PDA

View Full Version : How to encourage risky gameplay



Relonious
2020-09-04, 06:47 PM
So I was thinking about how to encourage my players to take bigger risks. Maybe a secret bonus or something. I'm aiming for more cinematic action instead of carefully planed.

Anonymouswizard
2020-09-04, 07:12 PM
I'm aiming for more cinematic action instead of carefully planed.

Steal Exalted's stunting mechanic? It's literally 'bonuses for cool description'. Plus of course bringing in the idea of 'more risk=more reward'.

As for reducing planningm, I'm not sure. Time limits on planning sessions? Asking nicely? IME unless given an active reason not to groups slowly move towards long planning sessions, and it can be hard to justify not doing this (even Conan planned).

PhoenixPhyre
2020-09-04, 07:35 PM
The key is to actually let those risky attempts pay off. Especially if it's the first time it's tried.

My basic policy is that if you propose something cool that doesn't totally break the rules (ie there's at least one way it could work), I'll generally let it slide. If it needs a roll, it won't be prohibitively hard, and you'll generally get some result even if you fail. This tolerance only happens once per stunt, however. If it becomes a pattern, no dice.

People stop doing risky things and start focusing on the tried-and-true because their risky things get either shot down by the group or because they're sure it's going to leave them worse off than doing nothing.

Guunshtaff
2020-09-04, 08:03 PM
What I often do won't fly with every group, so use some prudent judgement before you commit to this suggestion. I'll often be somewhat frank with the meta mechanics of the players' situation. Obviously this can detract from their suspension of disbelief, but can also be a godsend for beginners. Saying things like, "That obstacle doesn't look like it can be surmounted with this tool. You may have to get creative." or "Well, that didn't work. What else do you have on your character sheet?" or possibly even " Are you sure? Remember what happened last time you tried that?"

Of course, those kind of hints are better for beginners struggling who might benefit from creative solutions than for veteran power gamers in a boring rut.

Elbeyon
2020-09-04, 08:22 PM
People can avoid unknown risks. They have no clue their chance of success, so they do not take the risk. Is it 10 or 80% I fail?

If risky things are less risky, it is not as much of a risk. "Bonuses chance of success for cool things" lowers the risk of failure.

Increase the reward. The slow and tried method could work, but they can gain a lot with a more risky path.

Reduce the punishment. It is a fun idea to swing across the chandelier, but if the risk is the character is effectively removed from combat, die, or suffer debilitating injuries. Those stairs do not look so bad anymore.

The safe way is often the most effective. Some people don't like doing stupid stuff to look cool.

False God
2020-09-04, 08:31 PM
A: letting those risks pay off.
B: not making failure in those risks only mean permadeath or rerolling.

Segev
2020-09-04, 11:43 PM
A: letting those risks pay off.
B: not making failure in those risks only mean permadeath or rerolling.

These, combined with lost opportunities, will serve you well.

This really is just an expansion of "A: letting those risks pay off," but the method is key: Have rewards that are obvious, but have to be obtained quickly or otherwise through risky means, and have the opportunity to obtain them be fleeting. So they have to move fast, and they can't deliberate over it long. They have to go NOW to get them. Sure, they can get lesser rewards the long and safe way, but you want the risky plays to pay off and to feel pressured to go get them RIGHT NOW.

B is also crucial; having failures carry penalties that sting is fine, even good, but they should be recoverable. And make sure the risks are not quite as risky as they look. That is, let them succeed and feel like they pulled off a miracle even if they had closer to 40% than 10% as their chance to win. They'll take more risks, because they'll think them less risky, but if you do it right, they'll still feel like they're just being bold.

Because the reality is, people are risk-averse because risks don't pay off often enough, and cost too much. You have to change that.

Jay R
2020-09-04, 11:53 PM
Make failure acceptable to them.

Once, the party of third levels at the top of the stairs were being attacked by gnomes running upstairs toward them. One player wanted his character to jump over the gnolls to attack them from behind. He rolled to low on his jump check.

I decided that it was a cool move, and said, “You land behind the gnolls where you intended, but you twist your ankle. You can’t move more than five feet per round until you get healed.“ This made the failure real, but the stunt was still worth doing.

Hand_of_Vecna
2020-09-05, 06:09 AM
Are you locked into a system? One problem with the big systems that have dozens of sourcebooks is the "there's a rule for that" in 3.x it was often "there's a feat for that" when martials wanted to do cool things. These rules often make cool stuff near impossible if you didn't invest in it meaning you essentially had to plan to replicate a cinematic scene weeks or months before when you were building your character. It also meant you were invested in a particular stunt for mechanical benefit and would probably try to replicate it well point of diminishing returns in coolness/fun for the rest of the table.

A looser system where everything is a stat check might serve you better a powered by the apocalypse game like dungeon world, Fate, or OSR. Even 5e can even do a lot of this if you default to cool stuff being a simple Athletics or Acrobatics check.

Planning sessions can be the worst from both sides of the table. Cinematic plans are done in montage. Consider adapting the core concept from some of the newer heist games and give players "planning" to spend as the adventure unfolds. Hiring a sniper, selecting a location for them on the map and writing out complex if/than instructions them might be exciting to the player doing it, but would be boring for the rest of the table probably including the gamemaster. Suddenly having a Deus ex Machina sniper shot save the party and then taking a minute to describe the sniper's hiring and placement is thrilling.

Quertus
2020-09-05, 07:11 AM
I'm… not really sure *what* behavior, exactly, we're trying to encourage here. However, *how* to encourage it? Depending on the behavior, you may not be able to encourage it directly. If it falls into that category, your best bet is to add another player who plays that way, and *show* the players that it's OK to play in that risky style.

GeoffWatson
2020-09-05, 07:28 AM
You don't want a secret bonus. If you don't tell the players, they won't know to try. Try talking to them about it.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-09-05, 08:09 AM
You don't want a secret bonus. If you don't tell the players, they won't know to try. Try talking to them about it.

I agree. Agency requires information.

"How do I encourage <X>" or "How do I discourage <Y>" questions usually have answers that begin with "Talk to the players like adults about it." And then continue with "follow through on your statements". If you want more risky behavior and less endless planning,

1. Tell the players that, outside a session. And discuss.
2. Tell them that you're going to make those risky things pay off more, disproportionately to the risk incurred (so a small increase in risk leads to a large increase in reward). This is needed because people are naturally risk averse--psychologically they weigh risk more heavily than reward.
3. THEN FOLLOW THROUGH. And point out cases where they take risks and get rewards from it.

Silly Name
2020-09-05, 08:27 AM
I agree with pretty much almost being said here, especially the part about rewards. You should make them obvious, concrete and something the players want. Tempt them, but make the rewards actually attainable and more than worth the risk.

Another method that works great in conjunction with that is putting them under pressure: when you have lots of time to plan and observe the situation, you are likely to favor the cautious approach or at the very least weigh all your options before picking one. If you're on the edge of your seat and have no time to think, instincts will take over and that can lead to riskier behaviour.

A practical example would be the difference between describing a room with a strange rune on the floor and asking the players what they want to do, and describing a chase scene in which you keep a frantic rhythm and lead players to answer quickly to prompts. The mood that's set by a GM can really change how players approach situations.

A very cool game to try this out is Ten Candles: without spoiling much, the game is divided into ten "scenes", and each scene ends when one of the ten candles on the table goes out. It doesn't matter what put out the candle (it simply burnt, the GM put it out to mark the end of the scene, or if a player did it or if it was just a gust of wind). When all the candles go out, it's game over.
Since it's a very cinematic game, at the start you'll go nice and slow and players will be able to consider their options. Until the GM pulls out the threats: monsters, aliens, bad guys with guns, collapsing roads, a fire... Doesn't matter, as long as it fits the game. But the moment a problem is there, you act rash and do whatever it takes to survive until the lights go out (this is also partially encouraged by the dice mechanic). And as the game progresses, every candle is more likely to burn out in the middle of an action, so you must think and act quick.

Also, as an addendum, I'd echo the sentiment of being open with your players about what type of mood you are looking for. Sometimes it's just as easy as saying "hey, want to play a game where we pull crazy stunts and take big risks for big rewards?"

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-05, 12:33 PM
B: not making failure in those risks only mean permadeath or rerolling.

That certainly seems like a good start.

Threads like this are very in line with what i want as a DM, since i generally find players choosing to fail or choosing to risk likely failure a thousand times more fun than forcing them to fail, which is easy but boring. In 5e you can attempt to use inspiration to encourage this a bit, but that only goes so far.

Kaptin Keen
2020-09-05, 04:39 PM
The thing I did that worked the best was to tell my players 'you're heroes - you're literally meant to do heroic stuff. Don't be afraid to try, I'm not going to punish you for taking initiative.'

Of course, what I'm really saying there is 'taking risks is essentially risk free - it may not succeed, but it won't kill you either.' Not everyone is going to agree with that approach, I guess =)

Xuc Xac
2020-09-05, 10:20 PM
The way this usually goes is like this.

GM: I want you guys to take bigger risks and do cooler stuff than just say "I hit it with my sword".
Players: OK. That sounds fun.
GM: So the goblin wolfriders are charging you. What do you do?
Player 1: Ok. I'm going to try to step aside at the last second and grab one of the riders by the neck, lift him up in the air with a barbaric yawp, and slam him to the ground like I'm spiking a football!
GM: Whoa! That's awesome! It's tricky though, so you'll take a -5 penalty.
Player 1: Dang! I missed by 4.
GM: Too bad. The goblin stabs you for 8 damage as he rides by you. What about you?
Player 2: Uh... I hit it with my sword.

If you want them to do more, then the risks have to be a net gain for the players. If bigger risk = bigger reward, then the bigger reward has to be more than the risk. If the risk is doubled and so are the rewards and penalties, it's a net gain of zero but with swingier results. If you double the risk, you should give them triple or more reward to make it tempting.

