PDA

View Full Version : Consequences, investigations, probing, landmines, and avoiding paranoia



kyoryu
2021-10-18, 11:36 AM
Posted this elswehere, but....

Elsewhere, I was in a discussion about GM advice that didn't work for people. One of the rules that came up was "something should happen on rolls". Some people disagreed, and the rationale was basically "if there are consequences to rolls, players will get paranoid."

So, while I don't see this in my games, one of my rules of conversations is "presume people are telling the truth, until there's evidence otherwise." So I make the assumption that consequences to actions in this GM's game does, in fact, make people paranoid and not want to do things.

Since this person made this sound pretty universal, and my experience is pretty universal the other way, it made me start to think about why that difference is. And how I present consequences and choices to my players. And I think I've come up with a few things that I do that seem to help avoid this paranoia.

Also, I hate "probing" gameplay. Which I define here as "players cautiously examining and poking at a thing, doing the least possible to it until they're convinced it won't blow up." If that's your jam, you do you. But this is about how to have consequences for actions without having to provoke "probing" type behaviors. But investigations aren't necessarily probing... probing is, basically, a risk-aversion type of investigation. It's not "I need to find out where the bad guy is." It's "I need to figure this thing out enough that it doesn't blow up in my face."

So.... landmines. I think that's what it really boils down to. Landmines.

They're the perfect analogy. You're doing something innocuous, walking around, and then boom. Landmine. And the answer? Be exceedingly cautious at every step of the way. Which is, of course, super fine if that's the kind of game you want to run. Let me just reiterate that a few more times.

So how do you avoid this kind of paranoid behavior? By not having landmines. And here's the things I do to help avoid them. Not all of them are applicable to every situation, and for each of these you'll come up with some scenario where at least one doesn't apply. But I don't know a lot of situations where you can't get at least one of them to apply.


Proportional responses
Err on the side of non-catastrophic
Give as much info as possible
Tell the consequences
Avoid the atomic/"arrow" model of task resolution


Some of these might make sense at first glance, some maybe less so.

Note that I'm phrasing these as advice, but it's really just what I do. You do you.

Proportional Responses

Maybe this should be called something else. Maybe "obvious danger". I dunno. But the point is that things that are risky should look risky. If you're jumping over lava, it's hard to get too upset if you fall in it. That doesn't breed paranoia. It might breed caution, but I think that's fine and understandable (if you want less caution, a few other things later will help this).

This is pretty important, I think, and it's probably the least controversial and easiest thing to do. Most of the time, it should be obvious when you're doing risky things (unless of course you're deliberately going for a "probing" style game, which, again, is totally cool).

And I think it's more fun. I'd rather give players problems to deal with than make them wonder about what problems they're about to hit. And if they're too avoidant of problems, then make sure that there's sufficient value in overcoming them - either on a personal or plot basis. If the risk isn't worth it, then of course players won't engage in it. Make it worth it!

The natural response really is non-proportional, or non-obvious? Not a worry! Just try to hit the other poitns here.

Err on the side of non-catastrophic

One of the things I"ve done in my GMing is reframed "success" and "failure" as "goes well" and "goes poorly". That doesn't mean you can't have catastrophic consequences, of course, just that they should be the result of multiple actions, or have several decision points in them. But if the common consequence is catastrophic? You're going to get paranoia. (Note: "goes poorly" could still be lots of things - success at a cost, a setback, flat out failure, even a lesser version of success!)

Climbing a cliff? Well, why are you climbing in the first place? If climbing means "falls to your death" then people aren't going to want to climb cliffs. If it means "you're stuck and need help" or "you don't get up in time" or "you drop something" or even "you run into a cliff monster" you're going to get a lot less resistance.

No way to have non-catastrophic results? No problem! Just try to do the other things! Make the danger obvious, give info, or tell the consequences up front.

Give as much info as possible

You as the GM are the single source of truth of the world. What you know and believe is canon. But the PCs live in the world, and know a lot as well.

The players? Not so much.

