mamba
Legend
yes, you giving an example does not really change thatWut?

yes, you giving an example does not really change thatWut?
What I was trying to get at is the idea of this being a third option. Instead of the party having to choose between doing Good Deed A or Good Deed B, the third option is that they split up and do both.yes, you giving an example does not really change thatThe world looks the same, no matter which option you chose. At most it matters to the party because they find one quest more interesting than the other, but other than that... I don't need a dilemma for that, I just need multiple choices
For me that's the whole point (and fun) of dilemmas - looking for those outside-the-box third options that nobody would normally think of, that either bypass the dilemma or stand it on its head.somehow I doubt the idea of the dilemma was for you to consistently avoid both options and search for a third![]()
There are players who will think of solutions the GM never considered, which might come from looking at the dilemma from a different direction, or even a different dimension. Presuming these solutions don't violate what's already been established, I can think of no good reason not to allow them. I don't pose a problem to watch the PCs enact my solution, I do it to watch them figure out and enact theirs.For me that's the whole point (and fun) of dilemmas - looking for those outside-the-box third options that nobody would normally think of, that either bypass the dilemma or stand it on its head.
oh, I thought you had two parties / groups with overlapping player(s). Well, that resolves all choice too then, apart from which one you tackle firstWhat I was trying to get at is the idea of this being a third option. Instead of the party having to choose between doing Good Deed A or Good Deed B, the third option is that they split up and do both.
why can I not present a single problem and you think outside the box for the solution?For me that's the whole point (and fun) of dilemmas - looking for those outside-the-box third options that nobody would normally think of, that either bypass the dilemma or stand it on its head.
Litigating exactly what another poster meant isn’t all that interesting, as opposed to figuring out what techniques are useful at the table when.why can I not present a single problem and you think outside the box for the solution?
I don’t think this was the idea of the OP…
I was not litigating anything, I was trying to stay on topicLitigating exactly what another poster meant isn’t all that interesting
I agree“Let players surprise you with a solution” is one of the few things I’d say is universally good GMing advice.
well, that obviously does not result in a surprise as to what the players will choose, so literally anything else will be betterIn general I think dilemmas are good for this in that they inspire third solutions moreso than ones where there is at least one solution that is both obvious and feels good.
Forcing the players with a "dilemma" with only two choices that suck is some of the worst bad railroading.A problem is something you can overcome. A dilemma, on the other hand, is a situation where you are forcing a choice on your foe, and both options suck.
Except the choice sucks...so that is a pure negative.Gving your players a dilemma means giving them a meaningful choice. Each of the options are going to have consequences - these consequences can even be clear and up-front, so your players know (at least the initial) stakes.
This is true of problems also.A side effect of this is that this maximizes surprise for the DM. Each dilemma you put out you should not know which way the PCs will go on - you should honestly make the dilemmas clear options with no "smart" and "dumb" choice - and the overall story could change direction drastically with each such dilemma.
This is any game though. If the weak characters attack a powerful foe, it will be a TPK.Instead of "if the PCs try this, and lose, TPK" being a story-fork, we have PCs making meaningful, informed choices. Sometimes a choice will have surprising consequences, but with dilemmas instead of problems that isn't needed to drive drama. The information about the consequence can be right out in the open.
This is not much of a "meaningful choice" . And it's a huge waste of time to telegraph everything at every fork.At a really, really basic level, in a dungeon, don't provide "pick left or right" with no information. The left can quite clearly be full of kobolds, and the right full of aberrations - telegraph as much as you can possibly telegraph! Now players get to choose if they go after the Kobolds or the Aberrations to proceed further in the dungeon. And if the players have encountered both before, they'll even have some idea of the consequences of their choice.
So your just describing a normal adventure here.....Suppose we have an initial adventure.