Pauly
2020-09-05, 10:27 PM
From my experience players avoid risks not because the rewards are too low, but the cost of failure is too high.

For example. you are playing a sci-fi game with a geavy shooting element to the combat. Your character is in cover but if she moves normally she cannot the to the next bit of cover that will allow her to take out the boss. She can try a stunt to extend her move to the cover. If the stunt fails she will be left in the open where all the bad guys can shoot her up. No matter how cinematic the cool move would be the cost of failure, even if she has an 80% chance of success, is too great.

As a GM you really can’t do anything to change that. If she fails her roll she is going to suffer significant penalties, possibly character death. That is the consequence of failure in that example. Doing anything else will be dumbing the game down to easy mode.

People are more willing to take risks when the penalty for failure isn’t catastrophic. Which means most players will tend to take risks in situations where either it is safe to do so (eg against low level opponents) or where safer ways will result in failure anyway due to a ticking time bomb in the scenario.

Relonious
2020-09-07, 04:05 PM
Thanks for all your replies. I'll take your advice in consideration.
There was a webcomic, The Dungeon Master of the Rings (I think), and one issue has Legolas describing an awsome action to fight the ollifants, and the DM defaulted to hit it's legs, because the difficulty was to high.
That is the idea I want to avoid.

PS. Writing with a spanish autocorrector is frustating.

sktarq
2020-09-07, 06:21 PM
another aspect is
how are we talking about talking the low risk path here?

by which I mean is this a matter of being cautious in a round to round idea of not pulling off cool stunts, etc type of thing or are we talking about a larger scale caution...where the whole game is being bogged down in excessive information collection, gaining small advantages to bring to main event (often equipment or allies) etc?

one thing that I find helps is make it clear that a lack of action is clear choice with costs....players spending too much time deliberating what they are going to do next round so each round takes an hour? Put them on a chess clock or egg timer for action calls. If they take too long so does their character. give penalties for "hasty" actions for a bit then they just loose their round. When people have the sense of "do SOMETHING" they will tend to fall to a risk extreme, either very safe or high risk. After a few times of high risk stuff paying off and just becoming socially normalized around the table people are more likly to make those decisions anyway.

on the large scale...give them a different sort of ticking clock. a plot based one. and don't necessarily tell them about it. imply there is a rush and then if the dilly dally let there be consequences. Perhaps they can not save the hostage but can still avenger them but make that a lesser victory...

...let their low risk choices have negative consequences.

Cheesegear
2020-09-07, 06:44 PM
So I was thinking about how to encourage my players to take bigger risks...

How do you get anyone to take risks, ever?

A big problem with RPGs is that players will often think of their characters as themselves, to a greater or lesser extent. This isn't bad, per se. On the positive side, it generates investment in the character, and thus, the game.
Negatively, however, this means that needless complications, injury and potentially even death, are bad for the player, not just the character. I've had players cry when their character died-and-was-made-unrezzable. Maybe it's my cold, dead heart...But really? Okay... Point is, risks aren't taken, because consequences exist. (How do you get anyone to take risks, ever?)

If you can convince your players that their characters are simply fictional characters and it doesn't actually matter if they die - let alone simply 'fail' - then it goes a long way towards promoting fun risky game-behavior since the players are now less averse to the consequences to their characters, and are thus more likely to take actions that they otherwise wouldn't take.
It's okay to die. It's a game of make-believe. It's not real. Just roll a new character and you're back.
On the flip side; It might lower investment, because now nothing matters and just do whatever you want and lets run our characters purposefully into meat-grinders 'cause we'll just roll a new one?

Second, a lot of players simply aren't aware of their options:
I've had a number of encounters, where after DMing a tough fight, I'll say something like "I don't understand why you didn't just..."
and the players' response is simply "Wait, we can do that!?"
Additionally, a player might have an idea in their head, but it's 'dumb', so why say it out loud? ...Except that 'dumb' idea was actually a really good one and the player just has no confidence.

My players didn't 'take risks' or take 'unlikely actions', because it simply didn't occur to them to do so...They're unlikely, after all. That, or maybe my players aren't very...Smart, I guess. And that's why I'm the DM. That said, I've ran a number of modules where I'm reading through it and a boss or encounter has secret bonus/win conditions, and I'm like "What? How the **** are they meant to figure that out?" (Always read your modules before the session starts. :smallwink:)

But ultimately, it's your players' game. You can't encourage them to play the way you want to DM them.
I'd love it if my players did [X, Y and Z]. But they don't. Because that's not the way they play the game. I could set up an encounter that forces the gameplay I want, but then they wouldn't have fun and then they'd quit.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-07, 09:34 PM
But ultimately, it's your players' game. You can't encourage them to play the way you want to DM them.
I'd love it if my players did [X, Y and Z]. But they don't. Because that's not the way they play the game. I could set up an encounter that forces the gameplay I want, but then they wouldn't have fun and then they'd quit.


I think this is very unhelpful advice to give. Not only because the DMs fun matters too (an incredibly important fact that all to often gets forgotten on these forums), but because there is a middle ground between just going with the flow and forcing behavior, which is what the thread is all about. Encouraging behavior.

Cheesegear
2020-09-07, 09:40 PM
I think this is very unhelpful advice to give [...] there is a middle ground between just going with the flow and forcing behavior, which is what the thread is all about. Encouraging behavior.

I didn't think the part you quoted was particularly helpful. It wasn't meant to be.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I encourage my players to do things all the time. What am I supposed to do if they just don't do what I want them to do? There's nothing to do. That's just the way it is.

Duff
2020-09-07, 10:12 PM
The key is to actually let those risky attempts pay off. Especially if it's the first time it's tried.

Very much this. But also, limit the info available before the action.

If you particularly want to spend less time in planning sessions, feel free to judiciously remind the players that they had a good plan for a similar situation last time and maybe they should make that SOP? If they do, you should actively avoid setups which might feel like a trap for the SOP

LordCdrMilitant
2020-09-07, 10:41 PM
In general, I try to get my players to plan things out more. Then I introduce a series of complications that they didn't plan for once their plan is being executed, which forces them to adapt on the fly and make in-the-moment decisions.

In addition, I think the key to players settling on more "risky" courses of action is to make all other courses of action less desirable. You will inherently adopt more long-shot odds plans if no better odds are available, or any plan with better odds is seen as unacceptable.

Also, "Planned" and "Risky" are not opposite ends of the same axis, and are largely unrelated to each other.

Satinavian
2020-09-08, 12:59 AM
Very much this. But also, limit the info available before the action.

I disagree.

Risk-averse players tend to be even more careful if the situation is less known and the risks can't be gauged.

Cheesegear
2020-09-08, 01:24 AM
Risk-averse players tend to be even more careful if the situation is less known and the risks can't be gauged.

One of my players tells a story about his last group that took an hour to open a door.

Check to listen to the other side of the door? Fail.
Search for traps? Fail.
...Guess they just don't open the door, now? Session over.

...He doesn't play with that group anymore.

Drascin
2020-09-08, 02:39 AM
Basically, the main rule is to let risky options be genuinely worth the risk (that is to say, the rewards are good, and the penalty you risk is not completely out of whack), and to facilitate going with them. People tend to respond to reinforcement far more than suggestions.

Since speaking in terms of whole scenarios would make this post pretty long, let me make a comparison to a very low level but similar thing: do you know how many GMs complain endlessly that all their players do is go "I attack"... but then whenever their players want to do something silly like swing off the chandelier, they immediately ask for an acrobatics check as difficult as landing the attack in the first place and if the character miss the check they make them take fall damage and end up prone in front of the enemy from falling, or something of that stripe, while beating the check gives them, like, a +2 modifier to their attack? And never seem to realize why their players stopped bothering years ago?

That's a micro version of what I mean. Doing the "cool maneuver" adds a massive possible failure penalty, but the benefit of succeeding is minor compared to just doing the baseline safe thing: textbook case of "not even slightly worth it". And players pick up on this. It is extremely easy, as a GM, to fall into this mindset on the macro level - especially if you have simulationist tendencies, when you set up situations you risk worrying so much about making the risks "realistic" and "make sense for the enemies" that you forget thinking about the important bit: what am I trying to transmit and reinforce, here?

If you want players to take risky decisions, you need to massage the failure penalties such that they become actually commensurate with the payoffs, or give outs - the ability to back off if **** starts going sideways, or use resources to shore up momentary missteps so that the whole thing doesn't come crashing down due to one bad roll, help a lot to make people willing to take the chances.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-08, 07:51 AM
Basically, the main rule is to let risky options be genuinely worth the risk (that is to say, the rewards are good, and the penalty you risk is not completely out of whack), and to facilitate going with them. People tend to respond to reinforcement far more than suggestions.

Since speaking in terms of whole scenarios would make this post pretty long, let me make a comparison to a very low level but similar thing: do you know how many GMs complain endlessly that all their players do is go "I attack"... but then whenever their players want to do something silly like swing off the chandelier, they immediately ask for an acrobatics check as difficult as landing the attack in the first place and if the character miss the check they make them take fall damage and end up prone in front of the enemy from falling, or something of that stripe, while beating the check gives them, like, a +2 modifier to their attack? And never seem to realize why their players stopped bothering years ago?

That's a micro version of what I mean. Doing the "cool maneuver" adds a massive possible failure penalty, but the benefit of succeeding is minor compared to just doing the baseline safe thing: textbook case of "not even slightly worth it". And players pick up on this. It is extremely easy, as a GM, to fall into this mindset on the macro level - especially if you have simulationist tendencies, when you set up situations you risk worrying so much about making the risks "realistic" and "make sense for the enemies" that you forget thinking about the important bit: what am I trying to transmit and reinforce, here?

