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

Thanks for the article. Since a few people were saying they can't handle dark subject matter in the current depressing world climate, I just wanted to say I'm still 100% down with it. I'm still watching apocalyptic & horror movies just like always. Different people cope with life problems in different ways.

Has the world situation ever not been depressing? I can't recall a time when there weren't wars, starvation, crime, homelessness, poor TV lineups, and the like going on.

IMO, the entire gaming issue is just how information is presented. Again using the LotR movies as an example, if the GM keeps a tight focus on the PCs actions at the endgame, it will look like all is well and happy: they are celebrated, feted, and rewarded for their choices and actions.

If the GM shows the players the vast quantity of Human and non-Human suffering caused by the bloody wars and the political upheaval, then the situation becomes much more dark. You can only claim a 'win' if you ignore the price that the NPCs will be paying for the rest of their lives.

It's not the choices, but the focus.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
...there is already no solution -- no matter what the players choose, they will end in the same space: not enough water and set upon by other desperates for their bodies' water. This ends up mooting whatever hard choice the players make in the opening scene and replacing it with a meaningless choice that is a bit of illusionism....

As with all things, it depends. If a player made a thri-kreen (requires a fraction of the water required for other races), or a water cleric or druid, or a half-giant (x4 consumption but can carry more), or a ranger, this would all impact the effect of water. Others attacking them for their water: it's simply a fight to start a D&D campaign.

The last choice is another of these examples. Nothing the players choose puts them here, it's a forced choice on the the players by the GM to see what they'll do -- commit horrible acts or do nothing, allowing horrible outcomes...
This one probably needed more explanation. It's a random encounter that the party can simply avoid. It's possible the party has salvaged water by harvesting cacti or smoked out a wezer nest, claiming their watery honey globes by this time and don't need it. Maybe they don't trust the escaped slave tribe's offer to split the water in a joint enterprise. Maybe they see the caravan has so many guards it'd be a suicide mission if anyone is caught and it's not worth the risk. Perhaps they simply throw themselves on the mercy of complete strangers in the caravan.

Forced encounters aren't forced choices. Neutral Evil? No prob, I'll steal what I need and probably screw over the escaped slaves. Chaotic good? We'll take only what we need for the greater good, leaving enough for the caravan to reach the nearest settlement. And, not every encounter is a result of player choice. Sometimes sh*t happens and we have to deal with it, and sometimes there's no optimal solution no matter how much you want there to be one.

In any case, it's a break from the norm.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
As with all things, it depends. If a player made a thri-kreen (requires a fraction of the water required for other races), or a water cleric or druid, or a half-giant (x4 consumption but can carry more), or a ranger, this would all impact the effect of water. Others attacking them for their water: it's simply a fight to start a D&D campaign.
This adds dimensions to what is still a meaningless choice -- as you presented, no choice leaves the party with enough water, so the choice to fight, or protect their water, or kill others for water is ultimately meaningless. That a thri-kreen character would be less impacted doesn't change much for the party, nor if a half-giant would be more impacted. This is still an illusionary choice foisted by the opening scene that is now trying to stand in for an actual hard choice. There's still no choice here, just the appearance of one.

This one probably needed more explanation. It's a random encounter that the party can simply avoid. It's possible the party has salvaged water by harvesting cacti or smoked out a wezer nest, claiming their watery honey globes by this time and don't need it. Maybe they don't trust the escaped slave tribe's offer to split the water in a joint enterprise. Maybe they see the caravan has so many guards it'd be a suicide mission if anyone is caught and it's not worth the risk. Perhaps they simply throw themselves on the mercy of complete strangers in the caravan.
I see, then, so a random encounter that forces a meaningless choice because the PC have no prior attachment? It is, as you present, just an alignment choice, or rather, the GM pushing an alignment choice onto the players. This isn't a good hard choice -- there's nothing of actual consequence on the line for the PC aside from adherence to alignment. The GM is choosing to make alignment the pain point, which is, honestly, the problem with alignment to begin with.

