GMs: Should you reward caution, or bravery?

[Lincoln Hills]

Some GMs have a play style that encourages players to be thoughtful and cautious. Others have a style that encourages players to be brave and decisive. Each style has a disadvantage: 'killer GMs' who encourage caution sometimes result in dull sessions, while 'lenient GMs' who encourage bravery sometimes result in players taking dumb risks.

Which style of play does your GM encourage? Which style do you prefer in campaigns when you're a player?

[mdt]

You should try to be balanced.

I've had players (not characters, that's different) who always ran off by themselves. The excuse? "I was bored with people talking, I wanted to roll dice!" The problem with this type of player is that unless they are all like that, he is disruptive and is ruining the other player's fun.

I've had players (not characters, again, that's different) who want to discuss every possible scenario down to what can happen to country based on whether they do or do not let the 3rd level orc commander go. This is boring and disrupts the other player's fun.

The GM should reward people who play in a style that increases the fun of the rest of the players and the GM.

[CrazyGab]

mdt wrote:

You should try to be balanced.

[...]

The GM should reward people who play in a style that increases the fun of the rest of the players and the GM.

I totally agree with that, because i think there's no real fun if it's not everyone who have fun.

[MechE_]

You should reward good judgement. Sometimes caution is wise, other times, bravery is called for. It's definitely a balancing act, but both are necessary in certain situations.

[Zhayne]

Considering that I generally go for a high-adventure, action-movie kind of feel, bravery. Ditto when playing ... I find playing cautious, meticulous characters rather dull. It does help when there is one in the group, though. Personality balance and all that.

[Kimera757]

Balance.

Too cautious results in this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/fb/20040608a or tapping every 5 foot square out of fear.

Over the top, instead, results in idiocy.

[Lincoln Hills]

I guess I should specify that I mean, "Which method do you / does your GM tend toward more often?"

Some degree of balance is possible - even ideal. But that can lead to problems with mixed messages. By which I mean that the GM intended the PCs to be cautious, and boldness leads to a sharp defeat ("I thought the dragon was an illusion!"; or the GM intended the PCs to be bold, and their caution leads to a frustrating anticlimax ("I thought the illusion was a dragon!").

[Reecy]

I have been a GM a Long time and I learned rewards are fluid...

If you are brave and decisive you should be rewarded... If you are caustious and careful and your plan works then you should be rewarded

Now where as a GM it is your job is to keep that going. Were they too Rash did they leave clues were they seen. Does one have a big mouth etc and so on...

Their Victories are rewarded and if something comes back to bite them its 2 3 or 4 sessions down the line.

Then you are creating an interactive world and they will enjoy it more and will not see it negatively

[claymade]

I try not to think about it in those terms, but rather just let the outcomes fall out naturally from the sort of situation they're encountering.

Is their opponent, in this case, a sneaky illusionist wizard with sky-high INT? Then there should be a lot of cunning traps that incautious heroes who just charge in without thinking will fall for hard. Is the opponent a non-sapient beast? Then not so much.

Basically, I'd just focus on creating a cohesive world, try to figure out what the most logical threats populating it would be, how such threats would react and prepare given the conditions of the world and the PCs actions thus far, try to figure out the resultant actions accordingly... and then let the dice fall where they may.

(That said, I'd try to leave an "out" for the party in most cases, even if things did go badly for them because they figured wrong on some part, but it still might result in a temporary defeat for them.)

[thejeff]

claymade wrote:

I try not to think about it in those terms, but rather just let the outcomes fall out naturally from the sort of situation they're encountering.

Is their opponent, in this case, a sneaky illusionist wizard with sky-high INT? Then there should be a lot of cunning traps that incautious heroes who just charge in without thinking will fall for hard. Is the opponent a non-sapient beast? Then not so much.

Basically, I'd just focus on creating a cohesive world, try to figure out what the most logical threats populating it would be, how such threats would react and prepare given the conditions of the world and the PCs actions thus far, try to figure out the resultant actions accordingly... and then let the dice fall where they may.

(That said, I'd try to leave an "out" for the party in most cases, even if things did go badly for them because they figured wrong on some part, but it still might result in a temporary defeat for them.)

The problem with that approach is that, unless you give very clear signs about which approach will work in a given situation, the PCs will learn very quickly to always take the slow careful way. It doesn't take a lot of deaths due to not checking thoroughly enough to push the players to check everything thoroughly.