So use the PCs to give as much info as possible. Are the PCs about to insult the king? Maybe you know that doing so is suicidal, because royalty is stuffy and has no sense of humor. If the people in the world know this, tell them their PCs know this! If they don't know that? Hey, they should at least know that some royalty would react that way, and that they don't know how this particular king responds! Even pointing out what the PCs don't know can be a source of info. PCs investigating an artifact? They don't know what it does? Well maybe they've at least heard of such artifacts and have heard stories about the kinds of things that they can do. Tell them that! Find an excuse, any excuse, to give them info.

And if you can't? See if you can directly give out the actual consequences. Make the level of threat obvious, or avoid catastrophic results.

Tell them the consequences up front

This is a specialization of the prior one. One of the best things you can do to prevent paranoia is to tell people the stakes up front.

Going to talk to the guard? Tell the players what they might expect on both success and failure. "Well, without something to give the guard that they want, you're probably not going to get in. But you could make a connection and figure out what would motivate him. OTOH, people talk to guards all the time. If he doesn't like you, you'd expect that he'd just be mildly annoyed but forget about you unless you really push it." "Jumping across the lava? Well, it's a bit sketchy. If you fail, you should be able to grab the ledge, at least." or "Jumping across the lava? That's a big jump and everything looks really crumbly. If you make it, it'll be fine, but if not, there's a good chance you're gonna plummet in."

Again, people might decide a risk isn't worth it, and that's okay. Deciding what risks are and aren't worth it is part of gameplay. But at least then they're making informed decisions on real risks, rather than avoiding any possible risks because they don't know how catastrophic it will be.

Sometimes this won't be possible, so..... eh, I've said this three times already.

Avoid the atomic/"arrow" model of task resolution

A lot of times it's really easy to use what I call the "arrow" model of task resolution. The PC does all their preparation, and then starts the task, and gets a result. Arrows work like this - you draw the arrow, aim as close as you can, and then let loose. And the result is then out of your hands.

But a lot of tasks don't work like that. A conversation isn't atomic in that way - it's goes on over a period of time, and people have many points where they can change what they're doing, make decisions, etc. Wrestling isn't like that.

In fact, I'd argue that there are probably more things that the "arrow" model doesn't do well than it does.

What this really means is that there are often places where you can have an "intermediate" result and let the players make additional choices - this can result in another roll, or it can just be a decision with defined results. "You want to cross the road while you're under suppressive fire? Ooooh, bad roll. Okay, cool. As you start up, some bullets hit right by you - it's pretty obvious they've got you pinned down, you can either choose to cross in which case you'll almost certainly get hit, or you can go back under your cover. Your choice."

Sometimes you can't, blah blah blah.

Last thoughts

These are the things I do during task resolution. They end up with me having consequences on most if not all rolls, while still avoiding a lot of the "probing" risk-aversive gameplay that I like to avoid. I've had pretty good success with them, and still get people to do things with risk (I just make sure the stakes are such that the risks are worth it some of the time). By using those things, having consequences on rolls still works for me, and is useful - I do believe that doing a subset of these, at least, is probably good advice if you follow the "things should always happen on a dice roll" advice.

Anyone have any scenarios where they'd be interested in how I'd frame it? Thoughts? Questions? Wanna tell me that I'm wrong and should never GM again?

Xervous
2021-10-18, 11:55 AM
Let the players find landmines in minefields if that’s where they choose to go. I agree it’s about setting expectations, arriving at a point where the players understand the situation, and letting things play out as they will. I’ve found that players making informed choices take the losses in stride since they were the responsible party of whatever gamble they engaged in.


But on the matter of rolls always having consequences? Sounds absurd. Where would I be without flavor rolls?

kyoryu
2021-10-18, 12:00 PM
Let the players find landmines in minefields if that’s where they choose to go.

Yup! But there's a difference between saying "hey, there's a minefield here" and mines just being in random places.

(Random mines are fine, too, if that's the kind of game you want. But, really, most people don't seem to want that.)


I agree it’s about setting expectations, arriving at a point where the players understand the situation, and letting things play out as they will. I’ve found that players making informed choices take the losses in stride since they were the responsible party of whatever gamble they engaged in.

Bingo. This is the core of it. If you let people make informed choices, especially around disproportionate risk, they won't spend all day trying to avoid possible consequences out of fear that there will be disproportionate consequences.

