Was playing a game this evening...

 ...and I was thinking about risk aversion in dungeon games.

    There are many benefits to a high-risk, high-lethality game environment. When characters are vulnerable, one false move could spell their end, and every choice takes on increased meaning and impact. It's an easy way of heightening a game's emotional impact, and even works in extreme cases of murder-hoboery.

    The trouble with these environments is that they, naturally, inspire risk-averse play. This is only logical, appropriate, and encouraged. However, the heuristics involved in risk aversion means that the right decision is often the boring one. For example, I don't think I'm alone in the following default behaviors:

-It would take external time pressure, or the promise of reward, to leave an open road across easy terrain. I won't, say, cut through the forest instead of circumnavigating it, even if it's deeply convenient.

-When I'm choosing between pathways in a dungeon (for example), all else being equal, I'll avoid virtually all sounds. Then, I'll avoid virtually all smells. Then, I'll avoid virtually all light.

-Once my blood has been drawn, I will not parlay, even if the option is offered.

    Do you see the problem here? The risk-averse choice is almost tautologically similar to the boring one. The game world signposts its most interesting, dynamic elements. If you're in a high-danger game, these elements are liabilities, and customarily avoided. If you're in a low-danger game, poor choices don't have meaningful consequences, and the whole experience risks sagging.

    Even when I make the conscious choice to "play the character who pushes the button", a niche I love to occupy, there's a difference between assuming a personal risk and suggesting a potentially risky behavior for the whole party. That is to say, in my experience, the very same glue that holds the adventuring party together keeps it from making bold decisions.

    I don't think this problem has one clean solution. XP for gold helps, but doesn't solve the problem. Aggressive time pressure, and clear and specific objectives, often help, but aren't always possible to implement, and in cases of extreme stringency can lead to myopia, exacerbating the issue. Parity between choices (down this hall you hear laughing, down the other you hear chains rattling) neatly sidesteps the issue, but isn't always feasible.

    The most concrete suggestion I can give is to design adventures with risk aversion in mind. Intentionally build incentives to risk into the structure of the adventure, and design choice points to minimize the impact of risk averse play. Reward risk early, instead of merely not punishing it, so the party learns quickly that big swings can be worthwhile. Above all, assume by default that a party will interact with an adventure conservatively- if that would steer them away from what makes the adventure cool, consider putting those elements closer within reach.

    If you have other suggestions or thoughts, I'd love to hear them. Does this reflect your experience of OSR+ play? If you're a DM, or a player, how do you contend with these challenges?

    Thanks for reading, and happy gaming.