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

[Kurotowa]

I've never seen anything wrong with a no-win situation. Last campaign I played in, they were commonplace! Of course, I count anything that is certain to end in failure a no-win situation. Things like running into monsters that I have no choice but to flee from, having a political enemy who I cannot touch or sway anyone against, and trying to convince someone who just won't listen of something important. Sometimes the PC just can't accomplish what he wants to. As a PC and a DM I accept these as givens for any campaign, and I can't imagine a campaign that didn't have them.

That's an awfully loose definition. Successfully retreating for a monster you can't slay is a win. Having a strong enemy it takes a lot of time and work to dislodge is a challange. Not convincing someone is a failure. All of those are normal parts of an adventurer's life. Success and failure and challange are accepted.

A no-win is when there's a monster you can't slay but reteat means it will go down the valley and massacre an entire town. A no-win is when your political enemy has the king issue an order for your execution and your only choices are death or exile, and even then exile with the promise of eventual revenge is a winnable choice. A no-win is when every choice is a bad one and you can't even play for time. Failure is fine, you can always come back for a rematch. It's bad choices that make a no-win.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't care for moral dilemmas in D&D. First, to want to include one in the game the DM MUST assume that the player will not know what is morally correct for his character or there ISN'T a dilemma, is there?

You're right, but consider this: what if the DM isn't the final judge on what is moral or immoral? What if you leave that up to the player? The DM can just sit back and say, "There's no right or wrong choice. Just do what you want."

 

[The Shaman]

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? Even if it's not fun at the moment, does it add to your overall enjoyment of the game because it makes the world seem more "realistic"?

Rather than adding to the verisimilitude of the game-world, IMX most such situations are so ridiculously contrived, and for metagame reasons (i.e., "I'm gonna with the paladin!"), that they actually detract from the experience.

In the hands of a skilled GM, I think occasional moral and ethical dilemmas may add depth and breadth to a game, but in my experience these gamemasters are few and far between - too many GMs end up presenting dilemmas that would get laughed out of Philo 101, Introduction to Critical Thinking, and they do so too frequently, mistaking the sauce for soup as it were.

And no-win situations are a no-go.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's an awfully loose definition.

I don't think its a loose definition. Take a scenario in which you can't win, and its a no-win scenario. I did look for a definition, but I can't find anything, so I went with that. I don't think a no-win scenario has to involve horrible outcomes; I think people are reading that into it, and I don't think they should. Retreating from a monster you stand no chance against is not a win. I don't know any Players who would consider a successful retreat a win.

And if my interprietation is too loose, what about your interprietation? A no-win scenario has to involve some kind of massive destruction, world changing or campaign changing events, or horrible life altering scenarios on the PCs? That definition is far far to narrow for my tastes. It goes beyond "no-win" and into "screw the PCs at all costs" which I don't think are synonymous with each other. A no-win situation can be used effectively, just like almost any other scenarios in game, to good effect.

 

[Kurotowa]

I don't think its a loose definition. Take a scenario in which you can't win, and its a no-win scenario. I did look for a definition, but I can't find anything, so I went with that. I don't think a no-win scenario has to involve horrible outcomes; I think people are reading that into it, and I don't think they should. Retreating from a monster you stand no chance against is not a win. I don't know any Players who would consider a successful retreat a win.

Let me again turn to the Wikipedia:

"In general use, a no-win situation is one where a person has choices, but no choice leads to success. If an executioner offers the condemned the choice of dying by being hanged, shot, or poisoned, since all choices lead to death, the condemned is in a no-win situation. Less drastic situations might also be considered no-win situations: if one has a choice for lunch between a ham on rye sandwich and a roast beef sandwich on a roll, and the person in question doesn't like rye bread or roast beef, that might be considered a no-win situation, even if it's possible one could talk the server into putting the ham into a roll."

So it's part what your definition of success is, part what the consequences for failure are. I see surviving a brush with a powerful monster and living to level up another day as a success, unless you have a pressing need to defeat the monster today. Again, I draw the line between a challanging situation where there is no easy solution and an impossible situation where there is no good solution.

 

[Glyfair]

Let's cut the semantics. I do think everyone here really knows what I mean by a "no-win" situation. I even referred to it in the original post.

The "no-win" situation I'm referring to is a situation where any choice must lead to a major negative outcome.

For example, Redgar is facing Lord Soth. Lord Soth tells him that his mother is in one location, his wife is in another. Both will be killed at a certain time. He has a chance to save one, but not the other. That's a no-win situation. Both choices have a significant major negative effect, no matter which he chooses.

Yes, there are often other factors involved. However, debating specific instances could take forever. Many of these situations discussed here are clearly placed there by the DM specifically to give the players a situation where they must take one of the offered options.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

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

Damned straight.

No-win senarios are rarely as such. There is almost always a way around them and as a player I figure it's my job to figure it out. A lot of times I fail and just go in with lightsaber swinging. But those times when you outthink your problems, when you pick the quick and easy path and it leads to a victory you couldn't have predicted then that is the stuff I live for. So called moral dilemmas add a great deal to any game I run or play in. One such situation where the PCs were faced with allowing a child kidnapper to go free, and returning said children to miserable home lives (they were being abused, afflicted with disease etc) or killing him and ruining, what the children and kidnapper claimed, to be their one chance at a happy and free l;ife, the PCs, after much hand wringing and inter party arguements, let the children go with their abductor because it was the 'greater good'. One player remarked it was one of the most intense and dramatic scenes he had seen played out in a RPG. That, to me, is cool.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Let's cut the semantics. I do think everyone here really knows what I mean by a "no-win" situation. I even referred to it in the original post.

The "no-win" situation I'm referring to is a situation where any choice must lead to a major negative outcome.

For example, Redgar is facing Lord Soth. Lord Soth tells him that his mother is in one location, his wife is in another. Both will be killed at a certain time. He has a chance to save one, but not the other. That's a no-win situation. Both choices have a significant major negative effect, no matter which he chooses.

Yes, there are often other factors involved. However, debating specific instances could take forever. Many of these situations discussed here are clearly placed there by the DM specifically to give the players a situation where they must take one of the offered options.

Ok. But isn't 50% of a victory still a victory? And besides he gets to kill Lord Soth too right? That almost makes it a 90% victory!

Yes I am being a little rat - I know what you mean but I still stand by my experiences that show no-win situations and moral dilemmas add a great deal to the game and are often more common & fun than you might think.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Let me again turn to the Wikipedia:

Having just learned about the wikipedia today, let me just say that it is worthless as any kind of reference or validation of any kind.

 

[Bagpuss]

I enjoy both.