BRC
2021-10-18, 12:07 PM
Call of Cthulu had a great mechanic of "Pushing" Rolls that has an interesting philosophy as these things go.


Basically, after failing a roll, you could "Push", attempting the roll again, this time accepting considerable consequences for failure.


For example, if you are trying to disarm a bomb, Failure doesn't mean that you accidentally trigger the bomb, it just means that you are not confident that you know how to disarm it. The first roll represented studying the bomb, looking for the right wire to cut, and if you rolled well enough, you figured it out and cut it.

The "Push" roll means you just start cutting wires anyway.


Similarly, failing a Jump check might mean you ran up to the edge, but stopped because you noticed how far it was, and don't think you can make it. "Pushing" the Jump check might mean actually jumping and hoping.


I personally really like this approach to risky situations, It strikes a nice balance between "Real consequences" and letting people TRY things without being slapped on the wrist for it. If you don't want to Push, the "Cost" to trying something is mostly game-time and not being able to try it again.

(In Call of Cthulu, Pushed rolls are also riskier, since you can't spend meta-resources to boost the roll).


This helps avoid the "Arrow" model that OP describes. It provides a natural "Break point" in the middle of the test, as well as a natural point for telling the PC's the consequences up-front.

kyoryu
2021-10-18, 12:12 PM
This helps avoid the "Arrow" model that OP describes. It provides a natural "Break point" in the middle of the test, as well as a natural point for telling the PC's the consequences up-front.

Yeah, that's a nice systemized way of handling it.

dafrca
2021-10-18, 01:09 PM
If I understand what you mean by "probing" type behaviors, I would say in my past it has come from the repeated use of the same thing over and over. A mine might not make the party paranoid but after the six or seventh random mine, we start walking super slow and careful.

I had a GM who had pit traps in every dungeon, old ruin, temple, etc. So many times we all walked with staves and checked every corridor. When he complained we are dragging the game out and slowing it down we reminded him of how many pit traps we ran into. being careful felt like a reasonable reaction to the world as it was presented to us.

If I misunderstood your reference to "probing" type behaviors then ignore me. :smallsmile:

BRC
2021-10-18, 01:11 PM
If I understand what you mean by "probing" type behaviors, I would say in my past it has come from the repeated use of the same thing over and over. A mine might not make the party paranoid but after the six or seventh random mine, we start walking super slow and careful.

I had a GM who had pit traps in every dungeon, old ruin, temple, etc. So many times we all walked with staves and checked every corridor. When he complained we are dragging the game out and slowing it down we reminded him of how many pit traps we ran into. being careful felt like a reasonable reaction to the world as it was presented to us.

If I misunderstood your reference to "probing" type behaviors then ignore me. :smallsmile:

One way to handle this is with the idea I call Assumed Competency.

Which is to say, rather than the players needing to always announce checking for traps for each hallway, assume that, being experienced adventurers, they are keeping their eyes out for such things.

When the PC's walk down a trapped hallways, ask for an investigate check from whoever is searching for traps. If that fails, then the trap was triggered.

dafrca
2021-10-18, 01:13 PM
One way to handle this is with the idea I call Assumed Competency.

Which is to say, rather than the players needing to always announce checking for traps for each hallway, assume that, being experienced adventurers, they are keeping their eyes out for such things.

When the PC's walk down a trapped hallways, ask for an investigate check from whoever is searching for traps. If that fails, then the trap was triggered.
Yes, that would be a great way for a good GM to handle it. I agree. Sadly not all GMs are so enlightened. :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2021-10-18, 01:21 PM
One way to handle this is with the idea I call Assumed Competency.

Which is to say, rather than the players needing to always announce checking for traps for each hallway, assume that, being experienced adventurers, they are keeping their eyes out for such things.

When the PC's walk down a trapped hallways, ask for an investigate check from whoever is searching for traps. If that fails, then the trap was triggered.

Assumed competency is a great tool, yeah. I touch on a bit of that when I talk about making sure that the players know things the characters would.

"Hey, you know this is a dungeon, and dungeon hallways are often trapped. So....."

BRC
2021-10-18, 01:39 PM
Assumed competency is a great tool, yeah. I touch on a bit of that when I talk about making sure that the players know things the characters would.

