No Good Choices

I'd like to make a case for taking your game to the darkest places you can imagine. Not just with violence or carnage but the sort of horror that makes you question everything. This might sound complicated but it's actually very simple. You give your player characters no good choices.

I'd like to make a case for taking your game to the darkest places you can imagine. Not just with violence or carnage but the sort of horror that makes you question everything. This might sound complicated but it's actually very simple. You give your player characters no good choices.

choices.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

I should start by saying if you are thinking of running something exceptionally dark or intense, make sure the whole group are on the same page with this. There are plenty of safety tools out there these days, so use them. Seriously. You might think you know your group pretty well, but you might not know them as well as you think. If the purpose of the game is going to the places most people will be uncomfortable with, make damn sure everyone is willing to go there and what their limits are.

So what am I talking about? Put simply I mean moral choices with no good answer. In a game like this players are constantly faced with situations where they have to make a decision between two options they'd never contemplate, and where doing nothing is just as bad. They might have to kill a friend to close a portal, otherwise demons will tear the world apart. They might have to decide who doesn't get to eat so there is enough food for everyone, and where sharing equally means everyone will die. If someone has to be sacrificed, will they lay down their life or choose someone else? Every path leads to something they will have trouble living with. There won't be an opportunity for them to kill a stranger or the bad guy to save the world, its going to have to be a friend, of someone who wants to live and has so much to live for. When faced with these choices, what is the right answer, and what bad things will they contemplate to find a different one?

Filling your game with these sort of no win situations might not sound fun, and that's understandable. But this level of horror can lead to very intense gaming sessions. You will get to see your characters at their absolute worse, and possibly their best, and in this way they live all the more. By uncovering the deepest and darkest parts of your character you will get to know them far better than if they just went down a dungeon. Putting a character through the wringer emotionally is often far more painful than doing so physically and far more revealing. It also allows players to consider some terrible choices in a safe environment. What would you do in that situation? Do you think you could choose more wisely?

Dark moral choices force a story to move in a very different direction. Usually, when faced with two bad options the protagonists insist they will find a third, better option. They are held up as heroes for not backing down, believing that if they just keep going and avoid making the choice they will be vindicated. But you can argue there is a certain cowardice to this, a refusal to accept the truth of a situation and face it. But what if they are wrong and (as they were told) there is no third option. Everything comes crashing down because they couldn't make a decision. Are their actions still laudable and heroic?

It can be a hard lesson for player characters to learn that they can do the best they can, and possibly achieve their goal, but not be hailed as heroes. You may have closed the portal to the demon realm and saved the Earth, but Richard isn't coming back, and neither is his family. It is hard to call it a win when your character may spend the rest of their lives wondering if they could have done something, anything, that would have turned out better. How long this haunts them, and how much will add layers to them, and create new dynamics in a character group. It's been a few months, but Bob still has nightmares, but why has Sarah seemed to forget about it, and where does Carl go at night and why won't he talk about it?

These choices need not always be big ones. Stories are full of people who did something they knew was bad, but didn't seem that bad, and it paid them well or got their mum the medicine she needed. The mysterious package that just needs delivering, or the door that they just have to leave unlocked seem no big deal. The money is too good to not do something so minor. But they know that no one would offer so much if it really wasn't that important. When the package turns out to spread a terrible virus, or the open door allows a killer to go on a rampage its already too late. But your mum got her meds, or you could pay off your brother's gambling debts before the mob killed him. So everything's ok, isn't it?

This sort of game isn't for everyone, or every game. It works best in horror and modern games, such as zombie apocalypse style games or cold war spy drama. You may like to keep your games heroic, and that's fine. But it can make for some very intense role playing sessions and truly memorable games. It is fun to play a heroes, but heroes aren't really that real. Real life offers hard choices, and making player characters face those choices makes them seem all the more real.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine


log in or register to remove this ad


aramis erak

Legend
In (apparently tardy) response to the OP...

  1. if all choices are bad, usually one is less bad
  2. If they're both equally bad, they usually have different victims
  3. if they don't have difference of victims and are equally bad, the choice is functionally meaningless.
  4. in my experience, nothing demoralizes players faster than meaningless choices

Now, I agree that hard choices are great drama...
but the best form of moral choice issue is one where the party is split on which is the least bad.

