I'm still on this idea.
Perhaps the key is in telegraphing to the player? This way one can convey enough information to assess risk, without creating a cake or die situation.
For an example, let's say we have a COYA style of survival horror game. A person has gone missing, presumed dead, and people suspect some kind of creature is involved. The player is a private eye hired to find the person or at least figure out what happened, preferably without dying. The find themselves at a remote cabin. Searching the bottom floor finds nothing of interest. They can go upstairs, but the creature is actually there and will attack if the player approaches.
Not enough information
You search the bottom floor of the cabin and find nothing. Do you want to:
a) search upstairs
b) call it a day and leave
(Possibly) too much information
While searching the bottom floor of the cabin, you hear a rustling from upstairs. Looking up to the ceiling, you see a trail of ooze seeping through the upstairs floorboards. It leads from the center of the room and heads towards the stairs. Whatever is up there, seems to be coming your way. Do you want to:
a) head upstairs
b) get the hell out of there
Something in between
You start searching the bottom floor of the cabin, but are interrupted by the sound of a drip. You look up and see a wet spot on the ceiling. Something dark and viscous is seeping through the floorboards above. Do you want to:
a) Draw your gun and rush upstairs
b) Quietly sneak upstairs for a peek
c) Leave and head back to town
So, the not enough information is just a game of Russian roulette. You have no reason not to search upstairs. You are, in fact, there to search for something so it stands to reason you should. If anything, the writer is dooming the player with a trap. I could see the player feeling cheated here.
On the other hand, with too much information, the answer is pretty obvious. You're a private eye, not a monster hunter.
The "something in between" relays information to the player for evaluation. Something is seeping through the floorboards. It could be the missing person bleeding out, it could be the creature. No movement is detected so whatever it is could already be dead (or unconscious). So, you could rush it to capitalize on the element of surprise. Or, you can play it safe, but you lose the surprise. Or, you could head back to town, maybe drum up reinforcements, but whatever is there could be gone when you return.
But, I think even this has nuances. That is, if quietly sneaking leaves the player unprepared and thus falls into the creature's trap, while rushing in gives them a fighting chance, it almost robs the player for choosing the "safe" option. A more fair outcome might be that (a) is high risk (having to fight the creature solo), high reward (might kill the creature), and (b) leads to a (b2) of something like, "you creep up the stairs and see a creature with it's back to you latched on to the corpse of Marty McMissing, what do you do", which is now lower risk (giving them the opportunity to sneak off with what they've seen) and reward (the creature can get away before the player can return, possibly leading to more victims).
I mean, telegraphing is not an esoteric strategy. But, I also don't seem to see it used a lot either. Does this even solve the problem, though?