"Hey, you know this is a dungeon, and dungeon hallways are often trapped. So....."

Assumed Competency also comes in on the other side as well.

One of my least favorite things in games is what I call "Magic Words", where players will try to get bonuses by just re-wording their actions.

Like specifying "I hook their shield with my off-hand and stab with my sword" in hopes of being able to avoid the enemy's Shield bonus.

Something similar happens with the "Probing" gameplay style. The PC's are trying to get information about something, and so they try to very carefully.

Assumed Competency can cut through a lot of that, assume that a standard investigation roll or what have you can represent the PC's learning about the thing without taking stupid risks. Some players may dislike that gameplay style, but it's a nice option to put on the table, say "IF you make an investigation check, I'll give you information if you succeed. Failure just means you don't get info", which can bypass a lot of the "Poking" Gameplay style.

kyoryu
2021-10-18, 01:48 PM
Assumed Competency can cut through a lot of that, assume that a standard investigation roll or what have you can represent the PC's learning about the thing without taking stupid risks. Some players may dislike that gameplay style, but it's a nice option to put on the table, say "IF you make an investigation check, I'll give you information if you succeed. Failure just means you don't get info".

So what I do is usually assume that, if people spend enough time, they'll discover anything that is there to be discovered. Some assumed competence, there.

So we can then look at what will stop them from having enough time. And the roll is usually to see if they can get the info before <thing>.

If there is no bad thing, I just give them the info.

Typically, I'll prefer also to give them a warning before the bad thing happens - they'll hear someone appraoching, or whatever. Then they can choose to press their luck, fight off the intruders, head out, whatever.

Easy e
2021-10-18, 02:23 PM
I don't have much to add, but just wanted to say thanks for a useful post.

HidesHisEyes
2021-10-18, 05:29 PM
All excellent advice. Very much the kind of GMing style I aim for as well.

I’ve seen advice from OSR people about traps where they recommend not hiding the traps at all. Make the whole trap completely visible, make it obvious what it does and present it like a puzzle to be solved, instead of “make a perception check, then a disable trap check, then a saving throw, hope you succeed on all three.”

That’s a pretty extreme example of the principle, but I think the principle - don’t be stingy with information - is sound.

kyoryu
2021-10-18, 10:36 PM
All excellent advice. Very much the kind of GMing style I aim for as well.

I’ve seen advice from OSR people about traps where they recommend not hiding the traps at all. Make the whole trap completely visible, make it obvious what it does and present it like a puzzle to be solved, instead of “make a perception check, then a disable trap check, then a saving throw, hope you succeed on all three.”

That’s a pretty extreme example of the principle, but I think the principle - don’t be stingy with information - is sound.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. We seem pretty well-aligned on gaming styles.

And I agree - while the example might be extreme (but might not be) - the reasoning is 100% sound.

Satinavian
2021-10-19, 06:23 AM
Overall those advices sound quite agreeable.

Aside from the arrow thing. That is just a pacing decision. Is the action relevant enough to be stretched over several steps ? Do i want it to have some exiting climax where all the preparation pays off or not ? The alternatives have their place as well, of course. Also even single step/single roll resolutions do allow for intermediate results.

HidesHisEyes
2021-10-19, 07:33 AM
Overall those advices sound quite agreeable.

Aside from the arrow thing. That is just a pacing decision. Is the action relevant enough to be stretched over several steps ? Do i want it to have some exiting climax where all the preparation pays off or not ? The alternatives have their place as well, of course. Also even single step/single roll resolutions do allow for intermediate results.

I agree it’s part of pacing, but I think “do I want there to be a chance of instant catastrophe for the pc” is a valid thing to ask yourself when deciding how to pace something.

kyoryu
2021-10-19, 08:46 AM
Overall those advices sound quite agreeable.

Aside from the arrow thing. That is just a pacing decision. Is the action relevant enough to be stretched over several steps ? Do i want it to have some exiting climax where all the preparation pays off or not ? The alternatives have their place as well, of course. Also even single step/single roll resolutions do allow for intermediate results.

It's not about using multiple steps, necessarily (though that's an option). It's not even about intermediate results, really.

It's about not locking people into full commitment when they've started an action (whether or not it's resolved).

