Encounters: Giving players a choice of action

I bet that if A is better, B is better in another situation.
So this simply means that A and B are going to be used eventually. But there is no choice.

Are there close calls where A and B are almost equal?
In that case, perhaps A might occur more than B. And if both choices cost something. Make the cost different. This way, the player might choose B instead from time to time if there is a close call. It is a tactic/strategy now, that the player can choose.

It can be done by whatever cost you have in mind. Simply have A cost different than B. Even if it is pokemon style.

***

Edit:
Different loot.
Burning the opponent to death will not leave fur in the loot. But it might have been faster.
Using poison will leave poisoned meat. Might be a weapon again.
Low health opponents will not really be damaged by poison. Let it be something that is added by choice.

Have a look through some old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books, and see how they did it. More sophisticated ones had ability scores of a kind, sometimes equipment lists, and the menu of choices was broadened by these factors.

But my point in mentioning this is that if the game is more narrative-driven then a player may want to have a go at sub-optimal choices on occasion to see how the story works out.

If the game isn't so story-driven as I'm intimating, then the comments above excellently illustrate the different rewards that are possible provided the player use different equipment and/or tactics.

The latest board game I've been developing has exactly that type of mechanic (in the OP). Each encounter presents a series of options with different outcomes each. I'm still working on this part, however, and while my goal is just what you said, Larienna, to make non optimal skill checks provide interesting outcomes, I haven't finished developing it, so I can't say a lot. It depends on the game, what rewards are possible, but I don't have combat have a higher reward.

Intrinsically, it has a more interesting reward - as combat is more fun to play out generally than sneaking away. Now if you can enhance the excitement regarding sneaking away (if witnessed, your social might drop as you are seen as a coward) or not fighting and not sneaking away, but trying to feed the animal, bribe the guard, etc. not pidgeon-holing the players is important.

I also have social combat, so you can get different benefits depending on what you are trying to accomplish. Not sure if you have that. Different answers, clues, secrets, etc. And you can also change the story by doing something other than combat that leads to other possibilities. All of these could make players rethink using only their best stat. Best of luck with yours.

In our designs, I think we all agree that interesting decisions make the game enjoyable for us. But as wob points out do those decisions have to be between an obviously better and worse option? This would seem to make the choice simple. Which I think is what larienna wants to steer away from. Why would you ever want to make the obviously bad choice, and therefore there wouldn't really be a choice (a no-brainer!).

What if instead the choice was just a matter of preference? Do I want my character to have red or blue armor? There are lots of games that do this to create a more thematic experience for their players instead of the brain-burner which suffers from analysis paralysis. I think this style lends itself well to dungeon crawl and fantasy rpg types. Players aren't too concerned about winning, often because it is us vs. game, but more interested in creating a hero they can relate to and experiencing an adventure with their fellow players.

Just thinking out loud. Thx

I think you might be on the right track with some of these possible solutions. I would just say the fundamental issue is with specialization and choices. If you want to focus on choices, make the character less specialized. Why doesn't the rogue tank? He's not good at it. Why doesn't the warrior sneak? He's not good at it. Specialization works best in groups. You are presented with a problem that has multiple solutions. If you are in a group, you can decide which way to approach the problem then send the person best at doing that thing. So if it's smash a monster, send the fighter. If it's steal the eggs, send the rogue. When you're on your own, it's best to be vaguely decent at everything just in case the thing you are good at isn't an option. So maybe the rogue is only slightly better at sneaking, etc.

I mean step away from the theme a bit and think about it. You ask a runner if he wants to enter a dead lift competition or a foot race. It doesn't really matter if the prize pool is bigger for the dead lift competition, the runner has a better shot at winning a race and it's what he does. Ask an average Joe the same question, he will take longer to weigh his options. Sure there is some scenario where a runner will pick to enter the dead lift competition, but it takes extra effort to make that happen.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to make your system work, I'm just trying to explain why it's kind of a pain to figure out.

This is regarding a RPG right? I know someone who added the following to his game. But it is still experimental. And it seems to be demanding certain theme's. It might spark new idea's for you though.

***

"Mistakes are to be learned from"

You could give the player points for failing an objective. And these points could be spend later on, in a way, to have other attempts being easier.

I'm just jumping into the discussion right here, so please forgive me if I am blissfully ignorant of the details...
This is kind of building off of what Ryan Winters sayd.
Regarding role specialties as was briefly discussed, could you have each role have a modifier to certain equipment bonuses?
For instance, the Rogue gains double the amount of Stealth from equipment items that grant Stealth points as other roles. Or the Warrior gains double Strength from items as compared to other roles.
An English Longsword would grant 2 Strength to the Rogue and Mage, but 4 Strength to the Warrior.
A pair of Silent Boots would grant 3 Stealth to the Mage or Warrior, but 6 Stealth to the Rogue.
Likewise, and this is the one that I think makes the most sense, a Wizard Staff would grant 2 Magic to the Rogue or Warrior, but 4 Magic to the Mage. Et cetera, et cetera.
Another option would be to make the consequences for losing different depending on the role. Rogue who slips up while sneaking may be able to recover from his mistake. Warrior who takes a hit in the shoulder has learned from years of experience to ignore the pain and push forward. Maybe you could even just have it in the form of a reroll of sorts, or something similar if you aren't using dice. No matter how much Sneaky cloth the warrior is wearing, he still may not have the experience to know how to Sneak like the Rogue. The Rogue will always have that edge from experience.
Again, I don't know much about how your game works, but it was just a way I could think of to make players more likely to give the Sneaky guy the Sneaky gear, or make the Sneaky guy do the Sneaking.