If you want players to take risky decisions, you need to massage the failure penalties such that they become actually commensurate with the payoffs, or give outs - the ability to back off if **** starts going sideways, or use resources to shore up momentary missteps so that the whole thing doesn't come crashing down due to one bad roll, help a lot to make people willing to take the chances.

I think you're onto something in that the culture of simulationism (or over-simulationism, even) from earlier games definitely encourages very careful and cautious play. Getting older players coming into newer games to break this habit is in my experience a lot harder than newer players who are generally more malleable to whatever direction you positively reinforce.

As for rewards and penalties, rewards are fairly easy to make good, but penalties are a bit tougher. A risk should, in my mind, result in relevant penalty if you fail (otherwise it's not a risk), but there are, in this context, helpful (for reinforcing behavior) and non-helpful penalties. Just as a start, i find penalties that embarrass the character or otherwise prevent them from being cool but don't stop the game (or their game) entirely in it's tracks work best. Sort of an extension of the "fail forward" concept.

Democratus
2020-09-08, 10:23 AM
If you make sure good things happen when the risk is taken, and reduce the penalties when it fails...

Is it really risky gameplay any more?

kyoryu
2020-09-08, 11:44 AM
Ultimately, it's just risk vs. reward.

If risk > reward, then players won't do the things. So you need to either reduce risk, or increase the reward. Or the perception of either.

This is going to get into one of my personal hobby horses that death shouldn't be the primary consequence of failure. It's a good one, to be honest, and should be used appropriately.

But consider this.... what if you always let characters run away, or surrender (when running isn't possible)? IOW, what if you made it so that death was only on the line if the players insisted on playing it out til the last, and were willling to put their lives on the line?

Now, the consequence of loss is, what? Make it something in the story/world level. So if the players have to fight some guards to get into a castle to do whatever, the consequence of losing isn't that they die.... it's that they don't get in the castle. And, ideally, it also means that something else bad happens, and possibly that the guards are now aware of them and the bad guys are going to do different or more proactive things.

These things can be bad, but they're not the end of the game. And having that in place can allow players to be more open with the risks that they take.

Man_Over_Game
2020-09-08, 11:48 AM
If you make sure good things happen when the risk is taken, and reduce the penalties when it fails...

Is it really risky gameplay any more?

Yes.

When the options are:


Lose a leg
Earn $1 million


It's still a heavy risk, no matter the odds.

The important thing about risk vs. consistency is that you can strategize around consistency, even if it's consistently bad. But usually the value of strategy is something that favors the players, not the players' enemies. Enemy plots are generally hand-waved things, while the players have to utilize gathered resources and powers to develop a solution.

So it's almost always in the player's favor to take the most boring, predictable solution to their problems, as they're the ones that have to manage the situation and adapt.


Even if something like swinging from a chandelier for an attack has a Cost:Reward of 30:70, and is generally more beneficial to do, you still aren't sure of the results and whether or not you have the tools to adapt afterwards.

So even if failure just means "The chandelier falls to the floor from your weight, creating Difficult Terrain in the area", the players don't know that, and likely couldn't have prepared around that result. On the other hand, running up to the enemy and attacking them has really predictable results, even if the odds of success weren't great.



Put another way, the less predictable (and more impactful) the result, the more it needs to swing in the player's favor, as predictability always favors the players. It's mechanically in the players' best interest to be boring, so it's our job to fight against that.



As far as my personal recommendation for rewarding risky gameplay, it depends on the severity. If it's mildly risky, the offending player gets a boon. If it's extremely risky, everyone else but that player gets a boon (as the offending player is likely being a bit too "extra", and the rest of the party shouldn't feel frustrated for pulling him out of the fire).

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-08, 12:04 PM
Ultimately, it's just risk vs. reward.

If risk > reward, then players won't do the things.

While that can be true, the idea is to train, and find ways to further train, the player to take succeeding at a risk as a reward, or part of a reward, in and of itself.

kyoryu
2020-09-08, 12:13 PM
The important thing about risk vs. consistency is that you can strategize around consistency, even if it's consistently bad. But usually the value of strategy is something that favors the players, not the players' enemies. Enemy plots are generally hand-waved things, while the players have to utilize gathered resources and powers to develop a solution.

So it's almost always in the player's favor to take the most boring, predictable solution to their problems, as they're the ones that have to manage the situation and adapt.

This is often exacerbated by the common GM strategy of withholding as much information as possible. When the risks are unknown, you have to presume that they're catastrophic, especially if you have reason to believe that they may be.

Also for your previous example (which I already deleted, sorry), the million dollar/leg thing is actually made more interesting by not having randomness at all! If you need the million dollars to do X, and the cost is your leg, then that's quite an interesting dilemma for the player - is the thing that the money enables worth a leg?


Even if something like swinging from a chandelier for an attack has a Cost:Reward of 30:70, and is generally more beneficial to do, you still aren't sure of the results and whether or not you have the tools to adapt afterwards.

So even if failure just means "The chandelier falls to the floor from your weight, creating Difficult Terrain in the area", the players don't know that, and likely couldn't have prepared around that result. On the other hand, running up to the enemy and attacking them has really predictable results, even if the odds of success weren't great.

And this is a great reason to tell the players what may happen. If they know that the result of a failure is the chandelier falling, they can make a reasonably assessment of the risk. If they don't, they'll have no idea of what to expect and essentially have to plan for the worst.

Withholding information generates risk averse gameplay.

Additionally, being upfront about the risks generates trust, and when players feel that they can trust the GM, then they're more likely to do "risky" things as they can trust that the failure results will be appropriate.


Put another way, the less predictable (and more impactful) the result, the more it needs to swing in the player's favor, as predictability always favors the players. It's mechanically in the players' best interest to be boring, so it's our job to fight against that.

Consider also that failures can disproportionately impact players. Like critical failure charts....


As far as my personal recommendation for rewarding risky gameplay, it depends on the severity. If it's mildly risky, the offending player gets a boon. If it's extremely risky, everyone else but that player gets a boon (as the offending player is likely being a bit too "extra", and the rest of the party shouldn't feel frustrated for pulling him out of the fire).

One of the other things is to attach a risk to the "safe" behavior. Sure, you can plan until you're dead, but then the bad guys will get away/be more prepared. Sure, you can avoid doing the chandelier swing, but then the bad guys escape with the artifact. The cost of the "safe" option needs to be there too, usually in terms of time/enemy preparedness.

But a lot of that also depends on whether you're talking macro-level decisions (go in without exhaustive prep) vs. micro-level decisions (swing on the chandelier vs. attack).


While that can be true, the idea is to train, and find ways to further train, the player to take succeeding at a risk as a reward, or part of a reward, in and of itself.

Is it?

I think the idea that players should perform blatantly suboptimal decisions is kind of odd.

Like, let's look at gambling on a coin flip. You want players to do that. You could give them $5 on a $1 bet if they win, at which point it's a good bet.

You could give them roughly even money. This is risk, but it's balanced.

If you offer them $1 on a $5 bet, they'll turn it down, every time, and they should.

The problem is that in a lot of cases, players don't know the bet they're making, and many GMs are perfectly willing to rain down thunder and lightning if the players "screw up".

In that case, it's not really a matter of a $1/$1 bet, from the players' point of view. It's the GM saying "Hey, how about you make a bet? If you win, you will get something, but I won't tell you what. And if you lose, you'll lose something, but I won't tell you what. So you can take that bet now.... or...... you can do a lot of research and I'll tell you what you actually might win or lose. Which is it?"

Of *course* the players will do the research/planning. If you don't know what you can win/lose, that's not a risk.

Dr paradox
2020-09-08, 03:17 PM
It certainly makes sense that players would try to approach problems optimally, especially in my case where one of my players finds effective planning and clean execution to be his most engaging form of gameplay.

I once had an adventure where he figured out how to use two spells and time to clear out a town's worth of undead that I had figured would be a few combats. I considered this, said "Yeah, that's an excellent plan, it takes about six hours of back-breaking labor to pull it off, but there's virtually no risk to you. It's a few hours before dawn when you finish."

I was a little disappointed that the adventure wound up so procedural, but this player was elated. "That was so cool," he told me. "I don't know I've ever had a plan just work like that before."

Times like those are nice, but it also means every dungeon immediately becomes a series of dull chokepoints as they break down a door, then backpedal to set up an ambush. This is tactically advantageous, but also laborious. This pleases the planning player, but I've also got players who like their action high-flying, but can't really gainsay the planner because they're committed to playing in-character. This isn't exactly a frequent problem, but it does come up.

I've found that the key is in shifting the goals and perils of a given encounter. Give them a reason that some of them HAVE to be across the room in a round or two to stop an enemy from activating a trap, or that they need to get off a rock-ledge before it collapses, Or that there's a slow moving but devastating enemy they need to keep ahead of. Ambushes are prime material for injecting this kind of action, because players know from the start that they're exactly where their enemies want them, so any distance they gain from that position, however risky, can only be a tactical benefit. Time pressures are good, too: hostages, burning fuses, and so on. At a macro scale, this can help keep a fire lit under your players when they're not in direct combat.

jayem
2020-09-08, 05:06 PM
It's something you want to have a mix of.
Sometimes pushed into taking risks. Sometimes having all the time and resources in the world. Sometimes having time pressures but being resource rich and sometimes lots of time but nothing to use.

But you do want the GM&Players to know which they are doing. And arguably having a semi realistic choice about going into it. With a suitable payoff matrix (with the cautious approaches vaguely in the middle of risky success and failure).

I do wonder if the removal of 'boring' rolls is a little counter-productive here. If the player can just "spend ages" carefully picking a lock, there's no opportunity-cost for doing that. If they had to roll that 20, they might have more desire to just blow the bloody doors off.

icefractal
2020-09-08, 06:34 PM
If you make sure good things happen when the risk is taken, and reduce the penalties when it fails...

