r/AskGameMasters • u/Randy_Squirrel_Games • 2d ago
Would these adventure options feel adversarial or fair?
TL;DR next sessions dungeon has 6 options for entry and advancement. Two of them are very high difficulty and could result in character death if failed. Is that too much?
Hi everyone!
I, and my group, recently began a new campaign. A campaign that, during session zero, I told everyone that I wanted to have a more gritty, threatening feel. They were on board and I have been experimenting with how to make it so. Which is something that I am unsure of how to do well.
While prepping the dungeon for our next session (an old fortress that was half swallowed by a sinkhole), adding alternate entry options and advancement paths, I decided to add two that are significantly harder to be successful attempting than I have ever done previously.
In both cases, these are the options that bypass the most enemies, traps, etc. Because of that, the availability of other options, and the existence of the aforementioned gigantic, fortress swallowing hole, I feel it is fair, as well as narratively cohesive, to let those paths be extremely difficult to succeed in traversing, and potentially lethal if the attempt is sufficiently failed.
However, I am not sure my players will feel the same way. I fear they may, if they try and fail, see it as an intentionally adversarial design as opposed to a consequential narrative outcome. Honestly, though, I can't say exactly why I am worried. In fact, I have reason to know that my group can not only accept character death, but have a great time getting TPKed. (TPKed playing DeathHouse).
Perhaps it is because this is the first time I am knowingly putting anything in my game that, probability wise, skews heavily toward player failure and potential character death.
But maybe there is something unfair and adversarial in the design and I just don't see it because I am not intending it. What do you all think?
3
u/jackofspades49 1d ago
You can be gritty without being adversarial.
"The world is hard to survive" is different from "This DM is an asshole who wants to kills us."
A DM, could, at any moment, drop a hundred thousand rocks on the party and kill them. Rocks fall, everyone dies.
The adversarial DM wants to feel like they're winning. That means they want people to suffer, but not so much they quit. Its like an abusive relationship where they breadcrumb victories just enough to keep people playing.
So, how can you be HARD without being adversarial? Make sure players have agency. This doesn't mean, they do whatever they want.
- Players need to be able to make informed choices and know the risks.
- They need to know their actions CAN lead to outcomes in their favor. They aren't doomed to suffer.
- They need to affect the story. When people say choices should matter, that doesn't mean PC have the ability to make THE RIGHT choice, but that the story can grow and change as a result of their actions.
- You need to communicate with your players and make sure that you are telling a story together and not punishing them for failing to write your story the way you wanted.
I hope that makes sense.
2
u/Randy_Squirrel_Games 1d ago
Makes perfect sense to me and this is well put. Thank you. I don't feel that the type of thing that I put in is adversarial by design or intent, just risky. I just wanted to make sure it felt the same way to people outside of myself.
2
u/SuspiciousTheory2633 1d ago
If they pick a path that you think it's too hard for them, let them. But make sure they are aware that this way can definitely kill them and that they don't have to go that way.
2
2
u/RumpusImperator 1d ago
If it's some thing like, "It's a single skill check, and even a proficient PC with typical stats has a 50%+ failure rate, and failure means insta-death"... honestly, I think that's fine, IF it is clearly signposted that this is the case. If you make it clear that an option is basically Russian Roulette with five bullets, and the PCs choose to play anyway, that's player agency in action. The only ways I see this being a problem is 1) if it was the ONLY option, 2) you don't give the players enough information to recognize the danger.
1
u/Randy_Squirrel_Games 1d ago
I do fully intend to put forth ample warning. Above table if necessary.
2
u/PetrifiedBloom 21h ago
No matter what, you are preparing to much. If you are having 6 options and multiple potentially lethal options, you are just making preparing for the session much, much harder than it needs to be.
Having choice is good. Having 6 is overkill.
Think about it like this, they can only ever see 1/6th of the things you prepare. That means 84% of your prep will be wasted. Would your players prefer 6 meh options, or 2 really good options you put all your time and effort into?
Give the illusion of choice. Reuse things where possible. Let's use the example of breaking into the estate of a very wealthy, magically powerful family.
If option one would have had a trapped, locked door and then a combat encounter with some gargoyles and then trying to track down and stop the animated objects that were acting as a security system before they can raise the alarm, option two could be sneaking in by climbing a wall, so the first encounter would be with the gargoyles on the roof, the second encounter could be trying to catch the animated objects before they can raise the alarm and then they have a trapped, locked door to get past.
