PDA

View Full Version : Catch 22's and No win situations



brant167
2008-12-17, 03:29 PM
I am running a Scarred Lands campaign setting and am planning to have the players avoid a civil war by searching and finding the rightful heir to Darakeen. However when they find her she is leading a cult that worships a Titian (sworn enemies of the gods.) Putting the players in a situation where they either push a enemy of the gods to lead a extremely powerful nation or let the nation fall into civil war.
So that got me thinking; how often do you as a dm put your players in catch 22 or no win situations? What kind of situations have you put your players or players have put themselves into?

Lapak
2008-12-17, 03:42 PM
That's more of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation than a catch-22 (which requires, essentially, that accomplishing your goal is made impossible by accomplishing your goal.) That said, that IS a pretty tough spot to put your PCs in.

The most difficult situation I placed a group in recently was actually similar to yours: while investigating a monstrous attack on an isolated town on the northern border of their country, they discovered that a baron from the neighboring kingdom had been behind it - he had wanted to take the town over in order to increase his power base and rebel against his King. Punishing the baron, either diplomatically or by kicking his door in and thrashing him, would solidify that king's power - and the King was gearing up for a full-scale invasion of the PC's home nation.

So they either had to let the Baron slide on his failed invasion (which might encourage both him and his neighbors to try again on a similar scale,) or punish the Baron (which would discourage similar attempts, but open the door to a much worse threat.)

hamishspence
2008-12-17, 03:45 PM
one of the funnier Catch 22-esque phrases I heard was:

"Any paladin capable of staying a paladin in most dilemmas should fall for being a devious git."

brant167
2008-12-17, 03:49 PM
So they either had to let the Baron slide on his failed invasion (which might encourage both him and his neighbors to try again on a similar scale,) or punish the Baron (which would discourage similar attempts, but open the door to a much worse threat.)

Did your players enjoy that game? Usually, I stay away from those types of situation. Yeah, I realized I misused the word the second after I posted it.

Tacoma
2008-12-17, 03:58 PM
That's more of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation than a catch-22 (which requires, essentially, that accomplishing your goal is made impossible by accomplishing your goal.) That said, that IS a pretty tough spot to put your PCs in.

The most difficult situation I placed a group in recently was actually similar to yours: while investigating a monstrous attack on an isolated town on the northern border of their country, they discovered that a baron from the neighboring kingdom had been behind it - he had wanted to take the town over in order to increase his power base and rebel against his King. Punishing the baron, either diplomatically or by kicking his door in and thrashing him, would solidify that king's power - and the King was gearing up for a full-scale invasion of the PC's home nation.

So they either had to let the Baron slide on his failed invasion (which might encourage both him and his neighbors to try again on a similar scale,) or punish the Baron (which would discourage similar attempts, but open the door to a much worse threat.)

The answer here is to help the baron, becoming his lieutennants while pushing out any Evil or influential lieutennants he has. This way you help him gain power while maintaining a firm control over that power yourself, limiting the evil actions his troops might take, fighting directly against said King. Then you convince the Baron to split the conquered kingdom into baronies for his lieutennants while he ascends as King. Then assassinate him and declare the Baronies to be perpetual allies and establish religious, cultural, and economic bonds among them.

Then you go out declaring war on weaker people because you need the XP.

valadil
2008-12-17, 04:06 PM
I'm guilty of creating a lot of no win situations after the fact. It's not so much that the players have any way of knowing that a course of action will screw them over so they'll take that and just happen to piss someone else off along the way. There's a lot of out of the frying pan and into the fire situations in my games and sometimes I worry that it discourages players.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-12-17, 04:06 PM
I generally discourage DMs using catch 22s and "damned if thou do, damned if thou doth not." situations. The only thing more frustrating then a bad DM, is one who screws you over no matter what.

SmartAlec
2008-12-17, 04:15 PM
Don't go in for no-win, but am happy with no-complete-win. It'll take a rare bit of luck and some clever planning for a band of heroes to confront and defeat the bad guy and rescue the princess from his dungeon and loot his treasure room. Most of the time, they'll only be able to do one of those. Choice of which one is theirs, though.

Tacoma
2008-12-17, 04:18 PM
Yeah, bad thing #337 for a DM to do:

"you rescued the princess from the altar after killing the BBEG. The rocks are falling from the ceiling. On the way out you loot the treasure room"

Lapak
2008-12-17, 04:33 PM
Did your players enjoy that game? Usually, I stay away from those types of situation. Yeah, I realized I misused the word the second after I posted it.Actually, yes, they were having a pretty good time. They were in full-on 'roving rogues with hearts of gold' mode rather than 'Heroes of the Realm' mode, which makes all the difference. Anyway, they brought the intelligence they'd collected (about both the baron and the military buildup in the other kingdom) back to their own employers in their home nation's army, collected a reward, and left the army to do the job of responding. This had some long-term consequences to the balance of power, but they had wandered off in the other direction and were two countries away by the time things REALLY started to come to a head.

SoD
2008-12-17, 05:08 PM
Yeah, bad thing #337 for a DM to do:

"you rescued the princess from the altar after killing the BBEG. The rocks are falling from the ceiling. On the way out you loot the treasure room"

Could be worse. You beat your way through the bad guys, only to find a Mycolnid saying "The princess is in another castle!"

For the record, I remember reading that somewhere else.

huttj509
2008-12-17, 05:09 PM
No-win situations like that can be very fun, as long as you aren't waiting to punish them for making the "wrong" choice. If you have a bit of a sandbox game, their choice affects which way things might swing, but doesn't end things with a "fall."