Is it really risky gameplay any more?It's as risky as you can practically get in a TTRPG.

Books or movies often have the protagonists encounter, for example, ten hazardous situations they only have a 50% or less chance to survive. That's less than 1/1000 odds. This works in scripted fiction because the author only covers the one timeline where they do survive rather than the many where they don't.

But in a TTRPG, where the dice don't obey the plot, being "risky" means one of:

1) The risks are really risky, many campaigns end with a TPK, few characters make it from the start to the end of a plot arc, but if you play enough campaigns you eventually get one where everything lines up and it's awesome. Problem: This require playing a lot to "pay off", more so than most adults can manage.

2) In-fiction, the actions are risky, but OOC on a mechanics level, they aren't, and the players know this. Fate, for example - jumping across that chasm is a very long-shot and the bottom can't even be seen, but OOC the players would know that with all the aspects they have built up their odds are pretty good, and that failure will mean "clinging to an outcropping" rather than "splat". Problem: May not give the same excitement.

3) The GM lies. They say they're running a Type 1 game, but actually they fudge things so it's more like Type 2. Problem: Once the players see through the curtain, nothing else in that campaign (possible with that GM at all) will feel very meaningful.

Or you can give that up and say "Yeah, both IC and OOC you feel you have pretty good odds, like at least 90% to survive this, but hey, limited risk still adds up quickly."

Duff
2020-09-08, 08:30 PM
snip also, limit the info available before the action.

I disagree.

Risk-averse players tend to be even more careful if the situation is less known and the risks can't be gauged.

That's a really good point - Some players will respond to limited info by trying to plan around all the possibilities. These players need to be confident that they have enough info to be able to make decisions

Satinavian
2020-09-09, 02:16 AM
Since speaking in terms of whole scenarios would make this post pretty long, let me make a comparison to a very low level but similar thing: do you know how many GMs complain endlessly that all their players do is go "I attack"... but then whenever their players want to do something silly like swing off the chandelier, they immediately ask for an acrobatics check as difficult as landing the attack in the first place and if the character miss the check they make them take fall damage and end up prone in front of the enemy from falling, or something of that stripe, while beating the check gives them, like, a +2 modifier to their attack? And never seem to realize why their players stopped bothering years ago?

That's a micro version of what I mean. Doing the "cool maneuver" adds a massive possible failure penalty, but the benefit of succeeding is minor compared to just doing the baseline safe thing: textbook case of "not even slightly worth it". And players pick up on this. It is extremely easy, as a GM, to fall into this mindset on the macro level - especially if you have simulationist tendencies, when you set up situations you risk worrying so much about making the risks "realistic" and "make sense for the enemies" that you forget thinking about the important bit: what am I trying to transmit and reinforce, here?

That is a different topic.

But ... for me that is the intended playstyle that should be encouraged. People who fight, tend to use weapons, formations etc. for a reason. Standard routines became standard because they are generally best practices.

Special, unorthodox moves are only useful for special situations and that is exactly where they bring good results.

I don't need "cool maneuvers" that are actually quite stupid if you think more than five seconds about them.


I also hate Pulp.

Cheesegear
2020-09-09, 05:32 AM
Based on a True Story

In Combat:
DM: Okay, between you and the hostile, is a 20 ft drop.
Fighter: This might sound crazy, but can I jump off the cliff, and as I do so, swing with my weapon?
DM: Uhh...The rules for Falling are pretty clear. You'd have to make an Acrobatics check, and if you fail, you take 2d6 damage, and fall Prone.
Fighter: Well, I'm a STR character, not a DEX one. So my Acrobatics isn't great. What happens if I pass?
DM: ...Umm...You don't take damage or fall Prone?
Fighter: That's lame. I'll just climb down.
DM: I guess if you pass, if your attack hits, you deal +2d6 damage, and regardless of whether or not the attack hits, the hostile falls Prone, as you crash into him regardless? That's kind of equal outcomes.
Fighter: Yeah, but if I fail, that still happens to me. Hard pass. Nevermind. I climb down like a normal person, and using the remainder of my Movement, I get to him anyway and make my usual attacks. *rolls to hit*

Narratively, since it doesn't make a difference anyway (turns out he had enough Movement to Climb anyway), the Fighter could say he jumped off the cliff (even if rules-wise, he didn't). But by this point, the moment's gone. Something, something, "Gambling Rolling dice is fun."

Moral of the Story:
It doesn't make sense to take risks or 'do cool stuff', unless the DM rules overtly in the players' favour.

Drascin
2020-09-09, 05:37 AM
That is a different topic.

But ... for me that is the intended playstyle that should be encouraged. People who fight, tend to use weapons, formations etc. for a reason. Standard routines became standard because they are generally best practices.

Special, unorthodox moves are only useful for special situations and that is exactly where they bring good results.

I don't need "cool maneuvers" that are actually quite stupid if you think more than five seconds about them.


I also hate Pulp.

Sure. It's your table and your call. I would immediately excuse myself if I was to play with you, but you do you, my preferences don't really matter for your game! All I'm saying is, then don't don't complain when your players do not take that one "special singular moment" where you wanted them to do an unorthodox maneuver.

If you teach people that deviation from the standard will be punished, they will not deviate from the standard.

Satinavian
2020-09-09, 06:27 AM
If you teach people that deviation from the standard will be punished, they will not deviate from the standard.
I don't want to teach anything or punish stuff. I just try to judge results as realistically and fair as possible. That promotes standard solutions quite organically most of the time but will favor oddball solutions when uncommon tools are available or the problem is an uncommon one.

I do not have any problems with my players behavior and they like this style. Because they know i try to give a fair and realistic evaluation they usually have a good idea about risks and possible consequences. And we rarely have different opinions about any of that.

Of course it also helps that i am using systems with a far better and more robust skill system than D&D. Where experts can reliably produce good results and people are on the same page about their abilities.



But yes, i would expect that you would not like my table. And vice versa. Different priorities.

Xervous
2020-09-09, 07:47 AM
Of course it also helps that i am using systems with a far better and more robust skill system than D&D. Where experts can reliably produce good results and people are on the same page about their abilities.

What sort of system we talking here? Waving allusions to tasty probability systems has me curious.

Satinavian
2020-09-09, 08:29 AM
What sort of system we talking here? Waving allusions to tasty probability systems has me curious.
One is Splittermond which has as basis some 2d10+mod mechanic but uses degrees of succes/failure extensively, does like accumulation of successes for longer tasks and uses things that work a bit like feats occassionally changing what successes actually mean and what you can do with them on Top of it.

The other is a variant of TDE 4.1 which uses some rather complicated 3d20 mechanics that includes stats and skills but emphasizes skill ratings far more (and also uses degrees of success). It is also different from TDE 5E.

Both systems are skill based first. When you want to know what a character can do, you don't look at attributes or profession(closest to class), you look at his skills. The skills also try to catch most abilities a character might have so there is always an appropriate skill. The whole supernatural stuff also works via skills. Mechanically Splittermond is the far superior one but TDE in all editions is far more widespread. I don't lie TDE that much but "having a better skill system than D&D" is not exctly a big hurde and it passes that one with ease.


You can't really get either one in English though. TDE4.0 had a (pretty barebone and not that useful) English release once and TDE5 a proper one.

Segev
2020-09-09, 09:37 AM
It's as risky as you can practically get in a TTRPG.

Books or movies often have the protagonists encounter, for example, ten hazardous situations they only have a 50% or less chance to survive. That's less than 1/1000 odds. This works in scripted fiction because the author only covers the one timeline where they do survive rather than the many where they don't.

But in a TTRPG, where the dice don't obey the plot, being "risky" means one of:

1) The risks are really risky, many campaigns end with a TPK, few characters make it from the start to the end of a plot arc, but if you play enough campaigns you eventually get one where everything lines up and it's awesome. Problem: This require playing a lot to "pay off", more so than most adults can manage.

2) In-fiction, the actions are risky, but OOC on a mechanics level, they aren't, and the players know this. Fate, for example - jumping across that chasm is a very long-shot and the bottom can't even be seen, but OOC the players would know that with all the aspects they have built up their odds are pretty good, and that failure will mean "clinging to an outcropping" rather than "splat". Problem: May not give the same excitement.

3) The GM lies. They say they're running a Type 1 game, but actually they fudge things so it's more like Type 2. Problem: Once the players see through the curtain, nothing else in that campaign (possible with that GM at all) will feel very meaningful.

Or you can give that up and say "Yeah, both IC and OOC you feel you have pretty good odds, like at least 90% to survive this, but hey, limited risk still adds up quickly."

Reading this thread, I had a potential epiphany as I hit this post. I won't say this post is the sole inspiration of it, but I figured I should at least quote the one I was reading when I thought of this for hopeful context.

The OP posits it in terms of "risky gameplay," but a lot of the "lost moments" that are mentioned when players act "cautiously" seem more about the game being slower, more methodical, as compared to a more action-packed, high-thrill narrative.

A barbarian breaking down a door to burst in on guards caught with their proverbial pants down isn't really risky gameplay. It's just action/thrill-packed. A fighter leaping across a chasm to smack an enemy is risky compared to climbing down and climbing back up, but only because there's nothing modeling the legitimate problems with trying to climb up a wall with an enemy atop it (provided you can make the climb in your move speed); this is a failure of the system model more than anything else. An impulsive character charging across a room filled with traps is risky, yes, but the goal isn't the risk so much as the kinetic play.

So I think, first, we need to ask if the goal really is encouraging players to "take risks," or is instead to encourage players to take more dramatic actions with exciting descriptions. Sometimes this does involve greater risk: there's no escaping that a room filled with traps is DESIGNED to force people to slow down. But a lot of these scenarios, the "greater risk" is really just a consequence of perception.

