I feel that I might as well not be playing.

Jay R
2013-02-16, 09:26 AM
The game of D&D (and life) is about making choices. In each case, you should consider the specifics of that case.

If your character always takes the cautious route, she'd still be at home.

If she always takes the curious route, she will hit too many traps.

Make each call on its own merits.

Lord Torath
2013-02-16, 09:44 AM
Well... it does kind of depend on the type of game. If I'm playing some post apocalypse (Or current apocalypse) game where Survival is the point... my characters are generally going to be Survival based. Though they may let false hope delude them for a moment (Because it makes sense to me and so Bad Things have a chance to happen).

But generally I follow the theory of saying Yes to whatever is going on. I've DMed enough to know how... sad... yes lets say sad... sad it is when you craft up this interesting little tidbit, adventure, hook, item, artifact, ritual, whatever. And your players get too gun shy about it and won't go within a mile of it no matter what treats, neon signs, bait, etc, you hang on it.

The game is just more interesting for me in general when you go with it. Now I'm not saying I run around being a prick at the table, purposefully tugging on superman's cape or spitting in the Death God's Eye, etc. But if you put something in the game... I'm going to TRY to interact with it in a method other than avoiding it, or disposing of it. My guy might be cautious, scared, sneaking aboard, jumping at sounds, always at the ready, etc. But he's still going to get on board the ship.

If the Fey shows up, he's still going to interact with it rather than stick his fingers in his ears, run the other way going "LALALALALALALA!" until he is out of range and lost her.
+1 to this.

Unless the DM has a reputation of messing with you, just because they can (see the Game Master, Why Have You Forsaken Us (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270274) thread), I assume if the DM puts something interesting in the game, it's because he wants us to interact with it, not because he wants to be able to yell, "Gotcha!" So for me, it's generally Cautious Interaction in strange situations.

Again depending on your DM.

"My curiosity died under mysterious circumstances. My sense of self-preservation found the body, but assures me it had an air-tight alibi."

Talyn
2013-02-16, 10:24 AM
As Jay R mentioned, people who have cautious personalities don't become adventurers - either they stay home, join an organized guard or military (for martial characters) or stay up in their towers and cathedrals (for arcane and divine characters).

For that reason, unless I have a really good backstory reason, I generally play my characters as curious almost to the point of recklessness - adventurers are the equivalent of extreme sports junkies in the real world.

kardar233
2013-02-16, 12:34 PM
It depends on several factors.

If I'm in a fairly sandboxy game, I'll tend to be more careful with what I poke into as a) the power level of the setting is internally consistent so there's a chance I'll run into something really nasty, and b) the GM has other hooks to use, so it's not essential to the story that I take it. In more linear games, I'll do the opposite.

In games with higher lethality, I'll also be more careful as it's not a satisfying outcome for me if my character dies by poking his nose into the wrong room. I might just leave something that looks interesting but dangerous if I decide it's not worth it.

It's also partially an in-character decision. Some of my characters succeed with intricate and carefully-laid plans, allowing them to deal with enemies far above their nominal power level. These characters will often leave interesting but potentially dangerous encounters behind because their success is predicated on planning and foreknowledge of the opponent. I've also played characters that were intuitively tactical and also such hardasses that they could quickly think, talk and fight their way out of just about any sticky situation.

erikun
2013-02-16, 12:47 PM
I have ran across more than one DM who was just a little more than kill-happy with characters, to the point where streams in the middle of nowhere prompted saving throws or death/disease. Needless to say, I can understand if some players turn out more cautious than curious, and are inclined to just destroy everything and take the treasure afterwards or just continue on with whatever they had planned.

hewhosaysfish
2013-02-16, 03:09 PM
Sometimes, I'll see GMs on these forums complain that their players are being really awkward because after he had the peasant villagers tell them about the ferocious Argle-Barlge that guards a fabulous treasure in the Dreadful Caves of Certain Doom (and how many adventurers have went in search of the treasure but never came back) but the PCs immediately decided to head in the opposite direction and not look back. Then, after they dodged the obvious plot-hook, they had the gall to complain that there was nothing happening!