For example, rescue the heir, but try to convince her that her worship is wrong for humanity. Or rescue her, get the reward, then go about foiling her link to communicate with the titan thing. Or kill her as an enemy to humanity, then go back and try to explain how she had already fallen and was irredeemable. Or kill her and give up on the reward for finding her altogether. Or kill her, go back, kill the questgiver for sending you to find her since he was obviously in on it, then go kill the gods for creating a world where that situation happened.

There's consequences to each action, bub none should be a "you lose" button in the sort of campaign where that sort of thing works.

What not to do:

"You killed her? You were supposed to save her, ask her to take off her earrings, then find out they were mind control earrings, go to the old sage, say "Sam I am" to him 3 times while hopping on one foot, then kill the demon he turns into! Campaign over you idiots!"

Well, unless you're a hecuva (http://www.mmadnd.chat.ru/heucuva.gif) lot better at dropping clues about the earrings in there than I would be.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-12-17, 08:56 PM
I think no-win situations can work, but:

1) They should be used sparingly.

2) Clever players should be allowed to take the third path you did not see, if they find it.

3) A no-win situation should almost always lead to an adventure which allows the players to turn it into a win situation.

4) It doesn't hurt to point out to them after they made the decision, that it was six of one, half a dozen of the other, and possibly make subtle changes which made their decision slightly better than otherwise.

For example:

In the Baron/King example. If they chose to depose the Baron, then their home kingdom makes a major break-through on that front, where the enemy is weak and disorganized. But, if the players allow the Baron to continue, then the time spent by the enemy King putting down the Baron gives the PC's country enough time to find out about the war and mobilize.

In the princess turned cultist example. That one is probably more easily mopped up by the players taking out the cult. But it can still be the case that, say, the lands turn out to be safer from monsters and crime due to the oppresive laws of the cult (even if they do re-institute slavery and wage war on the gods). Alternatively, if civil war erupts, it could be that agents of the gods are able to intervene to help, due to the destruction of the Titan's influence.

Assassin89
2008-12-17, 09:01 PM
I was almost in a no win situation. In a recent campaign, my Cleric along with a sorcerer, a warforged healer, and a goliath fighter encountered six zombies. After defeating two of the zombies (the other four were turned and ran away), my party encountered some skeletons, which used to be the zombies. After fighting the skeletons, it became clear that there was no way to permanently destroy these particular undead, and the party forced to retreat.

holywhippet
2008-12-17, 09:44 PM
I was almost in a no win situation. In a recent campaign, my Cleric along with a sorcerer, a warforged healer, and a goliath fighter encountered six zombies. After defeating two of the zombies (the other four were turned and ran away), my party encountered some skeletons, which used to be the zombies. After fighting the skeletons, it became clear that there was no way to permanently destroy these particular undead, and the party forced to retreat.

That may or may not be a no-win situation. It depends of your DM had slapped an "invincible" label on them or if there was some reason you didn't know which explained why you couldn't kill them and a way to counter it.

woodenbandman
2008-12-17, 10:47 PM
I generally discourage DMs using catch 22s and "damned if thou do, damned if thou doth not." situations. The only thing more frustrating then a bad DM, is one who screws you over no matter what.

I had a really bad example of this happen to me and a friend once. He was a character focused on illusions and such, so of course the DM threw loads of guys with blindsight at him. Loads. And he was also focused on intimidating people and talking and such. So nobody knew any information. He even asked to mail a letter to a business we had put a hit out on. The business was unlisted, because it would be a shame if someone ever bought something from them. I quit right there.

Assassin89
2008-12-18, 12:05 AM
That may or may not be a no-win situation. It depends of your DM had slapped an "invincible" label on them or if there was some reason you didn't know which explained why you couldn't kill them and a way to counter it.

The reason my party could not kill these particular undead is because they continued rising up from the ground even after the goliath pounded some of them into dust

Xyk
2008-12-18, 12:43 AM
Actually, yes, they were having a pretty good time. They were in full-on 'roving rogues with hearts of gold' mode rather than 'Heroes of the Realm' mode, which makes all the difference. Anyway, they brought the intelligence they'd collected (about both the baron and the military buildup in the other kingdom) back to their own employers in their home nation's army, collected a reward, and left the army to do the job of responding. This had some long-term consequences to the balance of power, but they had wandered off in the other direction and were two countries away by the time things REALLY started to come to a head.

that's always my solution to those conundrums. Collect my fees and let someone else take care of it.

One time in a level 1 game, I suspected someone was working for the wrong team (due to his suspicious nature) so I sneaked in his house to look for evidence. There was no evidence and I was forced to kill him, lest be killed. (he wasn't happy that I broke into his house). After that I looted his house and skipped town, because I didn't want to go to jail for murder. The DM was in shock, because this was apparently an important NPC and city.

Dark Herald
2008-12-18, 01:02 AM
I don't get it. Why not just make up another NPC/city that is the "important one." sure, there's a bit of improvising, but throw some cool but worthless magic items at them and use the time spent divying up the loot to make it work...

anyways

Hmm, Catch 22's. Races, being things people can't change, make great Catch 22s.


You approach the statue. After inadvertently rubbing it's belly, it becomes animated and speaks to you. Quoth it "Thee who leaves this room will go mad, but person's inflicting this torture upon themselves are surely mad now, and so may then not leave." After thinking about it, the party barbarian goes to the door, walks out, and is teleported back to the statue. The statue it'self doesn't show up under detect magic. The party Wizard belives that there is more at work here...

Not a bad Catch 22, either you find a logic flaw or suppress the effect.