There's no need for (many) higher-action choices to be legitimately riskier in the game system. Not if you want a higher-action game.

The advice to increase time pressure will help encourage higher-action solutions: higher-action solutions are FASTER. Go for these to help push the players into "cool moves." But if you remove the real, model-level, gameplay risk from most of them by just letting them succeed as well as you would the more methodical solutions or the more boring ones, you'll see players more readily embracing the cooler moves. Making high-action moves is often its own reward, even if all it is is cool description.

If running down the stairs to stab the demon-centaur with your sword is something you can do in one round, safely, and if jumping off the balcony to land on his back, sword-point down, is something you can do in one round, safely, and both leave you standing next to the demon-centaur at the end and do the same damage, then you still get to feel cool for the leap off the balcony to deal that damage, even though it had no mechanical advantage. And since it had no mechanical disadvantage, it was cooler.

The alternative is to increase the reward: maybe allow an Acrobatics or Athletics check to transfer 1d6 of your falling damage per 5 you roll on it (using 3e or 5e mechanics) to the demon-centaur...of you hit it. Maybe even with a bonus to hit for every 10 feet you fall, representing force puncturing the NAC. Now, you're risking more damage to yourself, but doing more damage to it, and maybe even having a higher chance of doing damage.

To sum up the point of this post: maybe we don't really need the actions to be higher-risk at all to achieve what the OP is going for. Losing the "risk" isn't making it less cool; the point is to run higher-action scenes with players doing cool visuals. So remove the risk, or let them trade risk for more guaranteed rewards of a different sort (e.g. the better chance to hit and higher damage in return for risking taking damage when you fall from the balcony onto the demon-centaur).

Of course, if it is genuinely "higher risk" you want, i.e. more chance the PCs come out of it hurt if things don't go exactly right, my post is barking up the wrong tree. But I think it worth examining what we're really after, here.

Quertus
2020-09-09, 09:42 AM
So, if you look at my characters, you'll see very few heroes, and a lot a risk-averse cowards. This is because I've played my characters under a lot of GMs, and (almost) all of the heroes are dead.

So, how would one encourage me to play a hero?

The easiest answer is to make sure I have little to no investment in the game. I can build a throwaway playing piece, and play a tactical wargame with no role-playing for giggles. No problem.

Much more difficult, you could actually let me know that you'd like to see a more heroic character. Then build up trust that you are the correct type of GM for such a character: demonstrate that you can adequately give information, describe scenes, and have consequences flow reasonably from what you've said and what actions the characters have taken (no "you know what, the gazebo eats you" or "the NPC does this impossible thing, because the plot demands it" or otherwise ignoring physics or sanity). In my experience, less than 1% of GMs can achieve / are worthy of that trust. But if you are that GM, then, sure, I'll agree to try to build a heroic character.

Best, "middle of the road" answer? Run a series of one-shots for us to show our range, and encourage me to play the most heroic of the characters that I auditioned.

-----

Generalizing that, how would one encourage people to take risks?

Lower engagement certainly works.

Alternately, make the options, risks, and costs/rewards known, and make sure that those odds & "ends" produce the desired behaviors (for example, the costs are things that the players/characters are willing to pay, the rewards actually resonate with their desires, etc)

Also, as in my case, if the cost of failure is "death", and the player is a roleplayer who brings in a new character with a different personality, you may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

kyoryu
2020-09-09, 10:33 AM
2) In-fiction, the actions are risky, but OOC on a mechanics level, they aren't, and the players know this. Fate, for example - jumping across that chasm is a very long-shot and the bottom can't even be seen, but OOC the players would know that with all the aspects they have built up their odds are pretty good, and that failure will mean "clinging to an outcropping" rather than "splat". Problem: May not give the same excitement.

The trick there is that the risk shouldn't be "you're hanging from an outcropping". The risk should be "the bad guy gets away" or "you can't get to the necessary artifact" or "you have to take the crappier route" or "you fall down to the bottom of the pit, there's another passage but you think you can find your way out."

In my experience, these types of consequences absolutely can generate the same type of excitement because the players absolutely, 100% know that they can happen and I won't hedge away from them. While, "death-only" games end up usually looking like.....


3) The GM lies. They say they're running a Type 1 game, but actually they fudge things so it's more like Type 2. Problem: Once the players see through the curtain, nothing else in that campaign (possible with that GM at all) will feel very meaningful.

Humans are good at learning, and nobody, players or GMs, wants to make new characters every session.

EDIT:

I think that's an interesting thing, now that I think about it... when consequences and rewards are almost completely personal, there's little incentive to be risky. It's all about maximizing character benefit over time, and all you need is "death risk" to come up badly once to cost you everything (unless you're playing in a game with fairly easy resurrection, which bypasses it).

It's when there's other things that are the consequences that players might decide that riskier behavior is worthwhile, as at that point you're not comparing advancement on a linear path.

Segev
2020-09-09, 11:09 AM
The trick there is that the risk shouldn't be "you're hanging from an outcropping". The risk should be "the bad guy gets away" or "you can't get to the necessary artifact" or "you have to take the crappier route" or "you fall down to the bottom of the pit, there's another passage but you think you can find your way out."

In my experience, these types of consequences absolutely can generate the same type of excitement because the players absolutely, 100% know that they can happen and I won't hedge away from them. While, "death-only" games end up usually looking like.....

(...)

I think that's an interesting thing, now that I think about it... when consequences and rewards are almost completely personal, there's little incentive to be risky. It's all about maximizing character benefit over time, and all you need is "death risk" to come up badly once to cost you everything (unless you're playing in a game with fairly easy resurrection, which bypasses it).

It's when there's other things that are the consequences that players might decide that riskier behavior is worthwhile, as at that point you're not comparing advancement on a linear path.

This is something that I think should be in every DMG or similar book out there. A huge portion of complaints about game balance, difficulties challenging parties, and DM woes over things being "too easy" or players complaining that they're not having fun but the DM is trying hard to find just the right balance to challenge the party comes down to the error in thinking that the only meaningful bad stuff that can happen in a PC's experience is death or coming close to it. That challenge only arises when players feel like their characters are at risk of dying.

If games made a point of emphasizing that consequences which do not result in PC death, but which do result in setbacks to their goals, were more desirable for creating challenge, it would serve a lot of games' purposes very well. You can have ungodly-powerful characters who can't be hurt, and still challenge them, if you remember that they have a goal in the fight that is more than just "kill or drive off the enemies." Maybe their goal IS "kill Dark Emperor Demonguy's Dragon Knight," and the cowardly Dragon Knight is throwing disposable minions in their way to slow them down and making them have to choose whether to rescue a town of civilians from his Necron Cloud or keep chasing him. If he gets away, that's a loss for them, even if they don't ever once feel like their own lives are in danger. Maybe failing to save the town will also feel like a loss for them.

A classic scenario I bring up a lot - starting with Exalted 2E, in fact - is the "merchant caravan guard" hook. The PCs are hired to guard some hapless merchants as they travel Bandit Country. The bandits want to steal as much stuff as they can and get away alive. The merchants want to keep as much stuff as they can and not die. The PCs want to protect the merchants' lives and treasure. Even if the PCs are 100% indestructible and there's nothing the bandits can do about the PCs' movement and survivability, the bandits can use numbers to attack where the PCs aren't, can kill merchants (perhaps on purpose, perhaps just as part of firing at the caravan or as a distraction to pin down the PCs protecting them), and can grab stuff and run away. If the bandits get away with a significant amount of stuff or if they kill any important or a good number of merchants, this is a serious loss for the PCs. It can even serve as a bit of attrition play: PCs may be incapable of preventing all losses, but are trying to keep them to a minimum, and the further they go, the more they lose, and their goal is not to fall below a certain threshold before the end of the line.

If the supply wagon is destroyed or looted by the bandits, that can introduce additional problems for the caravan and the PCs: getting there without starving/dehydrating. (Sure, foraging is a thing, but that's one more thing they have to spend time and energy on, even if it's reliable enough to be viable.)

Depending on the situation, a bad raid for the caravan could even force the PCs to make decisions about whether to risk encamping the caravan with defenders and chasing down the bandits to their lair to recover their stuff, or pressing on in hopes they can get to civilization and resupply soon enough. Or if their merchants' lives are worth more or less than the treasure the merchants won't pay them for protecting if they don't get it back.

All of this from a fairly standard plot hook. As long as the DM and the players remember that the bandits and the PCs aren't interested in fighting to the death, and don't necessarily win just because they kill all of the other side.

kyoryu
2020-09-09, 11:39 AM
All of this from a fairly standard plot hook. As long as the DM and the players remember that the bandits and the PCs aren't interested in fighting to the death, and don't necessarily win just because they kill all of the other side.

A useful thing to remember is that intelligent creatures don't want to die. And all combat has the risk of death.

So, then, understanding why both the enemies and PCs are willing to put their necks on the line in this particular place, rather than just walk away, is a great first step.

Usually the answer shouldn't be "I want to kill these people". 99% of the time. Sometimes it is (maybe the final boss battle), but even then there's usually something else (I want to stop the boss from enacting the Deadly Ritual of Death) that's really driving it.

Once you understand why each side is fighting, you can threaten that thing directly, and have consequences that aren't just "death". And if you can't come up with a reason, then maybe you shouldn't have a fight there.

Segev
2020-09-09, 01:13 PM
A useful thing to remember is that intelligent creatures don't want to die. And all combat has the risk of death.

So, then, understanding why both the enemies and PCs are willing to put their necks on the line in this particular place, rather than just walk away, is a great first step.

Usually the answer shouldn't be "I want to kill these people". 99% of the time. Sometimes it is (maybe the final boss battle), but even then there's usually something else (I want to stop the boss from enacting the Deadly Ritual of Death) that's really driving it.

