You’ve clearly pointed them in the direction of the “Mysterious Place of Mystery”, but they’d rather extort the local peasants. Or, the royal heir has been abducted by the Slavering Bug Beast of Traal, but the party shows little interest in their rescue.
Does it seem like players would rather grind for experience and magic items than swallow plot hooks and adventure seeds because they seem too risky or won’t pay off well?
I was listening to Episode 98 of Ben Riggs’ Plot Points podcast entitled “Five Generations of D&D Designers” ( a really fun listen BTW), and Mike Mearls made a couple of points that got me thinking. One was something like that he really liked it when PC’s stepped into danger. The other was words to the effect that players all want to have a heroic fantasy experience slaying dragons, etc…provided there’s a 70% chance of success.
I began thinking about why people take risky options when rational analysis says it’s not the best choice. What is adventuring but engaging in risky options when logic says otherwise? Prospect theory from Behavioral Economics yields an explanation. Now before your eyes glaze over at the words, “theory” and “economics”, I won’t go into much detail. If you want a fuller version, read Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast & Slow”.
I’ll steal some examples from Wikipedia and describe four scenarios to illustrate how framing risks and rewards can lead to decisions that defy logic. I’ll try to show how using the ideas of Prospect Theory can tip your players to venture out in the rain rather than stay home and sharpen swords.
Scenario 1: Choose between A) a 95% chance to win $10,000 or B) a $9,499 gift.
Scenario 2: Choose between A) a 95% chance of losing $10,000 (5% of losing nothing), and B) a sure loss of $9,499.
Most people will choose 1B and 2A. If you choose 1A, your average return is $9,500 (0.95 x $10,000) which is $1 more than if you choose 1B. Likewise if you choose 2A, your average loss is $9,500 which is $1 worse off than if you take the guaranteed loss of $9,499 in 2B.
Scenario 3: Choose between A) a 5% chance of winning $10,000 or B) a $501 gift.
Scenario 4: Choose between A) a 5% chance of losing $10,000 or B) a sure loss of $501.
Most will choose 3A and 4B. This is despite being, on average, $1 better off with 3B and 4A.
Sometimes we frame adventures as in Scenarios 1 & 4 thus making players become risk-adverse and more prone to take the safer (ie non-adventuring) option. Framing adventures as in Scenarios 2 & 3, I think will make them more inviting.
What I’m not saying is to exactly model these scenarios like setting up a choice between robbing a blind-drunk old goblin with 501 gp in his purse vs a game of chance at the local gambling establishment where a roll of a natural 20 will yield 10,000 gp.
Going back to the two scenarios I mentioned at the beginning, they fall into the Scenario 1 & 4 categories. Yes, the “Mysterious Place of Mystery” might yield more treasure, than peasant extortion, but then again, it might not…and extorting peasants is pretty lucrative right now (Scenario 1). The Royal Heir is in danger, but the players have no investment in this NPC whom they haven’t met and likely don’t care much about. Also, the SBB of T sounds dangerous and there’s a danger, albeit slim, of a TPK (Scenario 4).
What I am suggesting is using the framing suggested by Scenarios 2 & 3 to frame adventures. The “Mysterious Place of Mystery” must be rumored to maybe have really, really good loot—much richer pickings than what some villagers can cough up. The rumors might be false, but you never know (Scenario 3). In particular, I lean heavily to Scenario 2. The PC’s are in a dire situation through no fault of their own and face serious consequences if they don’t act.
This comes from the writer’s trope of an adventure novel consisting of three disasters and an ending. Some players may hate this approach, however. I remember my initial reaction to the AD&D module A4: In the Dungeon of the Slave Lords as one of anger and rebellion.
We lucked out however because we had a ranger in the party who made short work of the Kobold enemies with a weapon fashioned out of rocks wrapped in a loincloth. The DM ruled ranger’s damage bonus against humanoids counted making the rock-in-the sock a one-hit kill and with Kobolds being less than one hit-die creatures, the ranger got a number of attacks per round equal to his level.
Also, for some reason (I won’t say we were tipped off) we had three monks in the party as well...
There's nothing wrong with the occasional railroad - so long as it's not over-used.
Players will be cautious, and take too much time, and avoid dangerous situations - that's just human nature.
It's kind of the "we want a long rest after every combat" problem, writ large.
But they'll only do that, if the situation allows them to do so. Put them in situations where they can't - or at least if they choose to do so it has pretty steep costs, and that cost is crystal clear up front: Oh no - the Ranger has been poisoned by that assassin's blade, and you must find the antidote plant in the Jungle of Dank before she dies in three days ... best get moving!