Like, let's say you've got some bar with some kind of negative energy on it. Player says "I grab the bar" not knowing what it is.

You can say, "okay, cool, you grab the bar and have the energy sucked out of you.... <mechanical result here>"

Or, you can recognize that grabbing the bar takes an amount of time, presume a reasonable level of caution, and tell the player "as your hand approaches the bar, you feel a strange supernatural chill coming off of it. Still grabbing it?"

The recognition is that there's a time between starting to "grab the bar" and actually doing so, where there's a chance for the person doing the grabbing to change their mind and take other input. It's not a mechanical thing - there are no rolls in this example.

(Of course, there are times when you, by necessity, grab so fast that there's not really a valid chance to change your mind, like a lot of combat applications)

Tanarii
2021-10-19, 09:55 AM
One way to handle this is with the idea I call Assumed Competency.

Which is to say, rather than the players needing to always announce checking for traps for each hallway, assume that, being experienced adventurers, they are keeping their eyes out for such things.

When the PC's walk down a trapped hallways, ask for an investigate check from whoever is searching for traps. If that fails, then the trap was triggered.
5e DND already does this. That's one of the things passive scores are for: secret from the player results and/or something the PC is doing repeatedly (as they go).

Explicitly, when traveling (which includes in adventuring sites) it's assumed that anyone not occupied in another important task (examples Tracking, Navigating, Mapping) is assumed to be watching for danger and using passive skills to find it. As long as they can reasonably see it (front rank in marching order or rear for behind), the DM doesn't even need to ask for a roll. They just look at their notes on PC passive scores.

BRC
2021-10-19, 10:53 AM
5e DND already does this. That's one of the things passive scores are for: secret from the player results and/or something the PC is doing repeatedly (as they go).

Explicitly, when traveling (which includes in adventuring sites) it's assumed that anyone not occupied in another important task (examples Tracking, Navigating, Mapping) is assumed to be watching for danger and using passive skills to find it. As long as they can reasonably see it (front rank in marching order or rear for behind), the DM doesn't even need to ask for a roll. They just look at their notes on PC passive scores.

Eh, I dislike Passive scores


Well, specifically I dislike Passive Investigation, although mostly for psychological reasons I guess.

Unlike Perception, where you can have a stealthy enemy roll against a PC's passive perception, Investigation is usually made against static pre-determined DC's.

So, if a GM is trying to create a dungeon, and is using Passive Investigate to determine if the PC's spot the traps, when selecting DC's you're basically just picking which traps the PC's see vs which ones they don't see. Which just seems off to me. I dunno.

Maybe if you built in some sort of decision? Moving at a fast pace gives you a -5 to investigate, taking it slow gives you a +5, so there's some degree of chance or decision involved.


asking for the roll just seems better than simply declaring "You did" or "You didn't".

PhoenixPhyre
2021-10-19, 11:06 AM
Maybe if you built in some sort of decision? Moving at a fast pace gives you a -5 to investigate, taking it slow gives you a +5, so there's some degree of chance or decision involved.


This is already in the game for passive perception, so it's fairly reasonable.

I tend to use Passive Perception to see that there's something out of place, but then Investigation is active. Although I use passive Investigation (and passive Perception) as floors--if you have a 20 passive Investigation and the DC's only 15, I'm just going to tell you and bypass the roll. But if your passive Investigation is only 12 and the DC's 15, I'll give you what you see with passive Perception.

Generally, I prefer obvious traps that are non-obvious to bypass/fix/etc. Or traps that are parts of bigger things (like traps-as-active-terrain in combat). Because solo pit traps, etc are just boring. Alarm traps are ok, though.

Tanarii
2021-10-19, 02:49 PM
Well, specifically I dislike Passive Investigation, although mostly for psychological reasons I guess.

Unlike Perception, where you can have a stealthy enemy roll against a PC's passive perception, Investigation is usually made against static pre-determined DC's.

So, if a GM is trying to create a dungeon, and is using Passive Investigate to determine if the PC's spot the traps, when selecting DC's you're basically just picking which traps the PC's see vs which ones they don't see. Which just seems off to me. I dunno.
Agreed, static passive vs static DC is an issue with that specific system. It was more the underlying assumption of competence and actions being taking that I was discussing.