Once you understand why each side is fighting, you can threaten that thing directly, and have consequences that aren't just "death". And if you can't come up with a reason, then maybe you shouldn't have a fight there.

Even not-that-intelligent creatures have self-preservation and purposes usually that may only include killing as part of obtaining them.

Ravenous wolves are attacking because they're hungry; they'll go for horses or supplies, or drag off a corpse, and try to get away from the remaining pointy-sword-swinging PCs. And the PCs need not consider the fight "won" or "lost" for it to have consequences if the wolves steal somebody's ration bag, or kill and drag off a horse, or even just kill a horse and fail to drag it off.

Telok
2020-09-09, 02:17 PM
1. Probability of success.
2. Penalty for failure.
3. Reward for success.
4. Presentation.
5. Consistency.

None of them are independent, they all interact. But the player has to say yes to the first three based on the last two.

Adding more rolls increasrs the probability of failure and makes it less likely to be used. The usual penalty for failure with normal actions is often just a miss or nothing changes, additional failure penalties make it less likely to be used. The payoff has to be better than the usual safe and boring actions, and it has to be worth the increased chances or risks of failure.

The situation and your mechanics have to be presented in a way that lets the pcs do stuff and encourages the players to try stunts. Either you have to have stuff in your descriptions for the pcs to use or affect or you have to let players have a little narrative input. If you didn't say there was a banner, table, bookshelf, window, or whatever, then they can't try to stunt off of them. Blank rooms, empty corridors, and open fields don't give anything to interact with. Either you provide the chandelier or you explicitly let players add those sorts of details to the scene when they stunt.

Finally, write it down and hand it out. Whatever method or mechanics you decide on you need a record of, preferably with some examples. This way the players know what you expect, how they can do it, the risks, and the rewards.

As an example of how not to: 4e D&D had a basic sort of stunt mechanic that went really badly every time we tried it. If the dm put in something we could use it either added an athletic/acrobatic check or defaulted to a basic strength based attack roll, then it did level appropriate encounter power level damage. I recall one time our druid wanted to knock a big brazier of coals onto something. No strength bonus so he needed an attack at like, +4, and it would do appropriate damage of somwhere around 3d6, and of course no special key words other than fire so none of his feats or anything worked with it. He ended up doing a basic at-will power for around +10 to hit and 1d8+6 damage, plus I think it pushed 5' or something. Everything we tried in 4e was like that, more failure and no better than regular powers. The one thing it was, it was consistent.

Frogreaver
2020-09-09, 04:43 PM
Be their example! Let someone else DM for a while and play a character that takes risks. They will find they are having much more fun with your risk taking character. After that campaign is over have a discussion about this and you will see others taking more risks.

Elbeyon
2020-09-09, 04:59 PM
Be their example! Let someone else DM for a while and play a character that takes risks. They will find they are having much more fun with your risk taking character. After that campaign is over have a discussion about this and you will see others taking more risks.

This could also backfire when their character ends up with broken legs, ineffective, and a clown with bad plans. The game itself has to support risky gameplay.

Just making the game easier could help. People may not feel the need to be tactical masterminds making the most efficient decisions if the game allows for mishaps and mistakes. I have seen high level adventures do some silly things while dunking on a bunch of goblins. They know they will kill the goblins no matter what, so they add spice by trying cool stuff. The question then is not if they will kill the goblins but how they will do it.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-10, 06:41 AM
A useful thing to remember is that intelligent creatures don't want to die. And all combat has the risk of death.

So, then, understanding why both the enemies and PCs are willing to put their necks on the line in this particular place, rather than just walk away, is a great first step.

Usually the answer shouldn't be "I want to kill these people". 99% of the time. Sometimes it is (maybe the final boss battle), but even then there's usually something else (I want to stop the boss from enacting the Deadly Ritual of Death) that's really driving it.

Once you understand why each side is fighting, you can threaten that thing directly, and have consequences that aren't just "death". And if you can't come up with a reason, then maybe you shouldn't have a fight there.

My problem with this (adding morale mechanics) is that the game is, by default, balanced for fights to the death, at the basic level/damage/HP level. If you take an enemy with 100hp, and make him flee at 50, or 30hp, you've effectively just reduced his hp. To narrativly include "morale" without compromising the fight pacing, you need to increase hp to get back to where it was (the foe now has 200hp, but flees when he reaches 100).

kyoryu
2020-09-10, 09:34 AM
My problem with this (adding morale mechanics) is that the game is, by default, balanced for fights to the death, at the basic level/damage/HP level. If you take an enemy with 100hp, and make him flee at 50, or 30hp, you've effectively just reduced his hp. To narrativly include "morale" without compromising the fight pacing, you need to increase hp to get back to where it was (the foe now has 200hp, but flees when he reaches 100).

Well, two things here.

I'm not necessarily talking about morale "mechanics" here, though you could certainly go that route. But, yeah, your solution isn't unreasonable if you presume most enemies will flee, but that also gives the question of what to do when they won't. I'd probably just make them flee at fairly low hit points, or when the battle is already lost. Once the outcome is obvious, you're just going through the motions anyway.

Secondly, I'm not really talking about morale mechanics so much as stakes. Like, why are they fighting in the first place? So it's less "how do they run away" vs. "why did they engage in a fight in the first place?"

Given that "not fighting" is safer than "fighting" in all situations, why is each side not choosing the "don't fight" option? There must be something that they want. Once you have that, you can create a scenario (especially for the players) where they can lose in ways other than "dying". See Segev's post.

Segev
2020-09-10, 10:08 AM
My problem with this (adding morale mechanics) is that the game is, by default, balanced for fights to the death, at the basic level/damage/HP level. If you take an enemy with 100hp, and make him flee at 50, or 30hp, you've effectively just reduced his hp. To narrativly include "morale" without compromising the fight pacing, you need to increase hp to get back to where it was (the foe now has 200hp, but flees when he reaches 100).

It's not about introducing morale mechanics for flight.

It's about consequences. What is the goal of the NPC side of the conflict? When have they achieved it? What attrition/harm can they do to the party's ability to adventure? This can be hit point damage to the PCs. This can be forcing them to expend resources to survive. It can also be stealing vital supplies. When the monster has what it wants, it can just leave. Or try to. Also, anything that lives to run away can come back later. I know some DMs just manufacture monsters at will, and the monsters stop existing when they leave, but if you're not running like that - if you have a relatively fixed number of critters, or if you keep survivors in mind for adding to later encounters - surviving becomes a tactical thing. Be careful with this, though: if everything that they let escape shows up to make their lives harder later, the PCs will become much more murder-hobo-y, deliberately preventing everything from escaping.

Telok
2020-09-10, 10:38 AM
My problem with this (adding morale mechanics) is that the game is, by default, balanced for fights to the death, at the basic level/damage/HP level. If...

Ah, I presume that you mean 3.p and later D&D? Because TSR era D&D had morale built in from the beginning, many supers systems presume everyone survives the fights and villans often flee, all the WHF and WH40k rpgs have fear/morale. Call of Cthulhu dorsn't if I recall correctly. But that's more like playing D&D as 0 level commoners in a world of monsters and 5th level warlocks/necromancers, PC fragility makes the morale.

I think that WotC D&Ds lack of morale & retreat options may be in the minority of the systems I've owned and played. And I think a morale mechanic can encourage risky behavior because it enables bluffs and deceit to work on NPCs without relying completely on DM fiat.

kyoryu
2020-09-10, 11:19 AM
Ah, I presume that you mean 3.p and later D&D? Because TSR era D&D had morale built in from the beginning, many supers systems presume everyone survives the fights and villans often flee, all the WHF and WH40k rpgs have fear/morale. Call of Cthulhu dorsn't if I recall correctly. But that's more like playing D&D as 0 level commoners in a world of monsters and 5th level warlocks/necromancers, PC fragility makes the morale.

I think that WotC D&Ds lack of morale & retreat options may be in the minority of the systems I've owned and played. And I think a morale mechanic can encourage risky behavior because it enables bluffs and deceit to work on NPCs without relying completely on DM fiat.

Also, "fleeing" mechanics can help because then players know that there are options besides "victory" and "TPK". If things are going bad, they can retreat and escape death.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-10, 12:36 PM
Ah, I presume that you mean 3.p and later D&D? Because TSR era D&D had morale built in from the beginning, many supers systems presume everyone survives the fights and villans often flee, all the WHF and WH40k rpgs have fear/morale. Call of Cthulhu dorsn't if I recall correctly. But that's more like playing D&D as 0 level commoners in a world of monsters and 5th level warlocks/necromancers, PC fragility makes the morale.

I think that WotC D&Ds lack of morale & retreat options may be in the minority of the systems I've owned and played. And I think a morale mechanic can encourage risky behavior because it enables bluffs and deceit to work on NPCs without relying completely on DM fiat.

5e has morale and retreat options (in the core books, even), but they're bad for the reasons i outlined so very few people bother to use them, including myself.

But beyond that, i don't think these existing or not are anything other than neutral when it comes to encouraging or discouraging risky gameplay. Risky gameplay can encompass scenarios with no enemies at all, after all (i.e jump over the lava, toss the dwarf, and so on).

Segev
2020-09-10, 01:09 PM
Y'know, SAGA edition's split of hp into ... a term I forget and Wounds ... could have the "hp" become "morale," and actual injury not occur until morale is broken. But when morale is broken, the creatures with 0 morale points do their best to withdraw from the fight.

Without going to a SAGA-style thing, just using a PF1 style hp system, you could make the 0-and-below state be one where the only allowable action is to surrender or flee, and make them go unconscious at -Con, and only die at -hp.

kyoryu
2020-09-10, 01:15 PM
5e has morale and retreat options (in the core books, even), but they're bad for the reasons i outlined so very few people bother to use them, including myself.