Now that may be fine for you. That may be what you want them to do. You and they may be okay with the slow painstaking test everything approach. It seems like a lot of people are.
But that's making a decision about which approach you want, while claiming not to do so.

[Reecy]

Clay said it well

It is a chess game and as GM you have to be able to develop several different personalities and then walk thru how each one works.

The victories and defeats will happen naturally...

Example paranoid wizard will make a trap to cover this that and 50 other scenarios

He may miss the part where the Barbarian walks in and just smashes the thing without even a second thought...

While a Careful Rogue may trip on every single one.

The wholes in everything will be present and you may not see it until a player thinks of then just roll with it and be entertained by the experience.

[Rynjin]

I don't know that I encourage or reward either.

If people want to rush in and possibly trigger traps or get into a fight with a tough enemy they had no clue was there, they can. Sometimes it pays off, other times it almost gets someone killed (I actually have yet to have a player death in my game, though quite a few close calls).

If they want to be cautious and sweep every room, they can do that too. To stave off boredom I kinda automate the process if they're doing the same thing for every room.

Both work. I get both from the same group, usually after a trap triggers and does baaad things (like summon the Erinyes that almost TPKed them) comes the cautiousness, but they usually go back to being a bit reckless (but not overly stupid) after a while.

[Nicos]

Reward in that way?

I say let the things develop naturally acording to the character actions. I believe the DM should not intentionally reward nor punish.

[Reecy]

LOL Rynjin you are evil!

Bore them and then WHAM!

[Rynjin]

Well it's not like I make it hard for 'em to be careful. I let them make a Perception check to find EVERYTHING in the room should someone meet or exceed the DC to spot it (this is the "automation". Just speeds things up immensely) and tell them they just disarm traps/locks if Taking 10 would do it automatically.

And yet, sometimes, they still rush in.

But they have fun with it, so I don't punish them any more than the stuff that was already there would if they were unlucky.

[Lincoln Hills]

I fondly recall a situation years ago when the PCs I was running for - a group of 3rd-4th level at the time - bumped into a heavy-hitting NPC (Lord Robilar, NE fighter 18) who was not the villain (just a red herring /cameo passing through). I'd carefully laid signs (the remnants of an ambush against him that didn't work out: the shattered tavern where somebody had tried to pick his pocket) that he was Not To Be Crossed. To my surprise, though, the PC fighter was bold in a different way: he immediately came over and gushed about Robilar's incredible technique. This was a villain, but also a man sentimental about his own early career, so they wound up talking shop and parting amiably. The PC even got a few snippets of useful info out of it.

So... sometimes you wind up rewarding a different behavior than you thought you were.

[Shadow Stalker]

To be honest, I have never been in the role of a GM but I my group is a little cautious but we are never discussing every possible outcome. So I would probably say a mix of both.

[Shadow Stalker]

Sorry, a typo in my last post. Take out the I in "but I my group is a little cautious.".

[Rynjin]

You can edit posts, by the by.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's not a binary thing. But overall, I'd lean more towards rewarding bravery. Caution tends to be its own "reward," or rather... caution is encouraged by punishing bravery. IME, even today people still have bad old-school "Gygaxian dungeon" memories where DMs would brutally punish them for daring to not search every 5 ft square or the like and are by nature already plenty cautious. I also have found that it's very very easy to scare a party into being hyper cautious, and it is then very hard to get them out of that mental state. Finally, it's a game, and supposed to be fun. While caution and fun aren't completely incompatible, I do think you're likely to have more fun in games where you're not all jittery and paranoid and have no qualms about deciding to do cool but risky things.

So yeah, for many reasons, I would suggest encouraging bravery in general.

[Matthew Downie]

It's in the nature of the game that lack of caution is punished. It takes effort by the GM to make it work any other way.

Although it can be good technique when exploring a dungeon to buff up heavily, and then rush from room to room without wasting time searching for loot, traps, etc so your durations don't run out.

[Lincoln Hills]

Of course, some adventures favor one over the other. Time-based adventures tend to favor boldness, since there's usually a "ticking clock" in the plot. Hard-core delves such as the Tomb of Horrors reward caution. It's probably a good idea for GMs to match their adventure choices to their tastes.

[Aeshuura]

Often, as a GM, I reward both.

Caution is rewarded in that it saves the need for expenditure of healing resources or keeps the characters alive. I know, that is not much of a "reward" but some players are overprotective of their characters.