This can't be overused, or the players will - rightfully so - feel like you're encroaching on their agency. But it doesn't hurt once in a long while.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You’ve clearly pointed them in the direction of the “Mysterious Place of Mystery”, but they’d rather extort the local peasants. Or, the royal heir has been abducted by the Slavering Bug Beast of Traal, but the party shows little interest in their rescue.
Does it seem like players would rather grind for experience and magic items than swallow plot hooks and adventure seeds because they seem too risky or won’t pay off well?
I was listening to Episode 98 of Ben Riggs’ Plot Points podcast entitled “Five Generations of D&D Designers” ( a really fun listen BTW), and Mike Mearls made a couple of points that got me thinking. One was something like that he really liked it when PC’s stepped into danger. The other was words to the effect that players all want to have a heroic fantasy experience slaying dragons, etc…provided there’s a 70% chance of success.
I began thinking about why people take risky options when rational analysis says it’s not the best choice. What is adventuring but engaging in risky options when logic says otherwise? Prospect theory from Behavioral Economics yields an explanation. Now before your eyes glaze over at the words, “theory” and “economics”, I won’t go into much detail. If you want a fuller version, read Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast & Slow”.
I’ll steal some examples from Wikipedia and describe four scenarios to illustrate how framing risks and rewards can lead to decisions that defy logic. I’ll try to show how using the ideas of Prospect Theory can tip your players to venture out in the rain rather than stay home and sharpen swords.
Scenario 1: Choose between A) a 95% chance to win $10,000 or B) a $9,499 gift.
Scenario 2: Choose between A) a 95% chance of losing $10,000 (5% of losing nothing), and B) a sure loss of $9,499.
Most people will choose 1B and 2A. If you choose 1A, your average return is $9,500 (0.95 x $10,000) which is $1 more than if you choose 1B. Likewise if you choose 2A, your average loss is $9,500 which is $1 worse off than if you take the guaranteed loss of $9,499 in 2B.
Scenario 3: Choose between A) a 5% chance of winning $10,000 or B) a $501 gift.
Scenario 4: Choose between A) a 5% chance of losing $10,000 or B) a sure loss of $501.
Most will choose 3A and 4B. This is despite being, on average, $1 better off with 3B and 4A.
Sometimes we frame adventures as in Scenarios 1 & 4 thus making players become risk-adverse and more prone to take the safer (ie non-adventuring) option. Framing adventures as in Scenarios 2 & 3, I think will make them more inviting.
What I’m not saying is to exactly model these scenarios like setting up a choice between robbing a blind-drunk old goblin with 501 gp in his purse vs a game of chance at the local gambling establishment where a roll of a natural 20 will yield 10,000 gp.
Going back to the two scenarios I mentioned at the beginning, they fall into the Scenario 1 & 4 categories. Yes, the “Mysterious Place of Mystery” might yield more treasure, than peasant extortion, but then again, it might not…and extorting peasants is pretty lucrative right now (Scenario 1). The Royal Heir is in danger, but the players have no investment in this NPC whom they haven’t met and likely don’t care much about. Also, the SBB of T sounds dangerous and there’s a danger, albeit slim, of a TPK (Scenario 4).
What I am suggesting is using the framing suggested by Scenarios 2 & 3 to frame adventures. The “Mysterious Place of Mystery” must be rumored to maybe have really, really good loot—much richer pickings than what some villagers can cough up. The rumors might be false, but you never know (Scenario 3). In particular, I lean heavily to Scenario 2. The PC’s are in a dire situation through no fault of their own and face serious consequences if they don’t act.
This comes from the writer’s trope of an adventure novel consisting of three disasters and an ending. Some players may hate this approach, however. I remember my initial reaction to the AD&D module A4: In the Dungeon of the Slave Lords as one of anger and rebellion.
We lucked out however because we had a ranger in the party who made short work of the Kobold enemies with a weapon fashioned out of rocks wrapped in a loincloth. The DM ruled ranger’s damage bonus against humanoids counted making the rock-in-the sock a one-hit kill and with Kobolds being less than one hit-die creatures, the ranger got a number of attacks per round equal to his level.
Also, for some reason (I won’t say we were tipped off) we had three monks in the party as well...
There's nothing wrong with the occasional railroad - so long as it's not over-used.
Players will be cautious, and take too much time, and avoid dangerous situations - that's just human nature.
It's kind of the "we want a long rest after every combat" problem, writ large.
But they'll only do that, if the situation allows them to do so. Put them in situations where they can't - or at least if they choose to do so it has pretty steep costs, and that cost is crystal clear up front: Oh no - the Ranger has been poisoned by that assassin's blade, and you must find the antidote plant in the Jungle of Dank before she dies in three days ... best get moving!
This can't be overused, or the players will - rightfully so - feel like you're encroaching on their agency. But it doesn't hurt once in a long while.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.