Forced encounters aren't forced choices. Neutral Evil? No prob, I'll steal what I need and probably screw over the escaped slaves. Chaotic good? We'll take only what we need for the greater good, leaving enough for the caravan to reach the nearest settlement. And, not every encounter is a result of player choice. Sometimes sh*t happens and we have to deal with it, and sometimes there's no optimal solution no matter how much you want there to be one.
Again, you've made alignment the crux rather than anything developed in play. This is more of the usual "alignment as a club" approach rather than using alignment as a guide for the player to make more complex choices. As for no optimal solution, I fully agree -- and this can happen without the GM engineering it or writing that there's no good solution to the problem the GM is presenting in the GM's notes. My games feature lots of hard choices, and, for the vast number of them, I couldn't have even imagined them prior to finding them in play, much less crafted them.
In any case, it's a break from the norm.
Lots of things are a break from the norm, but that doesn't cover doing a thing poorly, especially when it's not hard to do it better. Forcing GM determined choices on the players, especially ones that are pretty much just alignment checks, is not the best way to find hard choices in your game. Enforcing consequences, and allowing player to have things to risk that are safe until they risk them (avoiding the 'so you have a family, mwahaha, you'll regret that' tropes) will lead to hard choices quickly, and ones that will resonant much more with the players because they'll be able to trace every step to that point as theirs. Putting players into dangerous and/or charged situations is really all that's needed -- hard choices find themselves. And, by all means, put players in hard situations. Slap them in the desert with not enough water all you want -- this is a great kick! Just avoid scripting the solution and forcing outcomes. If you put them in the desert, let whatever plan they come up with have a chance of working. Fail forward -- if they fail at their plan, don't shut the game down -- close that door but open another one, one more painful or costly. This way, you'll find your hard choice but the players will clearly see it was their effort, their plan, their failure that led there, not the GM pushing yet another 'no good answer' alignment test on them.
 

Reading the article, it just re-reinforces my desire to play "big hero High Fantasy" and Silver Age (maybe a little bronze age) Super-heroes as my primary genre. Also why avoid Horror as an RPG genre. What I want out of play is the exact opposite of what the articles mentions. All power to those that want to, but I get enough "both choices are bad / hard" in the real world, I game to escape them and for a bit of power fantasy.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Though I am not a fan of Jim Butcher, some of the things he says about writing are useful and he talks about, when it comes to Dresden Files, every actions the character takes in that serious makes something worse. This constantly ups the tension in the story to a climax. I think that this works well in a campaign or short adventure but in a Sandbox may not work as well and would be harder to pull off, though doable.

Good example to bring up.

I just finished the new Dresden novel, "Peace Talks" and, true-to-form, Harry's past choices are catching up with him, and he's forced to make more choices that complicate the situation further.

It's not that the author, Jim Butcher, only gives his protagonist, Harry Dresden, no good choices . . . . it's just that all choices have consequences, some of which are obvious right off, others sneak up on Harry much later. And this certainly ratchets up the tension and stakes of the story.

But I can't remember any "false moral" choices in the Dresden series, where the protagonist has to choose an immoral act to serve a greater good . . . . if that was a part of Butcher's style, I probably wouldn't be reading his novels.

Harry always makes very moral choices, very right choices . . . but he exists in a complicated magical world filled with Byzantine supernatural politics.

I'm a huge fan of Butcher and the Dresden series . . . . . they aren't perfect and Butcher's style does have some noticeable flaws, but I'm still loving the books and we're on #16 at this point, with #17 due in October.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
No good choices, if done well, can be powerful storytelling.

But I've never experienced it done well (at the game table, that is). Rather the opposite, I've experienced, too often, contrived situations with what I consider false moral choices that just piss me off as a player and make me want to leave the table.

Being forced to choose between murdering an innocent to close a portal, or allowing that portal to spew forth demonic hordes that will eat the city? Ugh. Pass. Contrived.

Kill the baby orc or allow it to grow up to ravage future villages? Please. I'm not in junior high anymore.

Having to make choices that are fraught with consequences, where even the "right" decision is likely to complicate matters . . . . creating new enemies . . . creating rifts between allies, friends, even family . . . allowing evil to escape to wreak more havoc . . . . if done well, can make for a tense, exciting story!

I just watched the opening episodes of the 2011 Thundercats cartoon . . . . this version of the classic 80s Saturday-morning show is a bit darker than the original, but still aimed for a general audience . . . . Lion-O is faced with some no-good-choices scenarios right off, when a mob of cat-people try to lynch some lizard-people prisoners . . . does he go against his own people? Does he defend his ancestral enemies from being murdered? This does ratchet up the tension on poor Lion-O, and the immediate results seemingly make his life worse . . . or do they? :)
 

Dire Bare

Legend
An example of no-good-choices in horror movies springs to mind . . . the Saw series. I've never actually watched any of these films, as the trailers alone just upset me . . . .

Some evil serial killer puts you in a torture room where you have to make a choice . . . . kill or maim the other person trapped in the room with you, an innocent, or die horribly yourself. Super contrived and stupid . . . . I'm not interested in these movies, I would not be interested in similarly contrived scenarios in a D&D game.