Sometimes, I'll see GMs on these forums complain that their players are being stupid because after he had the peasant villagers tell them about the ferocious Argle-Barlge that guards a fabulous treasure in the Dreadful Caves of Certain Doom (and how many adventurers have went in search of the treasure but never came back) but the PCs immediately decided to head into the cave and - of course - they get slaughtered by the deadly Argle-Bargle. Then, after they ignore the obvious warning, they had the gall to complain that the encounter was unfair!

Maybe these GMs should swap groups...

Of course, sometimes a GM will complain that his players have got all the Monster Manuals memorised, so they know the CR and stats of the Argle-Bargle and can calculate exactly whether or not they can expect to beat it.

Seriously though, the GM's style and players' expectations need to match up. Both these things should be made clear when the GM is pitching his campaign so that any misunderstandings can be cleared up before they start.

EDIT:
I should add that my natural inclination is to expect the Dreadful Caverns of Certain Doom to be a plot-hook. If were starting in a campaign under a new GM I would (if I were taking my own advice) double-check that his brain was working on the same wavelength.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-16, 03:32 PM
I tend to be "cautious" (paranoid, acting rationally) when I'm feeling in a serious mood, playing a fleshed-out character, playing a high-Int character, or when the object of "curiosity" is so obviously a trap that I can't even justify it in-character. In this state I will justify actions based on in-character concerns, self-preservation, and logic. I will plan my actions carefully, and try to get the whole team working together. It helps my paranoia when I don't trust the DM or players, or when my character is alone.


I'm "curious" (i.e. suicidally insane) when I'm bored, don't have a backstory written, the campaign's more focused on humor than danger, or when I feel like the DM is going easy on us. In this state I will do things "because it's awesome", rather than for in-character reasons. It helps when there's a sense of party cohesion, and I feel like my teammates can bail me out of trouble. For example, my character last session (humor campaign, no backstory written) adopted a violent non-sentient troll child (chimpanzee-sized) with only scanty IC justification. Thankfully the rest of the party are much better parents than I am, so they do the raising while I just bought it for a song (75gp). Probably going to get it a Headband of Intellect so it can speak to us, then hand it gear so it can be our Regenerating meatshield.

valadil
2013-02-16, 11:19 PM
I'm cautious by nature. It's really easy for me to play characters who choose discretion over valor and live to fight another die.

That's why I have so much fun throwing caution to the wind.

One of my groups plays a lot of GURPS. There's an informal rule that you take a lot of flaws in that group. One of the ones that looked like it wouldn't be debilitating but gave good points is the Impulsive flaw. I don't remember the mechanics behind it, but the way I play that character is to investigate every curiosity and run with every impulse. And it's a damned good time.

RPGs are about role playing. An important part of that for me is taking on a personality that is not my own. Maybe my characters are less geeky than me or have different morals. Going impulsive is the opposite of me. It's so refreshing to play out that trait that I never get to use in real life.

(Impulsive characters have a couple nice side effects that I also enjoy, although they're not part of the thread. First off, you take action when you want. No more waiting around for group consensus. I was in a group that spent a whole session trying to plan an ambush. It didn't resolve. When we were still planning it the next session, one of the players ripped up his sheet and swore off RPGs. That never would have happened with an impulsive character in the party. He would have run into the cave full of Orcs for good or ill.

I also like that when you get yourself in trouble you're the center of attention. It doesn't matter to me if drinking from the fountain gives my character dragon wings, or if he swallows an angry water elemental. It puts the spotlight on me. Good or bad, I'd rather have the GM's attention than be a bystander.)

mjlush
2013-02-17, 06:20 AM
Sometimes, I'll see GMs on these forums complain that their players are being really awkward because after he had the peasant villagers tell them about the ferocious Argle-Barlge that guards a fabulous treasure in the Dreadful Caves of Certain Doom (and how many adventurers have went in search of the treasure but never came back) but the PCs immediately decided to head in the opposite direction and not look back. Then, after they dodged the obvious plot-hook, they had the gall to complain that there was nothing happening!