However, when I am running, my PCs are supposed to be the heroes. If they are brave and heroic, well, the risks are significantly higher, but the in-game rewards are greater as well. If they act like heroes, npcs are more willing to help, they may be rewarded with magic items, or treasure, or even special boons or training.

But that's just me. ^_^

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

i don't use a lot of traps that wouldn't make sense for the given creature.

so you don't see a lot of empowered, maximized, intensified fireball traps unless you are playing with a wannabe killer DM.

i don't tend to use a lot of high powered monsters

i used a lot of class leveled monsters applying such modifiers as "non-key" or even the PC monster CR reduction every 3 levels.

so a CR 2 Ogre with 6 levels of warrior (never key due to being an NPC class) would be CR 4 (6 non key levels divided by 2 = 3 CR +2 Base =5 CR -1 CR for more than 3 class levels up to half CR = for a total of CR 4.)

the CR 4 10HD ogre w/ 9 BAB, and 8th level NPC wealth, would have a glaive, cestus, composite bow, full plate, a some cheap buffing consumables. yeah, none of it's crap is masterwork, but it still deals damage. and the only items it has of value, would be it's bow and armor.

it isn't alone, being accompanied by 2nd level Ogre Warriors with similar equipment.

go ahead, loot the large stuff and sell it. more Ogres will still buy it because it is doubtful a human will really use it.

caution consumes less resources, but i tend to reward alternate approaches more than murder.

the party who successfully uses diplomacy to bribe and persuade the ogre cheiftan not to raid the fort, will recieve boons in the form of a chance to earn the respect of the living ogre tribe, and a possible pick of equipment from the human fort settler's supplies. instead of saying, Pick "x gp worth of items" it would be

take the captain's spare spear (a high powered magic longspear)

take 3 spare guard items from the armory (chance of being magical loot based on regional weapons)

or take a free commission for up to 3 magic items of your choice whose combined magical/special material cost together cannot exceed 30,000 gold pieces from the fort wizard.

[Kazumetsa Raijin]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Some GMs have a play style that encourages players to be thoughtful and cautious. Others have a style that encourages players to be brave and decisive. Each style has a disadvantage: 'killer GMs' who encourage caution sometimes result in dull sessions, while 'lenient GMs' who encourage bravery sometimes result in players taking dumb risks.

Which style of play does your GM encourage? Which style do you prefer in campaigns when you're a player?

Both should be rewarded.

If they have the intelligence and patience to make it through something without getting their heads lobbed off or being taken as a sex slave, they deserve a good bonus.

If they have the gall and toughness to just plow through it and somehow survive, they deserve a good bonus.

Either way, they're RPing, and at that point it should be just cool to experience. Some groups will likely favor one over the other, depending on how the groups composition is. If it is mostly party members who are built for combat, it's likely they'll barrel through it. If theyre mostly charismatic and more built on gathering information, talking, sneaking, etc. they will probably go for the careful approach.

The group I'm in has a mix of both and it's truly interesting to see. My ALWAYS curious Vanaras Qinggong Monk, tends to take actions while the strong members beat on the door and the more thoughtful characters plan and talk. He's always full of surprises :) It's not always the smartest thing to do, but boy is it always fun!

Edit: My Vanaras tends to get bored, whether we are barreling into combat or through a dangerous area, or while the group plans things out. If more than 18 seconds pass, he tends to act out of curiousity and impatience at the least. Personally I feel he is a blessing to the group, as he keeps things continually moving :)

[Gnomezrule]

MechE_ wrote:

You should reward good judgement. Sometimes caution is wise, other times, bravery is called for. It's definitely a balancing act, but both are necessary in certain situations.

It can't hurt to say good things about your GM. MechE is my GM and we have frustrated him with both our daring and our caution.

Favoring or rewarding one style over the other leaves some players or some characters out.

If I am playing a rogue "cat burglar" who is a meticulous careful thief then my caution should be understood and encouraged.

If I am playing a battle raging dwarf barbarian who has a deathwish because of family dishonor my recklessness should be understood and enjoyed until I die.

[claymade]

thejeff wrote:

The problem with that approach is that, unless you give very clear signs about which approach will work in a given situation, the PCs will learn very quickly to always take the slow careful way. It doesn't take a lot of deaths due to not checking thoroughly enough to push the players to check everything thoroughly.

Now that may be fine for you. That may be what you want them to do. You and they may be okay with the slow painstaking test everything approach. It seems like a lot of people are.
But that's making a decision about which approach you want, while claiming not to do so.

Well, yes, I do generally try to give those kind of signs you mention in most cases.