The classic comic book villain choice given to heroes . . . . save that busload of children or your girlfriend . . . . isn't quite as bad as the Saw scenarios, but still on the contrived side of things and certainly overdone . . . . in a D&D game, this type of scenario wouldn't make me angry, just bored!
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
The classic comic book villain choice given to heroes . . . . save that busload of children or your girlfriend . . . . isn't quite as bad as the Saw scenarios, but still on the contrived side of things and certainly overdone . . . .
You're right but in its favour:
1) It's a situation that's been set up by a villain rather than being built into the rules of the world like the demon portal sacrifice in OP.
2) The hero almost always manages to save both so it's not truly a no-win situation. A famous exception is the death of Gwen Stacy in Amazing Spider-Man #122.
3) It's an expected genre convention.
 

pemerton

Legend
You're right but in its favour:
1) It's a situation that's been set up by a villain rather than being built into the rules of the world like the demon portal sacrifice in OP.
2) The hero almost always manages to save both so it's not truly a no-win situation. A famous exception is the death of Gwen Stacy in Amazing Spider-Man #122.
3) It's an expected genre convention.
I'd have no problem with a game where the PCs are political leaders juggling the conflicting interests of different factions. I'd have no problem with a game about a realistic survival situation where there's not enough food to feed everyone.

<snip>

the demonic portal isn't something that could happen in real life. It's entirely artificial.

My experience of GMs introducing moral dilemmas in traditional rpgs is that they felt similarly artificial and contrived.
Hard choices can often be some of the best moments of play, but I think there's a huge difference between a hard choice that occurs through play and a hard choice the GM imposes. The former is the result of how play turns out -- things get put at risk, consequences build on each other, and you end up in a situation of the player's making that results in a challenging choice.

<snip>

On the other hand, if the GM is planning to impose a hard choice, like a villain presenting a kind of Sophie's Choice, then it feels forced, and many players are going to be resentful of the GM pushing this kind of choice on the player.
Genre is important in RPGing, but I think the key issue here is the one that Ovinomancer has identified - ie rather than starting with "realistic" vs "artificialcontrive" let's start with where did the framing come from?

My general view is that bad things (ie things the players don't want), as a component of framing, should be a result of failed checks. If players succeed in their checks and yet still have the GM frame their PCs into circumstances replete with bad things then what was the point of succeeding?

With the super-villain example, for instance, it's easy to frame choose between Lois and the school bus choice as the outcome of some earlier failure. And then to narrate a death (of Lois or Gwen or the school kids) as the outcome of some further failure. Conversely, if the players succeed then they save both targets, or if they succeed first time around then the villain never gets the chance to establish the hard choice in the first place.

In the portal case, it's easy to envisage narrating the situation, and resolving checks and establishing consequences, where one or more failures lead to an end-point where only a friend's sacrifice can close the portal. This happens in RPGing combat from time-to-time - ie a string of results leads to a situation where not all of the PCs can survive, but maybe most can if one sacrifices him-/herself - and there's no reason why it cant happen in other domains of resolution too, like dealing with demonic portals.

Where genre becomes important is, I think, in setting parameters for acceptable consequences. System also factors in here. Eg the rules in Prince Valiant say that PC death is not normally an important part of the game, and the rules for resolving injury and recovery reinforce this point, and so it is going to be hard in that system to establish a consequence, even for failure, where PC death is on the line. And it would be at odds with the genre the system aims to support to frame anything too grimly.

Contrast, say, Burning Wheel. The default genre is fairly gritty. Dying, being imprisoned or enslaved, being maimed, having family members hurt - these are all things that the system clearly puts on the table. They are reinforced by a quasi-death flag mechanic, whereby a player can send his/her last Persona (= fate/hero) point and therefore have no resource left to negate a PC death, thus signalling that s/he is "all in" with regard to what comes next. But it would be awful BW GMing to cut straight to these sorts of stakes: they should emerge "organically" out of the framing of situations and the narration of consequences, in the sort of fashion Ovinomancer describes. The maths of BW together with its system logic will produce enough failed checks to allow this to happen without the need for arbitrary contrivance on the part of the GM.

If a system is weak when it comes to producing consequences outside of combat that are independent of GM fiat, that will probably make it harder to avoid the appearance of GM-determined contrivance or even punishment.
 

Unwise

Adventurer
Most of the worst sessions I have played in have been based on that idea of "no good choices". I find that the DM just wants to force players to choose between the bad options and tend to eliminate any clever ideas and alternatives as a sort of 'cheating' to avoid having to make a tough call.

They normally amount to an odd sort of 'gotcha moment' in which the DM forces people into one of their narrow set of options, then tries their best to make them feel like bad players and bad PCs for doing so. It is often perverse and senseless.

I find it makes players simply not want to play, as the win condition is best served by simply not returning for next weeks session. I can't blame them.

I am happy to present only bad options on the face of it, then rely on player and PC cleverness to come up with better alternatives. I will actively encourage that. It drives the story forward and is fun, unlike a grimdark "eat the baby to stop the apocalypse" ultimatum.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top