Slipjig
2021-10-19, 02:56 PM
If you roll dice "for no reason", of course it makes your players paranoid. And it SHOULD, unless you habitually roll every time they enter a room.

And there's nothing wrong with landmines so long as they are in a place where landmines make sense.

kyoryu
2021-10-19, 04:27 PM
And there's nothing wrong with landmines so long as they are in a place where landmines make sense.

Yes. I point this out.

Pauly
2021-10-19, 11:22 PM
I feel a better analogy might be bomb disposal (which includes clearing land mines) rather than land mines.

There was an old British TV drama called Danger UXB, which dealt with bomb disposal during the Blitz and beyond. At first the German bombs just needed a steady hand and the technical knowledge of how to unscrew the fuse and cut the right wire. As the war went on and the Germans realized that the British were successfully disposing of UXBs they started to make changes. Time delayed bombs that detonated a set time after landing designed to blow up clean up crews. Reverse threaded fuses that would detonate if you tried to unscrew them the wrong way. Shorter wires reducing the margin for error. Dummy wires that would cause the bomb to explode if cut. Even something as simple as a new bomb type caused huge amounts of stress because the bomb disposal crews had to find out how to defuse the bomb while it was in situ and armed without any knowledge of the device.
There’s a good reason why controlled detonation in place is the preferred modern method of dealing with explosive devices.
Anyway getting back to the topic on hand it isn’t just the party coming across a land mine that makes the party paranoid. If in response to the players successfully defusing a land mine the GM starts making the landmines more difficult to detect and more difficult to defuse and the consequences of failure more dire then the paranoia increases exponentially.

Another factor as discussed above is the issue of failsafe. The original meaning of the term was to design your [thing] in a way that if failure happened it would fail in a safe manner. For example older guns there often is a slightly weaker part of the breech chamber at the top, so that if there is an overpressure event the top of the breech blows off, not the back. The GMs basic assumption should be that unless the party is pushing things to the edge failure should be limited.
Going back to the bomb disposal analogy if the party fails it shouldn’t lead to the automatic detonation of the bomb. Maybe it’s something that makes the bomb harder to defuse, maybe it starts a chain reaction which causes an explosion but only after the party has time to retreat to safety, maybe the party realizes they don’t have the skills/equipment to defuse this bomb, maybe there is a reduction in the amount of time to defuse the bomb.

kyoryu
2021-10-20, 11:25 AM
I feel a better analogy might be bomb disposal (which includes clearing land mines) rather than land mines.

I think there's a lot of good stuff there, but it's not really the problem I'm talking about.

The issue I'm dealing with here is, basically, players that treat every interaction as potentially explosive. I'm completely okay with players approaching dangerous situations with caution (how much is a further subject, of course).

At a pithy level, what I'm really saying is that if players have reason to believe that innocuous actions will resulting in disastrous consequences, then they'll approach every single thing with extreme caution. So, approaching defusing bombs with caution is great. If you approach buying a sandwich like it's potentially a bomb, that's not so great (at least for the gaming I like).

Failsafes are a good point to, and get to a lot of the things I talk about (non-atomic actions, avoiding catastrophic failures, etc.)

dafrca
2021-10-20, 12:24 PM
At a pithy level, what I'm really saying is that if players have reason to believe that innocuous actions will resulting in disastrous consequences, then they'll approach every single thing with extreme caution. So, approaching defusing bombs with caution is great. If you approach buying a sandwich like it's potentially a bomb, that's not so great (at least for the gaming I like).

While I agree buying a sandwich should not be the same as defusing a bomb, I have had a GM who tossed particular situations so often at us he caused the constant worry and slow actions in his game. You can only have so many sandwich bombs go off in your face before you approach every sandwich like it could be a bomb. :smile:

kyoryu
2021-10-20, 12:38 PM
While I agree buying a sandwich should not be the same as defusing a bomb, I have had a GM who tossed particular situations so often at us he caused the constant worry and slow actions in his game. You can only have so many sandwich bombs go off in your face before you approach every sandwich like it could be a bomb. :smile:

This is literally the crux of my post.

dafrca
2021-10-20, 01:02 PM
This is literally the crux of my post.