More importantly, I try not to have it be an all-or-nothing thing the first time out either. If the party somehow misses all the signs that they're going up against a paranoid, illusionist wizard with a sky-high INT this time out (or finds them, but doesn't draw the conclusion that when going up against a foe like that, not everything may be as it seems) I still don't generally lump all the CR-danger for the entire dungeon crawl into a single tricky instant-absolute-death trap. Sure, they may need to break out the CLW wands a bit earlier than they intended to if they misjudge the kind of enemy they're facing, but they shouldn't need a total party wipe to realize that this isn't the same kind of threat as the dumb horde of gnolls they were fighting last adventure.

And if, at the end of the day, they do decide it's better to just be cautious all the time, like you say they will? I don't call that "making a decision about which approach you want, while claiming not to do so". I'm just creating a coherent world (one where even the nature of the threats the party faces can vary widely due to their own actions and choices) and they're choosing how to respond to it with the precise measure of caution and bravery that they see fit. Neither approach of which is guaranteed to always "work" as well as the other. Just like in real life.

[DetectiveKatana]

See, a lot of people confuse bravery with foolishness. If the players have every reason to expect there are traps, but charge through every door blindly, then they're going to get hit by traps. Similarly, if there's a situation that requires quick action such as an escaping villain and the players check every five foot square for traps, the bad guy is likely to get away.

Now the understanding I try to have with my players is that if a set action is designed to "feel appropriate" then they won't be punished for that action.

[ShadowcatX]

You should reward good roleplaying, however it tends to go.

[RJGrady]

You should reward what is interesting.

[Renegadeshepherd]

Various adventures have different feels or tempo to it. I feel that u should reward what fits the conditions. If the players are overly cautious when there is no justification in story encourage them to be braver however u can. If they still refuse the. Introduce a hidden timer where they miss out on something ( and let them know if they moved faster they could have done "X")

Rewarding bravery is trickier but it will be loved by 90% of players.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think it should also be stated that the players are not freaking mind readers. Just because TO YOU, the DM, it is obvious in a given circumstance that that players should be acting more or less cautious or aggressively in moving through an area or whatever... it is probably not to them.

So again, I would be very careful with punishing bravery, because people don't like "random" bad stuff to happen to their characters, and once they rush ahead and get hit by traps... it's quickly going to condition them to be very cautious about ever doing it. Even if you then make the dungeons a playground of padded safety. Because again, they're not mind readers. For all they know, it's all just to lull them into a false sense of security before *BAM!* they get hit with some nasty trap yet again.

And I've sat through way too many paranoid check every square / debate for HOURS what is the best course of action type parties. It is mind-freaking-numbingly boring.

[DetectiveKatana]

This is true. On the whole, I believe players should be reasonably cautious. However, if my players reach a point where they feel a need to hold up the game checking every five foot square for traps then I, as a DM, have done something wrong*.

*The exception, I suppose, would be if the point of the dungeon was to make them feel paranoid and perhaps trapped themselves. But that would be a rare case if only because f how difficult that would be to do without it affecting their attitude for the rest of the game.

[Devilkiller]

Lack of caution has its own punishments, especially when PCs use bad tactics in combat but also when they charge headlong into unexplored areas. The DM sometimes has to pay more attention to punish excessive caution. If the party takes a long time to get through the dungeon there's a better chance that the BBEG will be fully buffed when they arrive. Other enemies might also get a chance to fall back and prepare defenses, ambushes, and other unpleasant surprises for the PCs. That includes enemies who set traps. I've always thought it seems kind of ridiculous how some dungeons have traps in heavily traveled areas where traps would be inconveient and possibly dangerous to the inhabitants. If the trap is one which can be activated and deactivated though we can assume that the monsters leave the trap off most of the time but set it when intruders are around. This can reward both caution and bravery since caution might let you find the trap before it goes off but bravery would help you reach the monster's lair before it gets a chance to set the trap.

In general, both bravery and caution should be rewarded as appropriate. When somebody is bold enough to charge in and do something which really needs to be done that's great. When somebody takes pointless risks with no potential rewards that's a waste of healing resources. If the Rogue or Druid scouts out the next room and gains valuable intelligence on upcoming enemies that's wonderful. If the "bored" Sorcerer wanders around opening random doors and releasing dangerous monsters that's kind of a pain.