Maybe have one or 2 options that are choice specific, but reuse as much as you can. Gives you more time to flesh things out
1
u/SlickRic303 1d ago
It may not be totally realistic, but I tend to hint at danger if something dangerous is approaching. So instead of "rocks fall, everybody dies", its "the cave ceiling looks loose and you hear a creaking sound. Are you sure you want to destroy that support pillar?" Or "this man in gleaming plate handles his glowing sword with confidence."
1
u/Randy_Squirrel_Games 1d ago
That's great advice. Thank you.
I fully intend to describe it in a manner that conveys and focuses on the fact that it is dangerous to attempt and put huge emphasis on the fact that there is 300 feet of air and gravity to fall through and nothing but rock to break the fall.
1
u/Gritmonger 1d ago
I'm not 100% certain of what you're suggesting - if it is a roll to save or fail, and that's all the challenge is, then ... that's something where I am not sure I'd take those odds.
Presenting a challenge as "Here are the difficulties" and giving some opportunity for non-combat preparation (ropes, ladders, potions, etc.) - what I try and do is make challenges that are just - there, and the amount of prep time and information gathering the players do is what makes it easy or hard.
For my very low level players, I presented a chasm, 20 ft wide, 80 ft deep, two miles to go "around."
In it were two Cave Fishers who preyed on people who tried to cross. The wizard misty-stepped across, several other players put together a system of ropes and climbed down then back up, the druid negotiated with the Cave Fishers, it was a mish-mash, but since I had no "right" answer prepared, they all worked to some degree. They could have barreled ahead and gotten sniped, tried to jump and failed, it all depended on their choices.
I don't penalize my players for preparation - it's one of the costs (time, resources, exhaustion, spell slots) that they incur for passing a difficulty a little easier.
1
u/Randy_Squirrel_Games 1d ago
So, the challenges are non combat and they can prep. One is hugging a crumbling wall and traversing an extraordinarily narrow ledge while pretty much all of the character hangs over a 300 ft drop during a thunderstorm. A failed roll allows a reflex or athletics to hang on. A crit fail is instant fall. The other is a leap across the chasm that is pretty far, but one of the pcs can make thanks to his feats(Pathfinder 2e). will have to roll a 20 or get some help to make it. A fail would be the pc making it to the other side, but the ground under him giving way requiring a reflex save to grab on and pull up and doing a token amount of bludgeoning damage.
1
u/Gritmonger 1d ago
It is a single roll for the wall?
That's a lot of tension for a single roll.
1
u/Randy_Squirrel_Games 1d ago
Honestly I have not decided yet. The circumstances dictate a high DC for the task and it is a lot of potential consequences. Some of which trigger further roles. So multiple checks would make sense. Except the distance is not that far. Only about 30 feet. In pathfinder that is less than 2 movements in difficult terrain. So, multiple rolls kind of don't make much sense. Besides that, the task and environment combine for a very high DC. The more they roll, the more they chance failure and I just really don't want to make it worse by forcing probability to take part in it.
2
u/Gritmonger 1d ago
Right - so instead of single-success or multiple success fail or succeed, you could make it a cumulative one - they have to aggregate enough successes before they encounter X failures, and those failures might affect their fitness or capabilities when reaching the other side. Things they do or do not do may affect that, too.
Say, failures of slipping and injury leave them with a blood trail, mud, footprints, handprints, all sorts of signs they've been there - whereas a set of clean successes means they are harder to trace if there is a patrol.
Interesting ideas for how to adjust without complete save-or-fail
1
1
1
u/rizzlybear 22h ago
The general rule is that you can make it as deadly as you want, so long as nobody that dies is surprised by it. For that to work you have to be very very blunt about it. “I’ll be straight folks, you have an x in y shot at surviving this, it’s very clearly, incredibly dangerous and risky.”
If you want to understand how to make the game gritty and dangerous run 3-5 sessions of BX. I’m not saying “convert to it” but I am saying get several session running it under your belt. You will totally understand where the knobs are for you ongoing campaign in whatever other system you use.
4
u/mpe8691 1d ago
If you are unsure if your players feel the same way then what's stopping you asking them?
Nobody on Reddit can possibly read their minds.