Sometimes, I'll see GMs on these forums complain that their players are being stupid because after he had the peasant villagers tell them about the ferocious Argle-Barlge that guards a fabulous treasure in the Dreadful Caves of Certain Doom (and how many adventurers have went in search of the treasure but never came back) but the PCs immediately decided to head into the cave and - of course - they get slaughtered by the deadly Argle-Bargle. Then, after they ignore the obvious warning, they had the gall to complain that the encounter was unfair!

Maybe these GMs should swap groups...
<snip>


There is a strong case for having an explicit "Game contract" to iron out these sort of expectation mismatches ... OTOH I tend to run very low casualty rate games (mostly on the ground there are far worse things than death :-) and I think if I actually said that it would suck all the tension out the game.

How do players recognize what sort of game there playing?

Loki_42
2013-02-17, 10:34 AM
It's a game, and the point of the game is to have fun. Finding interesting cool things to explore is fun. Dying means taking a couple of hours at most to roll up a new character in most systems.

Curiosity all the way.

Guizonde
2013-02-17, 10:49 AM
i'm in the crazy-prepared-pc category. for instance, in the return to the temple of elemental evil, i had the traditional shouting match with my dm over what i wanted to play...

-1 dwarven cleric of pelor:
*darkvision rules, ok?
*stonecraft is simply awesome in dungeons
*bane of undead everywhere (he had a problem with that)
*almost too much heal-power (he was grateful for that)
*evil tends to get its day ruined by a cleric (yeah...)
-skills:
*religion full ranks (now he wants me to fall, being very devout)
*profession medic (mortician, but hey. i heal what's not dead and i know how to make something stay dead) (he didn't expect that)
*full ranks in healing (because it's THAT useful, despite what the forum says)
*zero ranks in sneaking. i've got suns on my armor! how can i be discreet?!
-weapons: friggin' flanged mace (got it masterwork, because no way in hell did he want it blessed or whatever off the cuff. fine by me. he regretted it against the first undead we found)
*dwarven axe, because i'm still a dwarf darn it!
*spell domains: sun and healing
yes, this means that i don't carry rations, that i can bless water, and that i weigh in at less than 40lbs of equipment. if i don't have it, it's because i've got my spells and orisons for it. (thanks to the playground and mr welsh for teaching me how to ruin evil's day with unorthodox synergies)

after friday's session, he said that me, the mage and the rogue made the fortress cry tears of helpless rage. i built my cleric with the intent to create redundancies and synergies with the group. it was good forethought.

i'm far from optimized. heck, i'm cripplingly specialized. but you know what? the fluff works out, so no problem. if i was playing a ranger, you could expect me to carry a bazillion and a half tons of stuff that could (and probably would quickly) be useful.

regarding curiosity, i'll gladly jump into the mouth of hell if it means the story will be glorious. but even if we're heading into the nearby slumber-town, i'll still be prepared to the point where paranoia's telling me to lay off the caffeine.

Kol Korran
2013-02-17, 10:51 AM
So the choice whether to be cautious or curious seem to be heavily influenced by the type of Game master you have, the type of play your group plays, and roleplay considerations of the chosen character/s...

the first two points (game master and type of play) leads me to the next question however: Suppose the GM wishes to play a game which is at both fairly dangerous, but also keep the atmosphere of "Explore! find! experience! take chances!" of curiosity. (This may be especially true towards the better detailed and prepared sandbox games, where many challenges may beprepared in advance). how do you keep this fine balance? is it possible? for there will be times when "curiosity killed the cat" (or came near to do so)- won't players be overly cautious from there on?

How do you fine tune delivering the messages of "this is dangerous people, beware!" vs. "this might be a cool experience, can't wait till you mess with it!"? (similar to the Argle-Bargle scenerio mentioned by hewhosaysfish)

Slipperychicken
2013-02-17, 12:01 PM
How do you fine tune delivering the messages of "this is dangerous people, beware!" vs. "this might be a cool experience, can't wait till you mess with it!"?

In d&d, it requires a ton of metagaming to determine in-character what a PC is capable of fighting. They don't know they're level 3, or that Trolls are CR 5. They know Trolls are big and scary, and that the PCs are also pretty big and scary.