Sorry, I read your post to be saying players need to stop being paranoid but lacking any call for GM responsibility. My bad, I will try and read more careful next time. :smalleek:

kyoryu
2021-10-20, 01:06 PM
Sorry, I read your post to be saying players need to stop being paranoid but lacking any call for GM responsibility. My bad, I will try and read more careful next time. :smalleek:

Ha, no worries!

Yeah, the whole thing was really aimed at GMs: "If you don't want your players to be paranoid, try these things regarding the consequences of actions". IOW, I'm framing player paranoia as a reaction to how GMs are presenting consequences to actions - specifically, unpredictably awful consequences will lead to paranoid behavior. More transparency leads to trust and can lead to greater risk taking.

Pauly
2021-10-20, 11:51 PM
I think there's a lot of good stuff there, but it's not really the problem I'm talking about.

The issue I'm dealing with here is, basically, players that treat every interaction as potentially explosive. I'm completely okay with players approaching dangerous situations with caution (how much is a further subject, of course).


I was taking it a step further. Some GMs respond to their players defusing their landmines by making the landmines more challenging.

It isn’t just the existence of landmines, it’s how the GM responds to players successfully dealing with them.

kyoryu
2021-10-21, 08:41 AM
I was taking it a step further. Some GMs respond to their players defusing their landmines by making the landmines more challenging.

It isn’t just the existence of landmines, it’s how the GM responds to players successfully dealing with them.

Ah, yeah. "The players avoided all my landmines! I have to make them bigger and more hidden!"

Which predictably results in even more paranoid players.

Also, in general, the more dire the consequences, the more avoidable they tend to be. Which can have the counter-intuitive effect of lowering tension, compared to a lower level of consequence that is more likely to occur.

Easy e
2021-10-21, 11:20 AM
I tend to prefer to "sign post" potential death/danger and add a layer of warning; beyond the classic: "Are you sure?"

It should not be an arms race with sudden death as the price of failure between GMs and Players. Landmines sound more like a symptom of player vs GM dynamics?

kyoryu
2021-10-21, 11:27 AM
I tend to prefer to "sign post" potential death/danger and add a layer of warning; beyond the classic: "Are you sure?"

It should not be an arms race with sudden death as the price of failure between GMs and Players. Landmines sound more like a symptom of player vs GM dynamics?

I think "landmines" as I'm using them here are primarily a symptom of GMs withholding too much information, specifically around the risks of a given action.

I also prefer to use as much transparency as possible, even in non-death situations.

"Are you sure" is like just the most bare level of this. Frex:

"I'm going to insult the king!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yup!"
"Okay, he orders his guards to kill you. You die."

vs.

"I'm going to insult the king!"
"Okay, you know that the monarchs in the realm often have a reputation for responding to insults with violence - it's just not tolerated. Given that you're in front of his advisors, you can pretty much assume that if this doesn't go well, he's going to save face by having you imprisoned or killed. If it works, you'll probably just amuse him, but you don't think it's going to do much for you. So, what are you gonna do?"
"Um, that doesn't sound like a good deal."
"Cool."

Note that this assumes the insult is a bad idea, which is the usual "are you sure?" scenario. It's also possible to make the risks/rewards more balanced. "Okay, based on this guy's rep, you're not sure how that goes. If he takes it well, he might just appreciate your honesty and you might get some favor. OTOH, if he doesn't, or feels he has to save face, you're probably going to get your request denied, and be tossed from court. Forcefully. This is definitely an approach that would maximize both success and failure."

Tanarii
2021-10-21, 12:44 PM
Pshh. Clearly you guys need to run a "if you say it you do it" game for a while and glory in the resulting carnage. :smallamused:

KorvinStarmast
2021-10-21, 03:48 PM
Pshh. Clearly you guys need to run a "if you say it you do it" game for a while and glory in the resulting carnage. :smallamused: That is a form of fun that we enjoyed also. :smallsmile:

Pauly
2021-10-21, 08:15 PM
Pshh. Clearly you guys need to run a "if you say it you do it" game for a while and glory in the resulting carnage. :smallamused:

I’m very big in “no backsies”, however if a player interrupts me and declares an action before I’ve finished describing the situation I’ll finish the description (because that’s information the character had, and the action also affects the rest of the party) and then confirm if that is still their choice. Then if the player keeps interrupting it goes into “no backsies for you ever” territory

HidesHisEyes
2021-10-22, 08:37 AM
I think "landmines" as I'm using them here are primarily a symptom of GMs withholding too much information, specifically around the risks of a given action.