I fail to see how morale and retreat rules apply when they almost universally come into play when the battle is already decided. Adding them doesn't impact risk most of the times - it impacts resource drain.


But beyond that, i don't think these existing or not are anything other than neutral when it comes to encouraging or discouraging risky gameplay. Risky gameplay can encompass scenarios with no enemies at all, after all (i.e jump over the lava, toss the dwarf, and so on).

Sure, and what types of risk are undertaken is a useful point when looking at this.

At the end of the day, the hyper-focus on death as the constant consequence of failure/bad rolls/etc. creates risk-aversion. Because when the cost of "failure" is "complete loss", then it's hard to put enough on the other side to counter blaance that.


Y'know, SAGA edition's split of hp into ... a term I forget and Wounds ... could have the "hp" become "morale," and actual injury not occur until morale is broken. But when morale is broken, the creatures with 0 morale points do their best to withdraw from the fight.

Without going to a SAGA-style thing, just using a PF1 style hp system, you could make the 0-and-below state be one where the only allowable action is to surrender or flee, and make them go unconscious at -Con, and only die at -hp.

That's a pretty reasonable option.

Elbeyon
2020-09-10, 01:18 PM
Y'know, SAGA edition's split of hp into ... a term I forget and Wounds ... In the edition before that they had wounds and vitality. People had wounds equal to their con to represent their meat points. Vitality was figured how hp is figured in most games. People would take damage to their vitality before they actually got hurt. Vitality was also used to represent stamina and such, so Jedi used vitality to use the force. Vitality also healed on an hour basis so a person could rest and recover without any medical assistance.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-10, 01:35 PM
I fail to see how morale and retreat rules apply when they almost universally come into play when the battle is already decided. Adding them doesn't impact risk most of the times - it impacts resource drain.



That's a pretty reasonable option.

To me, "morale" and fleeing are helpful to make enemies seem like people and to reduce "fight to the death" narrative fatigue, but they shouldn't be there to make a fight easier (or on the other end, to gatcha people with reinforcements). But either way, i don't see how having them or not having them incentivize or disincentivize the Paladin to throw his sword (makes my week every time).

kyoryu
2020-09-10, 01:57 PM
To me, "morale" and fleeing are helpful to make enemies seem like people and to reduce "fight to the death" narrative fatigue, but they shouldn't be there to make a fight easier (or on the other end, to gatcha people with reinforcements). But either way, i don't see how having them or not having them incentivize or disincentivize the Paladin to throw his sword (makes my week every time).

It doesn't incentivize "risky" behavior at the atomic action level.

It can incentivize risky behavior at the macro level - if you know that getting into an encounter that goes poorly will result in a TPK, you have a huge incentive to ensure that every encounter you get into cannot go poorly - CAW at the extreme level.

In this scenario, the cost of planning/scouting/etc. is minimal. The danger of not doing so is potentially extreme.

However, if you know that getting in over your head will result in story consequences, depleted resources, etc., then the risk of not planning becomes more manageable, and it's not such a no-brainer to not make a move until you have ensured that there's no real risk.

Also, if by "fight to the death narrative fatigue" you mean the stress of constantly being in fights to the death? That is, practically, not what I have seen. By de-emphasizing fight to the death in favor of greater story stakes, failure can be more regular, and that has increased the tension rather than decreased it.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-10, 02:06 PM
It doesn't incentivize "risky" behavior at the atomic action level.

It can incentivize risky behavior at the macro level - if you know that getting into an encounter that goes poorly will result in a TPK, you have a huge incentive to ensure that every encounter you get into cannot go poorly - CAW at the extreme level.

In this scenario, the cost of planning/scouting/etc. is minimal. The danger of not doing so is potentially extreme.

However, if you know that getting in over your head will result in story consequences, depleted resources, etc., then the risk of not planning becomes more manageable, and it's not such a no-brainer to not make a move until you have ensured that there's no real risk.

Also, if by "fight to the death narrative fatigue" you mean the stress of constantly being in fights to the death? That is, practically, not what I have seen. By de-emphasizing fight to the death in favor of greater story stakes, failure can be more regular, and that has increased the tension rather than decreased it.

If you're talking about having a more clear system for Players to retreat, then yes i can obviously see how that helps encourage risky behavior. 5Es mechanics for this are a weak spot, and while i generally just let people retreat unless there's a very good reason for them not to be able to, i can see how newer DMs could benefit hugely from a better thought out system than 5Es chase rules.

And by "fight to the death narrative fatigue", i just mean the impression or feeling that every "enemy" is a robot or board game piece every fight being to the death can create.

Yora
2020-09-10, 02:11 PM
I feel that for a risk to seem worth it, it needs to appear necessary for success.

Give the players options to chose between a safe approach that comes with a high chance of meaningful failure and defeat, and more dangerous paths that would lead to a decisive victory if they can pull it of.

A risk is worth it when the alternative seems less desirable.

hoverfrog
2020-09-11, 08:41 AM
Action Points, Hero Points, Fate Points, Inspiration, whatever you want to call it in your system. Hand them out during play as a reward for risk taking and cinematic moves in play.

Example 1: Robin declares that she wants to swing by the chandelier over the top of the battle in the Sheriff's Great Hall to reach the evil sheriff on the other side. Great, that's risky and wonderfully cinematic. You call for a DC 15 Athletics check and reward the PC with a hero point that they can choose to use then and there or save till later. She has +5 on Athletics and uses the Hero point to add +8 to her roll.

Success: She lands before the evil sheriff, bypassing the melee and the sheriff's defenders.
Failure: She slips from the chandelier and land at the edge of the fighting. She'll have to battle through the defenders to reach her nemesis.

Example 2: The Man Spider slings his way across the broken train tracks forwards the oncoming train. He decided that the best way to stop it is to throw webs at the buildings on either side of the tracks and use his body to anchor them. This is a feat of great strength that required a high check. The hero knows that he will have to put everything into this effort if he has a hope of success. The game master grants him a bonus that he can use on the roll or keep for later but asks for three strength checks.

Complete Success (three successes): The hero stops the train in time.
Partial Success (two successes): Through great strength and perseverance the hero stops the train. In the process he tears off the facades of several buildings causing tens of thousands of dollars in property damage and strains his arms in the process taking some slight damage.
Partial Failure (two failures): Although the hero manages to stop the train at the last moment he does so at great cost. He suffers a dislocated shoulder and passes out from the strain leaving him temporarily at the mercy of his enemy.
Complete failure (three failures): The heroes webs snap almost immediately, dragging him off to one side and leaving him dangling while the train surges on. He'll have to come up with a different plan or hope that his allies have something up their sleeves.

Example 3: The Eldritch Engine crackles with electricity as it builds power. If it explodes it will unleash dark, necromantic power across the land. Annie the Artificer declares that she is going to disable the engine with her adamantine wrench of smashing while her allies keep the necromancer's hoard at bay. She knows she can do it but that the explosion will almost certainly kill her. Annie could have opted to spend more time disabling the Eldritch Engine but that would take ten rounds of checks (which she is sure she can succeed at) and she does not know if her allies can hold off the hoard for that long. The DM grants her inspiration for her selfless heroism and she strikes. BOOM! The room fills with flame and shrapnel. Being right next to the blast she takes 100 damage. Everyone in the next 20 feet takes 50 damage and everyone in the next 20 feet takes 25, etc, etc. Damage is halved on a successful Dexterity Save. Annie uses her Action point to roll with advantage on her save, diving aside at the last moment to avoid the worst of the blast. The front ranks of the undead are decimated and the necromancer's plans are in tatters.

Whatever you call it, a temporary bonus mechanism exists in a lot of systems, use it to encourage heroism by handing them out at the point where the player declares their intention to do something really heroic.

Xervous
2020-09-14, 09:41 AM
Action Points, Hero Points, Fate Points, Inspiration, whatever you want to call it in your system. Hand them out during play as a reward for risk taking and cinematic moves in play.

Example 1: Robin declares that she wants to swing by the chandelier over the top of the battle in the Sheriff's Great Hall to reach the evil sheriff on the other side. Great, that's risky and wonderfully cinematic. You call for a DC 15 Athletics check and reward the PC with a hero point that they can choose to use then and there or save till later. She has +5 on Athletics and uses the Hero point to add +8 to her roll.

Success: She lands before the evil sheriff, bypassing the melee and the sheriff's defenders.
Failure: She slips from the chandelier and land at the edge of the fighting. She'll have to battle through the defenders to reach her nemesis.


Such an incentive is at the very least questionable because there is no guarantee they will spend the point towards such risky undertakings. I’ll flub the chandelier attempt, pocket the point and spend it later to sneak in full plate mail. 6e shadowrun has a similar degree of weirdness with its edge attribute, but that’s more passive stats than encouraging PCs to attempt suicide for use-anywhere roll boosters.

kyoryu
2020-09-14, 10:25 AM
At the atomic move level-

One of the problems is that if a "risky" move is actually "better", it won't be perceived as risky.

Look at Power Attack. Yes, it's a lower chance to hit, but in most cases (and people know where this break is) it's mathematically advantageous to use it. So it's something that at first glance appears risky, but actually isn't, and at some point people realize that.

So overall you can make "risky" moves valuable by making them actually more rewarding than the "safe" move.

To actually make people do "risky" things I think you have to put them in a place where the safe move isn't viable... like, the Ogre will kill you next turn. The safe move will definitely not do enough damage to kill the Ogre, but the risky move might... even though it's less optimal in the long run.

But a lot of it really depends on what people mean by risky - are you looking for "cool and cinematic" where the feel comes from the cool things that are happening, or are you looking for "actually has a chance to fail" where the feel comes from the actual stakes in play?

