I think instances where a Downside has no downside for some players should be avoided wherever possible.

per Bucky — i’d prefer this as “Lose 1 Food, or 2 Food if you have no Defences”.

Agreed

I disagree; a urge to ensure perfect balance will result in the whole thing being weirdly textureless

@Josh texture is important, but we’re not saying the whole thing has to be balanced — i just think that, if there’s ever a complete no-downside option, the Dilemma gets a lot less interesting!

This isn’t a complete no-downside, though; it’s situational. It only applies to people with low defence. Situational consequences are an interesting idea space to me.

If anything I think it would be more interesting if this was -2 or -3 food, so going into negative defence carried proper risk of closing possibility space.

I like situational consequences, but wish to limit the frequency of situational complete-lack-of-consequences.