D&D 5E Giving PCs Dilemmas, not Problems

[Reynard]

That is the worst.

Especially drama that can't be satisfactorily resolved.

I think we want very different things out of RPGs, but I am not entirely sure because I can't quite tell what you are really saying here. Is it that you want choices with clear right and wrong options? Or are you saying you don't want difficult choices? Or don't want negative consequences? Or something else?

 

[Stormonu]

that feels a bit contradictory, I am also not sure players like only having bad outcomes / options, that sounds like you can win some battles, but are bound to lose the war

As Captian Kirk might say to his crew, "If you don't like either option, give me a third." Players can be a creative bunch, and there may be times they come up with the impossible third solution that leaves them coming out smelling rosy.

 

[prabe]

Your players aren't your enemy, but there's nothing wrong with giving them a difficult choice now and again. My preferred approach to those is the opposite of the OP's "dilemma is where both options suck," in that I tend to present choices between competing goods. I don't have much patience for Trek at this point, but Kirk's loathing of no-win scenarios resonates.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think we want very different things out of RPGs, but I am not entirely sure because I can't quite tell what you are really saying here. Is it that you want choices with clear right and wrong options? Or are you saying you don't want difficult choices? Or don't want negative consequences? Or something else?

I don't want every choice to have negative consequences. I don't want to always have to between a rock and a hard place. Sometimes I want a victory that isn't Pyrrhic. I don't want to watch GoT, much less play it.

 

[Reynard]

I don't want every choice to have negative consequences. I don't want to always have to between a rock and a hard place. Sometimes I want a victory that isn't Pyrrhic. I don't want to watch GoT, much less play it.

Thank you for the reply.

I see where you are coming from. I didn't take the OP as advocating constant brutality against the PCs regardless of their decisions. That would get old fast. I also don't think they were advocating EVERY choice being aguish and anxiety. Rather, just have decisions lead to natural consequences.

 

[Oligopsony]

Conflict and drama in every choice can be exhausting. Sometimes you need space for decompression, and there’s a place for like “what are you doing at the tavern?” and players add a bit of garnish about how they drink alone in a corner or flirt or look a little troubled and say “just water please” or whatever.

So I think this is helpful as like a dial to turn. If the table needs decompression, don’t offer dilemmas, but if they’re getting disengaged, offer more.

 

[Reynard]

Conflict and drama in every choice can be exhausting. Sometimes you need space for decompression, and there’s a place for like “what are you doing at the tavern?” and players add a bit of garnish about how they drink alone in a corner or flirt or look a little troubled and say “just water please” or whatever.

So I think this is helpful as like a dial to turn. If the table needs decompression, don’t offer dilemmas, but if they’re getting disengaged, offer more.

It is so strange that people think the OP meant EVERY CHOICE ALL THE TIME.

 

[prabe]

It is so strange that people think the OP meant EVERY CHOICE ALL THE TIME.

Given that the OP is talking about structuring a campaign around dilemmas, it's not a large leap. Wrong, I agree; but easy.

 

[Oofta]

While I try to give people options most of the time, or set up scenarios where just because I didn't think of an option doesn't mean there isn't one, I don't really plan out things this way. I think in terms of actors (NPCs, groups of NPCs, monsters) and what their motivation and goals are. Then I come up with potential goals for the group and they decide what to do.

But I do want to talk about good dilemmas and bad. I've been in games where we had to literally choose between a devil and a demon. Neither side was good, it wasn't even a choice between lesser evils. It was a choice of which evil. I hated it and will never do that in any game I DM. Even the choice of lesser evils leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't play a game to be handed a pile of donkey-poo that has absolutely no good answers, I play the game to have at least a chance of the good guys coming out on top. Maybe I'm not successful, maybe the easy path means is the "evil" path and the risky path the "good". But give me a chance at the latter.

I'm not saying the OP is suggesting any of that, it's just that one person's "interesting dilemma" is another's "Sophie's Choice" where there is no answer that can possibly leave the player feeling good about what they chose.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is so strange that people think the OP meant EVERY CHOICE ALL THE TIME.

Given that the OP is talking about structuring a campaign around dilemmas, it's not a large leap. Wrong, I agree; but easy.

This is hardly the first time a thread has been started and the immediate interpretation of several people responding to it has been, "You want to do this in an unbelievably extreme and unrealistic way?! How unbelievable and unrealistic! I couldn't do that."

And that's if they're being nice.