"Guess and Check" Encounter Design

Fauchard1520 · Jul 23, 2019

"Do you walk through the mysterious archway?"

"Do you drink the potion?"

"Do you push the big red button?"

If you're an old-school D&D player, you've probably got the necklace of strangulation and The Tomb of Horrors in the back of your mind. As such, the answer to all of the above is no doubt "hell no." My question is whether we, as GMs, should try to encourage daredevil behavior. Should gambling on a hunch and "unwary play" ever be rewarded? In other words, what kind of behavior do we really want to see at the table? "I drink the potion, what happens?" or the cautions "Dread Gazebo" approach (e.g. "I detect good... I call out to it... I shoot it with my bow.")? And if the answer is "mix it up," what's the right percentage? Should random chance scenarios be 50% harm / 50% help, or something else?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

Ralif Redhammer · Jul 23, 2019

I think that’s the weird thing with old school adventure design. There are times to be cautious and times that it’s just more fun if someone does the thing. At the same time, in the old adventures, doing the thing will more often just end up killing your character. I think the idea is to play smart, to test and check, and then decide if doing the thing is worth it.

When I want to hearken back to that style, I do try to mix it up. Most of my mysterious magic fountains will do something good for the first person to drink from it, and something bad to those that follow. And the bad is rarely that same sort of "you're dead, roll a new character up" effect.

Blue · Jul 23, 2019

Old school did reward these types of things. Such as figuring out what magic items did by trial and error. But there was plenty of positive results just so players would try things and occasionally get the negative results.

And often had clues if you thought to look. Oh a magic fountain. Is it described as "pure and sparkling" or "surrounded by bones"?

Celebrim · Jul 23, 2019

My general rule on these things is:

1) There should always be a clue as to whether the results are negative or positive.
2) The GM should never imagine himself clever by using reverse psychology.

Zhaleskra · Jul 23, 2019

"Thank you for pressing the self-destruct button. Prepare to die."

dragoner · Jul 23, 2019

I drop clues, hints, and reward them trying to suss it out.

uzirath · Jul 24, 2019

Games get boring fast if the players (or their characters) feel like they have to be ultra cautious at all times. At the same time, the potential for negative consequences (especially for foolhardy play) can generate tension. So, I do think there needs to be a balance. The right balance, however, depends on the particular group, your GMing style, genre expectations, etc.

When I run standard fantasy, I avoid Tomb-of-Horrors-style portals of instant death. I try to telegraph the stakes of things. If you goof around on the lip of a cliff over lava, you get what's coming. If there's a potion of instant death, it would be a plot device that the group would know about, or it would be in the lich's private chest, or something like that. It wouldn't just be in a random loot pile. (A sleep potion, however, might be.) With each group I have to re-balance my approach subtly depending on their proclivities.

Mechanically, in my GURPS and DFRPG games, I encourage at least one PC in each group to have disadvantages like Impulsiveness or Overconfidence. These characters help get the group out of second-guessing loops. If everyone had such a disadvantage, the party either wouldn't survive or would need to spend all their loot on healing potions. (Though, a foolhardy party of clerics might be interesting!) Often the players will discuss this sort of thing during character design in session zero. In addition to wanting a balanced team (some brawn, some brains), they want a balance of personalities (some cautious, some crazy).

Imaculata · Jul 24, 2019

I try to make it very clear to my players when they are in a dangerous situation, and when they are not. I don't think the trial and error approach is a lot of fun to my players. What matters is that what ever they do, it progresses the story in some meaningful way.

dragoner · Jul 24, 2019

"What is this, Death Test?"

That is what we used to say if it was too quick, because it seemed like a waste of time to go through character generation, and then have to go through it again? Either that, or use it as an excuse to drop out of the game, which also happened.