What I've noticed in almost 40 years of GMing...
  1. Players want their choices to matter in the fiction
  2. Players prefer to have meaningful choices; to be meaningful
    1. The choices have to have substance on the story
    2. the choices have to have been made with reasonable levels of information
    3. the choices have to make a difference in the game state, as well.
    4. the choice made has to affect the character in some way, as well.
  3. Players generally prefer to have a positive impact upon the groups their characters are part of (but this is weaker than 1 and 2)

An example of a meaningless choice:
Player is facing an insubstantial critter with resistance to both slashing and piercing; the difference between that 1d6 shortsword and that 1d6 bec (1h pick) are of no significant effect on the game state if equally proficient in each; while they do affect the story state by virtue of one is short sharp jabs, the other overhand or fully-wound up sideswings... but either way, a hit is 1d6/2...

Likewise, given the choice to poison the evil cultists who practice asceticism and their captives with a poison cloud, or splash them all with a rain of acid, both doing 10d6, the choice is meaningless in that it strongly affects the game state, bur only weakly affects the story state: All the victims are dead and so are most of the evil cultists. Being ascetics, they don't have anything of value, so even that is no past-the-scene story state nor game state changes.

The more different the two choices, the more meaningful the choice can be.
THe more impactful on the setting, generally, the more fun. (Which is part of the lure of the Monty Haul mode of play.)

And, as noted by Umbran... a steady diet of grim in the current day and age is a turn-off for many.

In re Evil Serial Killers:
Isn't that redundant?
Good luck arresting Mother Nature and Father Time, the two most prolific killers in all of history.
 

Unwise

Adventurer
Good luck arresting Mother Nature and Father Time, the two most prolific killers in all of history.

Strangely, my last campaign ended when the Warlock finally managed to destroy 'causality' itself. He freed everybody and everything to be all things and nothing at the same time, taking existence back to the time before time and creation when everything was possible at once.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Strangely, my last campaign ended when the Warlock finally managed to destroy 'causality' itself. He freed everybody and everything to be all things and nothing at the same time, taking existence back to the time before time and creation when everything was possible at once.
Never had any go that far... did have a party that Broke the Arthurian Mythos... they stopped Arthur from doing a damned fool thing (disinterring Bran's Head), and, when Arthur goes mad (for he failed to accomplish his inspired task), gets gored by a boar. Which means, once they found him, Young, just recently acknowledged, Mordred gets marched to Camelot under chants of "The King is Dead! Long Live King Mordred" ...... we managed a few more character-years before I couldn't extrapolate further... one of the PCs having wooed the Queen away from Lancelot...

They made a difference. What they didn't know was that I was going to use Avalanche Press' I, Mordred as a campaign note, so they short circuited the campaign goals. They were all ready to retire their knights (and one priest) anyway...

The player to stopped Arthur made a tough choice: Strike the king before the rest of his fellows of the Table and before his own men, but prevent the return of Dragons, or let dragons in...
The player said, "This may kill me, but I stop him, then kneel and hope he's merciful..."
Arthur wasn't, but I was... One of the medieval stories said Arthur's sword could not harm a just man. Didn't say which one. So, I had arthur use that...

Given the long odds, and that it worked storywise, Arthur splits his maile, but not his flesh, goes mad, runs off into the woods, (random hunting roll, Boar), fumbles the attack, dies from angry boar's crit.

The choices were both bad... Sacrifice the PC? or what the PC believed in? It's easy to decide which is worse... but which is which varies by player, and sometimes, by character. 25 years later, everyone still remembers that event. The choice was meaningful.

But it had a clear better - A glorious death meaning his next character, his sacrificial character's eldest son, would get extra starting glory.

That game was great fun, as it was meaningful choice after meaningful choice, and ran for 2 player-years, covering 30+ character years.

My most recent Pendragon game ended with Arthur sacking Rome thanks to a PC wizard, who slept most of the way back to Britain... after having transformed into a dragon andaffecting the battles... (Mind you, she pulled this off twice... both times, against Arthur's wishes.) Barred from the Emperor's Court, she none the less earned a bunch of glory and insight...(Insight is for Magicians as Glory is for knights.) Campaign ended with starvation crossing the channel; bad storms and the witch too weak to cast, and too tossed to sleep...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top