In most games, I cannot bring myself to have NPCs deceive the PCs in a betrayal-type way. Does anyone else here feel the same when GMing?In general, there are only two scenarios wherein I will have NPCs deceive the PCs in a betrayal-type way:• The RPG in question is specifically one wherein intrigue, deception, backstabbing, and paranoia are front-and-center. I do not have a personal interest in running, say, Urban Shadows (PbtA) or any of the Vampire games, but if I were to do so, I would put traitorous NPCs on the metaphorical table.• I am running a premade adventure, and it specifically contains a character who will try to betray the PCs.Apart from this, I just cannot bring myself to have NPCs deceive the PCs in a betrayal-type way. For one, it is a little inelegant to resolve mechanically; I am not a fan of suddenly saying, "Please roll [social awareness skill] for me," nor am I a fan of the Path/Starfinder 2e method of secret checks.More importantly, I think it sets a poor precedent and creates an atmosphere of paranoia. The moment the PCs suffer from some unexpected betrayal, which the GM "laid so many obvious hints about" (sadly, they are often obvious only to the GM), the players are henceforth inclined to be paranoid about everything, always question NPCs, always assume the worst of NPCs, and so on, often with extreme overcorrection. Maybe this atmosphere fits some genres, but it is a poor fit for many.(Continued.)
I will give an example that happened just hours ago. I joined a D&D 4e game starting at level 11. The DM specifically denied the inherent bonuses (i.e. automatic bonus progression) variant rule. As level 11 characters, we had a lot of strong magic items.Our characters were serving aboard a spelljammer. The captain came on over with a big bag and asked us to put all of our weapons, armor, magic items, etc. inside it, because they needed to be warded for entry towards this new world we were approaching: which made sense at the time, given what we were told of said planet. Indeed, our characters all agreed to do so. The DM called for Insight checks. It later turned out that this was a dauntingly high DC 30 check, and we succeeded only after a whole lot of awkwardness. This was the very first check of the game.Yes, this was a succubus (or something vaguely similar, anyway) who was trying to nab all of our gear. And again, this was at the very start of the game. I do not know. The DM never said that this game would be about intrigue, backstabbing, paranoia, and so on. It would have felt awful had we actually had all of our gear nicked.What do you personally think?
If you can't lose, is it even really a game?And if the mechanics don't exist to simulate the world, is it really roleplay?The DM actually has a duty to the players not to pull punches, and to let the chips fall where they may.Allowing a player's character to be exposed to mechanics that may cause them to lose items, or die, or even be maimed permanently, are part of versimilitude.Traditionally, in roleplaying games there was no arbitrary mechanic that made the contents of your character inventory sacred.That's pure videogame-ism.
>>98376537Insight checks are D&Dogshit cancer. Clues when an NPC is lying should be actual clues, not skill checks.Run your NPCs with goals that exist independently of and may contrast those of the party. Friction will arise naturally without needing to be forced.
>>98376537>I cannot bring myself to have NPCs deceive the PCs in a betrayal-type way.How can you not? Why would you throw away such a wonderful big trope? It's a huge part of fiction to create conflict and create emotional buy-in to a story.>religiousJudas and JesusPeter and JesusDeliah and SamsonRavana and SitaLoki and BaldrTyr and FenrisSet and OsirisInanna and Tammuz>from old and modern fictionGanelon and Roland/CharlemagneLancelot/Guinevere and ArthurTristan/Iseult and MarkIago and OthelloClaudius and HamletMacbeth and DuncanSnape and VoldemortYueh and LetoAlia and PaulEdmund and Peter/Susan/LucyCypher and MorpheusLando and Han/Leia/C-3P0/R2-D2Saruman and the White CouncilBaltar and the Twelve Colonies>from historyBenedict and the Continental ArmyMitsuhide and NobunagaBrutus and JuliusEphialtes and the Hellenic coalitionQuisling and NorwayRobert Bruce and John ComynLu Bu and Dong ZhuoWhy would you deny your players this?
>>98376537>laid so many obvious hints about" (sadly, they are often obvious only to the GM)Oh, I just have every other NPC call Traitor Mcbetrayal untrustworthy at least three times before the party even meets Traity. That tends to get the point across.
>>98376549if the first interaction and first roll of the game is the captain of the ship your characters are serving aboard trying to steal their equipment, that's just bad DM'ing. >>98376817I usually have a Dealbreaker Jones type character in my games. He won't betray you like Mr. Johnson, but he acts more like a monkey's paw. He'll almost always do something that wasn't part of the deal. Sometimes it'll be helpful, sometimes it'll be harmful. But the PCs always know up-front.
>>98376537Nope, I love this shit. Whenever I GM I usually have at least one character who just flat out lies to the PCs, betrays them, claims to be reformed when called on this and then immediately and without shame betrays them again.There was one CoC game where the PCs were FBI investigators and their immediate superior was betraying them, and every time they called in he would immediately tell the bad guys were to find them. then when they were on the run and disavowed he very convincingly told them if they came in he could make everything right again and get their evidence in front of important people who could help them and he immediately set them up to be ambushed by goons. It was hilarious and I loved every second of it.
>>98376537It took me about twenty seconds to grasp that pic. Overtly cutesy-sexy vtuber cats distracted me from its true meaning
>>98378934They're (Demon) dogs actuallyAlso twins. Both character wise and IRL.
>>98376549Why a check, tho, rather than passive?Boy sounds new, or understood he was on some fuckshit.
>>98376537Deceptive npc interactions are tricky for sure and I'm of a largely similar inclination to you anon. >For one, it is a little inelegant to resolve mechanicallyThis can be overcome with the gm having marked down what the various player character stats and skills are and rolling for them, or having a separate mechanic for detecting deception like >the party will notice Vizier Nefariesto being shady on a 20% chance but can get fucked up if the lie or secret information is an essential gate to playing the rest of the game that evening. For long term faction play and reoccurring npcs it works but in an immediate drama game or shorter set up I just tell players when their character is suspicious because the intrigue is part of the fun and they can't engage with it if they don't know. The GM is the player's only means of engaging with the game world and their only source of accurate information, as well as the final arbitrator of how the game world resolves actions, so it seems counter productive and a bit wrong to trick them or pull fast ones unless the game is truly made for that sort of thing like Paranoia.
>>98376549>What do you personally thinkThis more sounds like the GM had a railroad about stealing your gear and tried really hard to have it still happen but it fell apart or didn't work out. Might have been some of why there was >a whole lot of awkwardness
>>98376549> What do you personally think?That trust as a GM can be difficult to get back, so your position is a good default one. I pulled it off without the betrayal being personal, but circumstances and foreshadowing made it easier.
>>98376537What's going on in this pic? Is she eating ham?
>>98377142>first roll of the game is the captain of the ship your characters are serving aboard trying to steal their equipmentIt was, and it was awkward.>>98378974Well, if it was passive, then we would have all failed that DC 30 to begin with.>>98379069I am really not sure what the actual game plan here was.>>98379543Yes, I do not want to set a precedent of "You should instantly distrust all NPCs by default." It makes plot hooks too difficult to dangle.>>98379585She is a dog, and she is having a pill given to her.
>>98379937>pillSo is this one of those drugged mind break scenarios?
>>98380102When you want to give a regular dog medicine you trick them by wrapping it in a treat like in this instance ham. The joke then is extending that same trick to a doggirl who doesn't't want to take their medicine(bc they're part dog).