Segev
2020-09-14, 10:36 AM
To actually make people do "risky" things I think you have to put them in a place where the safe move isn't viable... like, the Ogre will kill you next turn. The safe move will definitely not do enough damage to kill the Ogre, but the risky move might... even though it's less optimal in the long run.

But a lot of it really depends on what people mean by risky - are you looking for "cool and cinematic" where the feel comes from the cool things that are happening, or are you looking for "actually has a chance to fail" where the feel comes from the actual stakes in play?

Even the immediacy example is one where the immediacy has made it the LEAST risky move.

If what you're really after is forcing "risky choices," you need to give limited (but not no) information where the players have awareness of what the unknowns are, and then put pressure on to make a choice in a limited time with definite opportunity cost. In poker, you might know roughly the odds that the other guy has the Queen he needs to make the one hand that can beat yours, but you don't know how the cards have been dealt. It's a risk to pay in to call, and a risk to fold.

But I think your last paragraph is more to the point of what is really being sought in these sorts of threads: "cool and cinematic" action. It looks and feels "risky," because we know that, IRL, it would be. But it's kinetic and it looks amazing, and watching it in a theater we'd also know that the hero is going to pull off the maneuver even if we're on the edges of our seats because it's so thrilling.

This is why Exalted's stunting system works so well to encourage this kind of thing. When you allow stunts to modify the environment in ways that might technically be against other rules (for instance, smashing through a column to catch a target by surprise from an unexpected angle would theoretically require attacking the column and would certainly slow your swing, but in a cinematic, rule-of-cool sense, you can just let it happen and grant a 2-die stunt bonus for it), you encourage creativity and dramatic descriptions and actions.

Pauly
2020-09-15, 04:03 AM
Part of the issue is cost discrepancy between the GM and the players.

If a GM has the characters under his control do something risky, it doesn’t matter if they fail. There’s another faceless mook in the line to replace him, beloved NOC dies a heroic death while inspiring the heroes, BBEG turns out to have been a puppet for the real BBEG, and so on. The GM rarely has too much invested in any ine of the numerous characters under their control.
The players on the other hand have one character they have devoted significant time and effort into developing. If that character fails in their task they risk blowing the scene’s objective, if the character is severely injured the player is reduced to being a bystander for at least the rest of that scene, perhaps longer. If the character dies, well ...

So it’s easy for a GM to say the players should take more risks, because for the GM taking risks has low costs. For the players the cost of risks are exponentially higher.

Democratus
2020-09-15, 07:37 AM
Part of the issue is cost discrepancy between the GM and the players.

If a GM has the characters under his control do something risky, it doesn’t matter if they fail. There’s another faceless mook in the line to replace him, beloved NOC dies a heroic death while inspiring the heroes, BBEG turns out to have been a puppet for the real BBEG, and so on. The GM rarely has too much invested in any ine of the numerous characters under their control.
The players on the other hand have one character they have devoted significant time and effort into developing. If that character fails in their task they risk blowing the scene’s objective, if the character is severely injured the player is reduced to being a bystander for at least the rest of that scene, perhaps longer. If the character dies, well ...

So it’s easy for a GM to say the players should take more risks, because for the GM taking risks has low costs. For the players the cost of risks are exponentially higher.

There are a whole lot of assumptions in this that simply aren't true for everyone.

Most campaigns I have been a player in have had a very high rate of attrition, where I went through multiple PCs. Particularly when playing OSR games - it can be wise to wait until your character survives to a higher level before bothering to invest too much in it.

On the flip side, as a DM I have had NPCs that I liked so much I carried them over between campaign worlds. And their demise was a big deal to me.

kyoryu
2020-09-15, 10:31 AM
Part of the issue is cost discrepancy between the GM and the players.

If a GM has the characters under his control do something risky, it doesn’t matter if they fail. There’s another faceless mook in the line to replace him, beloved NOC dies a heroic death while inspiring the heroes, BBEG turns out to have been a puppet for the real BBEG, and so on. The GM rarely has too much invested in any ine of the numerous characters under their control.
The players on the other hand have one character they have devoted significant time and effort into developing. If that character fails in their task they risk blowing the scene’s objective, if the character is severely injured the player is reduced to being a bystander for at least the rest of that scene, perhaps longer. If the character dies, well ...

So it’s easy for a GM to say the players should take more risks, because for the GM taking risks has low costs. For the players the cost of risks are exponentially higher.

This is generally true.

That's why a huge part of the GM's job, if they want failure to be a thing, is to ensure appropriate costs of failure. Failure needs to be a matter of complications and not crushing defeat if you want players to be tolerant of it.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-09-15, 01:55 PM
This is generally true.

That's why a huge part of the GM's job, if they want failure to be a thing, is to ensure appropriate costs of failure. Failure needs to be a matter of complications and not crushing defeat if you want players to be tolerant of it.

Failing forward. For some value of "forward." More failing interestingly. Failures should move the narrative in some direction. Only in the most extreme cases should it bring the narrative to an abrupt end.

kyoryu
2020-09-15, 02:45 PM
Failing forward. For some value of "forward." More failing interestingly. Failures should move the narrative in some direction. Only in the most extreme cases should it bring the narrative to an abrupt end.

Yup. And, to be explicit, "failing forward" should not always mean "succeeding, but with some trivial complication" (just because that's the strawman version).

It often means "failure", but in such a way that hte failure creates complications rather than a stoppage.

icefractal
2020-09-15, 03:53 PM
Fail Forward avoids the TPK/stuck situation, but I don't know that it encourages risky behavior - it depends on what kind of mood/style the players are going for.

Personally speaking, if I get a result like "Yes, you hacked the system, but in the process you accidentally exposed your friend's info and they got blamed - they're now a wanted criminal and/or dead" - that's not a partial success. That's a major ****ing failure, in many cases worse than just having failed entirely.

Now does that mean I'll avoid it? Depends on the campaign. If we're playing Fiasco or something with a similar vibe, where the point is to be playing as trainwrecks-in-progress who probably get a bad end, then sure, full speed ahead. If it's a more "traditional" setup, with the player usually sharing the same goals as the character, then no, I'm gonna treat methods that produce that result as "probably a bad idea" and find another way if possible.

kyoryu
2020-09-15, 04:12 PM
Fail Forward avoids the TPK/stuck situation, but I don't know that it encourages risky behavior - it depends on what kind of mood/style the players are going for.

Personally speaking, if I get a result like "Yes, you hacked the system, but in the process you accidentally exposed your friend's info and they got blamed - they're now a wanted criminal and/or dead" - that's not a partial success. That's a major ****ing failure, in many cases worse than just having failed entirely.

Now does that mean I'll avoid it? Depends on the campaign. If we're playing Fiasco or something with a similar vibe, where the point is to be playing as trainwrecks-in-progress who probably get a bad end, then sure, full speed ahead. If it's a more "traditional" setup, with the player usually sharing the same goals as the character, then no, I'm gonna treat methods that produce that result as "probably a bad idea" and find another way if possible.

Fail forward doesn't just mean "success at a cost" though. It can also mean "failure", just not in a "TPK/game stalls" way. "Okay you alerted the people in the computer and now there's extra heat.

Also, it's almost like you can vary the intensity of the consequences in a Fail Forward situation. It doesn't have to be THE WORST THING EVER and, in fact, probably shouldn't be on every roll.

AceOfFools
2020-09-15, 07:07 PM
Blades in the Dark has the only effective mechanic I’ve seen for curtailing planning.

Essentially, planning isn’t allowed. The game starts, and the heist starts.

BUT when you find yourself in a situation where you’d have wanted to set something up, you are allowed to call for a flashback. Want to slip by a guard, call for a flashback where you set up the bribe to get them out of the way.

icefractal
2020-09-15, 07:39 PM
Also, it's almost like you can vary the intensity of the consequences in a Fail Forward situation. It doesn't have to be THE WORST THING EVER and, in fact, probably shouldn't be on every roll.Sure, no disagreement there.

Just IME, those type of "in the immediate term no problem, in the long term it's very bad" consequences are what I've seen recommended in a number of discussions and even official advice. Because for some players, that is fun. And I'm not saying it's inherently bad, just that to me it's not any more appealing than "fail hard" in terms of whether I want to risk it or not.

kyoryu
2020-09-16, 09:10 AM
Sure, no disagreement there.

Just IME, those type of "in the immediate term no problem, in the long term it's very bad" consequences are what I've seen recommended in a number of discussions and even official advice. Because for some players, that is fun. And I'm not saying it's inherently bad, just that to me it's not any more appealing than "fail hard" in terms of whether I want to risk it or not.

For me it just depends on the scene and the tension we've got going.

Stakes of a single action tend to be fairly low. Like, one bad roll leading to a complete disruption of the game probably isn't warranted.

Stakes of a scene can be higher. Like, if you don't get the necessary MacGuffin from the bad guys, they'll be one step away from finding the Wark of the Smovenant, and now you'll have to infiltrate their base to stop them. Which is going to be harder than just going and finding the damn thing yourself.

Of course, I'm mostly running Fate these days, so a lot of that boils down to "where do you spend your Fate Points", so you can pretty much always win a scene if you want to badly enough, though that means you probably won't be able to win a later one. At the minimum, that gives you some agency beyond "oh, I had a bad roll, better suck it up" and I think that makes it a bit easier to swallow.

There also does seem to be a reasonably sized contingent of RPG players that just can't stand losing at all, under any circumstances. This obviously wouldn't work for them.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-19, 10:18 AM
There also does seem to be a reasonably sized contingent of RPG players that just can't stand losing at all, under any circumstances. This obviously wouldn't work for them.

That's definitely true, and i think discussing and sharing ways to help players break out of this habit or mentality is one of the most helpful and useful things about threads like this.