I also prefer to use as much transparency as possible, even in non-death situations.

"Are you sure" is like just the most bare level of this. Frex:

"I'm going to insult the king!"
"Are you sure?"
"Yup!"
"Okay, he orders his guards to kill you. You die."

vs.

"I'm going to insult the king!"
"Okay, you know that the monarchs in the realm often have a reputation for responding to insults with violence - it's just not tolerated. Given that you're in front of his advisors, you can pretty much assume that if this doesn't go well, he's going to save face by having you imprisoned or killed. If it works, you'll probably just amuse him, but you don't think it's going to do much for you. So, what are you gonna do?"
"Um, that doesn't sound like a good deal."
"Cool."

Note that this assumes the insult is a bad idea, which is the usual "are you sure?" scenario. It's also possible to make the risks/rewards more balanced. "Okay, based on this guy's rep, you're not sure how that goes. If he takes it well, he might just appreciate your honesty and you might get some favor. OTOH, if he doesn't, or feels he has to save face, you're probably going to get your request denied, and be tossed from court. Forcefully. This is definitely an approach that would maximize both success and failure."

100%

The key thing here is that you’re telling the player the answers to these two questions in particular:
- how good will it be if it goes well?
- how bad will it be if it goes badly?
This is effect and position from Blades in the Dark, which actually codifies this process in the rules.

Do this and the players are making informed decisions every time they act, not stumbling around in the dark hoping for the best. I often see advice given along the lines of “the world is the world, it reacts realistically and the GM should be completely impartial”. But I don’t think that’s actually helpful. It could describe BOTH of the versions of Kyoryu’s “insulting the king” scenario. Both are as realistic and honest a each other as far as the players are concerned, if they don’t know how the king is likely to respond. Realism and honesty don’t offer the players agency here, information does.

kyoryu
2021-10-22, 09:50 AM
I’m very big in “no backsies”, however if a player interrupts me and declares an action before I’ve finished describing the situation I’ll finish the description (because that’s information the character had, and the action also affects the rest of the party) and then confirm if that is still their choice. Then if the player keeps interrupting it goes into “no backsies for you ever” territory

"No backsies" is a bit much for me. "I get up and kill the kobold!" Uh, why would that be no backsies? It takes a period of a few seconds to get up there, pull your sword, and run the kobold through. There's definitely time in there to reconsider your action.

SpoonR
2021-10-22, 10:09 AM
Instead of Arrow, I’d personally call it simgle point of failure. Especially in games with huge randomness and/or low default chance of success. You’re doing something fairly routine, Gm calls for a roll, natural 1. That’s why I like success with consequences, or BitD “try again but more desperate situation, or change to different action”

For an example where paranoia is almost the whole game, consider Nethack. Carry around bags of items, donÂ’t touch otherwise till you can id. Easiest way to id is to use it, but if the item is cursed bad things happen. Many pages in the wiki devoted to ways to safely id.

Works for Nethack, not so much for other games.

Pauly
2021-10-22, 05:44 PM
"No backsies" is a bit much for me. "I get up and kill the kobold!" Uh, why would that be no backsies? It takes a period of a few seconds to get up there, pull your sword, and run the kobold through. There's definitely time in there to reconsider your action.

My background is from boardgames/chess and wargames and then moved to RPGs. The standard in those games is no backsies unless the rules prevent the action.

I do allow other players to respond. If someone else says “I jump between the first player and the kobold”, or maybe another party member says “I shout ‘No, we need it alive!’ loudly” then there is opportunity for the action to be interrupted.
But if the other party members respond by looking around and shrugging their shoulders or doing their best potato impersonation, then the kobold is out of luck.

I generally only apply IGO-UGO player turns during tactical play. In non-tactical (i.e. role play) play I generally treat player actions as being simultaneous.