Don't plot-hook PCs into encounters which will immediately murder them, for one. If a villager complains about the quest-objective stuck in the Cave of the Fearsome Argle-Bargle and that someone should do something about it, expect the PCs to go after it, not because they're stupid, but because they're the heroes, damn it! Doing the impossible is their job!

JellyPooga
2013-02-17, 12:14 PM
I'm probably the least cautious player in the group and we're not a cautious group by a long shot!

I like playing the impulsive, curious type largely because I can see, as a Player, the benefits of being more cautious. I (the player) can see the ambush coming, so unless my character also sees it coming, will willfully spring the ambush because I like the idea of fighting my way free, for example.

If something has obviously been set up as an "interesting thing", then I'm going to see what the fuss is about. This has got me killed in the past, but who cares? It's just a character. Surviving against the odds makes you that much more heroic and dying in the face of insurmountable danger is only to be expected.

Tengu_temp
2013-02-17, 12:47 PM
Curiosity, but in a smart way. When something interesting appears I want to investigate it, but I won't rush blindly into a trap.

Caution is boring. I'm playing RPGs for the interesting storylines, characters and places. Being cautious is actively avoiding those things, because they might be dangerous. I'd say that a DM who runs a game that punishes curiosity and encourages caution is doing a huge disservice to his players.

Raimun
2013-02-17, 04:51 PM
That depends on the character I'm playing. Some would be curious, some would be cautious. Heroic warriors are made of harder stuff than regular people.

Yet, I can understand why many people would be only cautious.

Thing is, RPGs are not books or movies.

In books or movies, the author/writer is actively trying to come up with ideas how his protagonists would overcome the situation he himself made up. He needs them to be around to tell his story and they only die when it is dramatically appropriate.

In RPGs, the players have to come up with these ideas. I wouldn't have it any other way. However, even if the GMs aren't out to kill the party, most GMs are suitably neutral and there are no Plot Armors. If the idea would get you killed, it will get you killed. Most of the time, this will not be a "dramatic death" but more akin to a medieval time traveller electrocuting himself with a toaster by accident.

ArcturusV
2013-02-17, 05:45 PM
How do you fine tune delivering the messages of "this is dangerous people, beware!" vs. "this might be a cool experience, can't wait till you mess with it!"? (similar to the Argle-Bargle scenerio mentioned by hewhosaysfish)

This is something I've had trouble with a few times. My standing go to answer for it is making sure I do a lot of flavor and description before they actually run into the Argle-Bargle in the scenario. I almost almost always Homebrew monsters so Metagame thinking is out.

Players are... dimly aware of their own capabilities even ICily. They might not know "We're level 3", but the players ICily will know, "Well, we just managed to take on a group of 10 Orcs, and it was a hard fight we barely walked away from. So we don't want to mess with a group of 20 Orcs".

So as you're leading up to the location of the Argle-Bargle, you can have these hints that show just what sort of league the Argle-Bargle is in. Particularly for "monsters" (Singular creatures with more animalistic tendencies, etc) it gets easier. You can see things as you approach the lair of the beast... like where an Orc Raiding Band of (Insert More Orcs than the players could handle) seemingly got wiped out at once. Or a large, fearsome creature in it's own right apparently got eaten, it's bones pushed outside the lair after they were almost picked clean. Hints like this can tell even the most stalwart of parties that "I might not want to just charge this..."

Of course if you've got an appropriate group, it's even easier. Like one of the last Sandbox games I got to be a Player in, my character, Reman Valarius fit the "Giles" school of "How do we Fix Quest Object X?" He was the sort of guy that when an apocalypse was threatened, his first instinct was to hit the library, consult seers, knowledgeable sages and contacts, etc, that he had in order to get as much information as possible on whatever was going on, so that he could interact with it properly.

So you might say it was Cautious, but he always intended to interact with it, and allowed plot hooks to develop by basing my actions off stuff. But doing this research would give him quests, and let him know just how strong something was, what it's weaknesses were, what it's strengths were, etc. Which allowed him to make a more accurate estimate of the enemy, plan in such a way that if the party was weak they could still accomplish their objectives, etc. Thus how Reman Valarius managed to kick down an Ancient Dragon that would have been a challenge at a full party of level 15 characters while at level 6... with several level 2 NPC allies.