If you want to see more "bravery" in your games you might consider using the hero point systems. That way PCs are less likely to get wiped out by a single minor mistake in a room where the module writer decided to pay homage to the game's Gygaxian heritage. I personally prefer traps which debuff the PCs to those which kill them, but you've got to follow up with combat quickly after the trap goes off. Otherwise higher level PCs will just fix the debuff with spells and wands and everybody will wonder why they had to sit through 5 minutes of doing so. Hit point damage, ability damage, and various status effects like sickened can all be great trap effects if you follow up with monsters who can benefit from the party's disadvantage.

[Dragonchess Player]

Strategic caution and tactical calculated boldness.

Strategic - The players should use advance planning and preparation (research the area/location/opponents, acquire equipment to deal with a variety of situations/threats, brainstorm combat techniques, choose spell selections based on expectations, etc.) ahead of time. This includes integrating individual character preparation and ensuring redundancy for key capabilities (giving the rogue with Use Magic Device and the ranger wands of healing to share healing duties/act as a back-up if the cleric goes down, etc.). Pre-planning basic combat actions (first 1-2 rounds) to expected scenarios can go a long way, as well.

Tactical - Seize and hold the initiative, making the opponents react to the party's actions. However, a level of caution is still required: maintain mutual support and lines of retreat in case of trouble; use terrain to your advantage as much as possible. Also, use high-risk/high-reward actions (charging past/through enemy minions to confront the BBEG one-on-one, etc.) sparingly; while dramatic, the odds don't favor success most of the time and leave the character exposed. It's hard to be more specific, as the tactics need to be matched to the individual circumstances of a particular scenario and the party's capabilities.

[The black raven]

My GM tends to reward bravery. Or rather to be bored/annoyed by caution.

Though he will also complain that we play overoptimized munchkins and lament the swift passing of his supposedly strong monsters.

So he is in fact sending mixed messages.

Also most players in my group have been TRAUMATIZED by Living Greyhawk under other GMs and tend to be extremely cautious. And I have unconsciously followed suit. Note that this was strengthened by the punishment the RAW inflicted on my very first character when I forgot about this whole AoO business.

This theme shines an interesting light on things. I need to add it to the things I should take into account when I will be the GM.

[Lincoln Hills]

I'll give a couple of quick examples of what I mean by 'rewarding' the behavior the GM wants - not in terms of extra XP or gold, but in terms of how the GM's attitude affects events in-game.

Rewarding bravery
The group arrives at a door and they know enemies are on the far side. Without a pause, they burst through! The GM who rewards caution will probably have his enemies standing and fully aware of the PCs' entrance, and may even have some short-term buff spells on his enemies. The GM who rewards bravery will have rolled the enemies' Perception to see which of them are surprised, and even those who made that check may be sitting, holding objects other than shields/weapons, or otherwise in a less-than-perfect position for immediate combat. (Catching an enemy in the tub is usually a sign that the GM is being too lenient.)

Rewarding caution
The group has evidence that Ambassador Konkurias is a werewolf. They shop around town for belladonna and silvered arrows, stake out the embassy, spot a wolf-like creature slinking out of the grounds, pursue and attack. The GM who rewards caution - allowing for the fact that the PCs have loaded up with appropriate tools and set the time and place of the encounter - will allow them to choose the spot in which they finally confront him (giving them input into the layout of the 'battle map' - open country? hedged road? light woods?) The GM who rewards bravery will consider all their preparations a chance for Konkurias' spies to alert him to the PCs' intent, so that Konkurias has gathered information on them and their skills; in this case the 'werewolf' the PCs are trailing is a decoy and the real Konkurias is stalking the PCs, intending to catch them in a flank attack when they attack his stooge.

[The black raven]

The whole thread raises a point that I did not consider at first.

We are talking about a GM rewarding caution or bravery and Lincoln Hills gave some good examples of just what that might mean.

But I am beginning to feel that this affects gameplay in such a big way that it should not be solely the choice of the GM.

As for any subject that will have a big impact on the whole game, I feel that the bravery/caution mix should be debated beforehand between the whole group (GM + players).

One of the advantages of such early communication is that it will help raise the GM's understanding of his own preference and how best to translate it in a coherent way of playing the story.

[Lincoln Hills]

All right, black raven: maybe we can look at the other side of the coin here too. All of you players out there - do you prefer campaigns where your GM rewards careful planners, or campaigns where your GM rewards bold action?

[Coarthios]

I say it depends on the character and if their actions make sense. I had an Errol Flynn style swashbuckler who is downright reckless in one campaign. It suited his character. That's not to say every daring deed he attempted worked out though.

