As a player, do you enjoy moral dilemmas and no-win situations?

[punkorange]

A no-win situation is acceptable if it eventually leads to a situation where victory can be achieved. I.e. the "no-win" is a setback, not the final end to the situation/plotline that brought it up.

I think that this does a very good job of summing up my oppinions on no-win situations. Thank you mouseferatu.

 

[Henry]

I agree with this, with a couple of caveats. {SNIP}

I rarely do this, but Ditto to this post. I couldn't say it better myself.

 

[The_Gneech]

Once in a veeeeeeeeeeery great while, I'll take it.

But honestly, I don't want to be "challenged" by a fantasy game. I'm challenged enough in real life. As someone's wife said so eloquently in another thread, "screw this, I wanna kill some orcs."

-The Gneech

 

[Arnwyn]

My question is, as a player, do you find that being put in such a situation adds to the game and makes it more enjoyable and fun?

My answer is simple: It depends what the in-game and character consequences are.

Generally, though, because it's just a game for us, my answer is "yes" - I do enjoy those situations (as, overall in the game, it doesn't really matter all that much). However, if the consequences for one's character and the overall campaign are disasterous no matter what option you choose, then I would find it completely un-fun. But I, personally, have never seen that.

 

[ForceUser]

no win situations are good, but you can't use them too often. Moral choices are always good.

Quoted for truth.

 

[sniffles]

As a player I'm none too fond of either variety of situation. I can put up with the occasional moral dilemma to expand my roleplaying options, but if it happens too frequently I start to feel that nothing my character does has any sense of satisfaction. And I absolutely despise no-win situations. Nothing ruins my enjoyment of the game more than being faced with a problem that has no solution.

As Lord Mhoram remarked, there are enough shades of grey in real life. I don't necessarily want absolutes in my RPing, but I do like things to be a little less complicated and frustrating than they are in my own life.

[Edit]: I'm deleting the word "tenable" from my first paragraph because if there's a solution, however untenable, it's not a no-win situation.

 

[Baramay]

Often a DM may believe that they are giving the PCs a challenging moral dilemma but in reality for them it is a no-win situation. A DM should always be careful when pursuing this avenue because too often as mentioned it is a drain on the players.

 

[Remathilis]

As a player, I don't mind wrangling with setbacks (give me the artifact or the king dies), but true "no wins" are depressing and take me out of the game. If neither option is good and the negatives don't impact my life, why bother?

Moral questions however, inspire good role-playing.

A setting built around both (Midnight, Ravenloft) can be good, but personally isn't my cup of tea...

 

[Wormwood]

I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
—Admiral James T. Kirk

 

[FireLance]

I'm at the age when work, family and community commitments take up most of my time, and gaming has become a outlet to let off steam instead of a alternate reality where I invest a lot of attention. Most of my gaming group are in the same position, and this means the focus of our games tends to be more on action and heroics. We don't like to spend too much valuable and limited game time thinking about moral dilemmas, and we can handle no-win situations if a way to win presents itself fairly quickly. Otherwise, the DM finds himself facing a bunch of irritated and trigger-happy players.

I should also add that our group practises round-robin DMing, and we see the job of the DM as that of entertaining the players (just like how college students sharing a dorm room might take turns to do the cooking), so the DM can't play the "I put more effort into this game than you" card.