If a character tries something risky, but it's smart and makes sense for the character and the campaign then I would be more favorable toward an outcome they're desiring. If they are being stupid and their behavior doesn't make sense and is counter-intuitive to what most people would do, I wouldn't do the player any favors and let the dice decide.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Some GMs have a play style that encourages players to be thoughtful and cautious. Others have a style that encourages players to be brave and decisive. Each style has a disadvantage: 'killer GMs' who encourage caution sometimes result in dull sessions, while 'lenient GMs' who encourage bravery sometimes result in players taking dumb risks.

Which style of play does your GM encourage? Which style do you prefer in campaigns when you're a player?

I like to reward both, while making bravery at times very dangerous.

If they want to be cautious professionals or daring heroes, it is up to them. When I play, I prefer the latter though, with only a touch of the former--except for some characters were I will play it very safe, and go as a skirmisher.

[3.5 Loyalist]

A few of my players can be reckless or daring, but I've got a good lot, including some new ones. They push their advantage but are usually cautious. One of my favourite players is an old school AD&D and Cthulhu guy, he plays it very cautious, and very brutal. He has taken foes out with chilli powder to the eyes. Ha ha!

[Vincent Takeda]

I prefer planning to brazen gusto most of the time, but every once in a while when planning gets a little to circular or a little too meta I will announce that my character intends to do something that everyone else in the party knows will be disastrous... A Leeroy Jenkins if you will... Just to give them the hint that perhaps its verb time.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Time to act, yeah.

[strayshift]

I give the pcs information on the challenges ahead (IF they research...) and the types of challenges dictate the pace of the game. The players will have plenty of warning prior to entering a trap heavy/combat heavy environment and I expect preparation, knowing their characters and their tactics (as well as the appropriate information to hand) makes the session go smoother.

[Nightwish]

If the party tends to exercise caution to a fault, over-analyzing everything to the point that it drags the game down, just remember that the enemy doesn't have to wait for them to finish strategizing. If they're doing that in combat, give them a time limit: "You've got ten seconds to decide, or your planning IS your initiative this round, and now for the bad guys ..." If they're doing it outside of combat, in town or whatever, just say the bad guys got wind that heavily armored tanks were coming after them and moved all their loot to a safe location. After a few battles that turn up nothing but short swords and leather armor, remind them that the longer they take to come up with a plan, the more time the enemy has to prepare for them (hey, bad guys can research, too).

On the other hand, if the party tends to throw caution to the wind every time, occasionally throw in something they just can't handle, forcing them to remember that "Run Away, Run Away" is sometimes good advice. Maybe that'll remind them that they're not invulnerable, and maybe a little caution can go a long way.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Ha ha, I'm imagining they are in their HQ in the war room, and they take so long planning that the enemies barge in and slaughter them all mid-sentence.

[Lincoln Hills]

Now that's a good example of a GM who rewards bravery over caution. ;)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like we're hearing a lot of GMs who like to think they strike a balance - or that they reward both caution and bravery - and hearing from players that GMs tend to punish bold action more often than not. D'you think that's just a result of our small sample pool, or is it indicative of the general trend?

[thejeff]

I get a little irritated with this. I mean I get it from a game point of view: You're holding up the game we want to get things moving, so a guy comes through the door with a gun. (To steal from Raymond Chandler).

Outside of combat, in town or whatever, it's really rare for PCs to waste enough time planning to really let the enemy hear about it and respond. Do the players literally spend days of real time planning? Or even more than a couple hours? How many game sessions did that take?

Sure, you don't want to spend the whole session over-analyzing things and I'm fine with some prodding to get moving, but I've had GMs force the "Okay, you've spent the whole day debating" thing and it just leads to arguments about how we've really only been sitting here talking for an hour or so, how does that take a day of game time.

[thejeff]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Now that's a good example of a GM who rewards bravery over caution. ;)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like we're hearing a lot of GMs who like to think they strike a balance - or that they reward both caution and bravery - and hearing from players that GMs tend to punish bold action more often than not. D'you think that's just a result of our small sample pool, or is it indicative of the general trend?

I suspect it's a perception thing.

We're more likely to notice punishment than reward. Punishment for bold action tends to be more immediate than punishment for caution. "It blows up in your face" as opposed to "you didn't catch him"
As has been said before, it only takes a couple bad experiences to throw a player into caution mode. I think striking a balance between rewarding bravery and caution is a lot harder than it looks.