PDA

View Full Version : DM lying to players



Silus
2013-05-01, 12:45 PM
With me being the DM in this situation.

So here's the short of it. Running a game with a world with "no magical creatures" (dragons, chimera, fey, etc). It's one of those things that I'll emphasize to the players every time they bring it up. Of course I'm lying through my teeth and plan to throw some "magical creatures" (see: Werewolves) at the players in a "Yeah, the world if more complex and strange than you thought it would be". Not out of the blue mind you. There'd be some buildup to the whole "Surprise! Werewolves!" thing.

As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

Kyberwulf
2013-05-01, 12:50 PM
I don't know. Does that extend to no magic at all? Because if there are no magical creatures, that means that the players really don't have any idea about any weaknesses the monsters have.

How would a world with no magical creatures exist with magic in the world.

Geordnet
2013-05-01, 12:51 PM
Yes.

I wouldn't be so mad if you had said something like "they exist in fairy tales", avoided the subect, talked around the issue, et cetera. Exactly what you can say will depend on your setting, though.

Barsoom
2013-05-01, 12:52 PM
I'd say it's a nice twist. However, "know your audience" caveat applies.

Geordnet
2013-05-01, 12:52 PM
How would a world with no magical creatures exist with magic in the world.

The same way you can have sci-fi wihout aliens. :smalltongue:

Silus
2013-05-01, 12:57 PM
I don't know. Does that extend to no magic at all? Because if there are no magical creatures, that means that the players really don't have any idea about any weaknesses the monsters have.

How would a world with no magical creatures exist with magic in the world.

Regular magic (probably a tad heavy on the arcane side). And....I dunno, there just aren't typical magical creatures. Sure, some cryptids (yeti, sea serpent, etc) may exist, but big city destroying things like dragons and the like don't because....*Shrugs* They just don't. Killed off en masse I suppose. Driven to extinction then forgot about. Faded into legend or something.

The general way I'd try to handle the whole werewolf thing would be something like this:

"While you're at the bar, a dwarven woodsman stumbles in, covered in blood and a little drunk. He's babbling about 'Wolf men' in the woods and seems half deranged. A few bar patrons help the dwarf to a table and fetch him a beer."

"The centaur barman shakes his head and looks to you (the players). 'Pay him no mind. Local legends and whatnot. Everyone 'round here knows that the wolf-man legends are just that. Legends.'"


Yes.

I wouldn't be so mad if you had said something like "they exist in fairy tales", avoided the subect, talked around the issue, et cetera. Exactly what you can say will depend on your setting, though.

Well there'd be some buildup to it, not just dropping it out of left field. This would take place in the campaign fairly early'ish, before the players start delving into the weird and hidden magical side of the world (Sphinx archivists, colossal intelligent undead owl oracles, fey empresses, etc.).

valadil
2013-05-01, 12:59 PM
Depends on what the GM said exactly. I think I'd object to "I want to run a game with no magic," but not to "I want to run a game set in real world England circa 1800."

It also depends on who the GM is. I know some GMs who would run a no magic game, just so their NPCs could be the only ones with magic. I know others who would run it that way because they wanted their players to feel the surprise their characters felt. I try to only play with the latter type of GM, but if the former pulled this kind of stunt I'd be upset.

Silus
2013-05-01, 01:02 PM
Depends on what the GM said exactly. I think I'd object to "I want to run a game with no magic," but not to "I want to run a game set in real world England circa 1800."

It also depends on who the GM is. I know some GMs who would run a no magic game, just so their NPCs could be the only ones with magic. I know others who would run it that way because they wanted their players to feel the surprise their characters felt. I try to only play with the latter type of GM, but if the former pulled this kind of stunt I'd be upset.

Well the world is:

-Low Fantasy: No mythical monsters or creatures (fey, outsiders, abberations, dragons, etc).
-High/Low magic: High arcane, Low Divine (Divine casters are allowed, they’re just less prominent than arcane casters (Druids are far more common than clerics though)
-Medium technology: The overall tech level is around the Industrial period (steam and coal power being “things”)

'Course the "Low Fantasy" bit is a lie. In-game conventional wisdom, even un-conventional wisdom outside of really, REALLY old creatures states that dragons, fairies, and werewolves are nothing more than myth and legends told to entertain and frighten.

atomicpenguin
2013-05-01, 01:02 PM
There is only one instance I can think of where that would be bad: if there are any substances or weapons that would have an advantage over magical creatures that they didn't buy because you told them they wouldn't need to fight any magical creatures and you then have them fighting magical creatures all the time. That'd be like saying "you don't need to put points in swimming because the campaign takes place in rural colorado", then magically teleporting your party to oceanworld in the first session. This is intentionally misleading your party so they will be worse off in your campaign when, under normal circumstances, they should have been way better off.

But this doesn't seem to be what you're doing. What you're doing is saying that, officially, something shouldn't exist so that when you do produce magical creatures that it has the higher shock value that it should in the world you've created. But there are ways you can do it right. Firstly, you shouldn't just say they don't exist if you can avoid it. This is outright lying to the players and, even though its for a good cause in this case, your players may resent it later. Instead, have a character in your world tell them that or, if you are speaking as the GM, say things like "No one has ever seen anything like that in my world" or other statements that convey that as far as anyone knows magical creatures don't exist. This is technically true, because your NPCs genuinely do believe this.

Also, if you can, read or watch Game of Thrones. George R.R. Martin does a great job of introducing magical concepts with the caveat that they don't really exist anymore, filling the plot with mundane occurrences that have nothing to do with magic and in some cases could include magic but don't, then coming out of left field with something crazy and weird that must be magical. Its all about the pacing. Make your characters do a bunch of mundane missions to make them forget about the issue of magical creatures, then one day, Wham! the villain is a werewolf or using werewolves! Also, when you tell them this, give them a minute or two to react to this. This will hopefully generate the shock of seeing something that shouldn't happen that you're going for.

Doug Lampert
2013-05-01, 01:06 PM
With me being the DM in this situation.

So here's the short of it. Running a game with a world with "no magical creatures" (dragons, chimera, fey, etc). It's one of those things that I'll emphasize to the players every time they bring it up. Of course I'm lying through my teeth and plan to throw some "magical creatures" (see: Werewolves) at the players in a "Yeah, the world if more complex and strange than you thought it would be". Not out of the blue mind you. There'd be some buildup to the whole "Surprise! Werewolves!" thing.

As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

I'd be upset, you can lie to my character, but not to me. Seriously, I do my best to maintain character/player separation. This means when you lie to me you are lying to me. My character can be given all the false information you want to give him, but he is not me.

Do you WANT your players to maintain player/character separation and to not metagame? Then DON'T lie to the players to support a missunderstanding that the CHARACTERS have. You are either (A) deliberately encouraging metagaming by destroying the very idea (that the character and player are separate things) that prevents metagaming or (B) deliberately lieing to the PLAYERS, not characters about the rules of a game they are playing.

Which of these is a good idea?

navar100
2013-05-01, 01:06 PM
Yes

It means I can't trust you. If I can't trust you, I question every decision. If I question very decision, I don't get to enjoy the game.

Silus
2013-05-01, 01:12 PM
I'd be upset, you can lie to my character, but not to me. Seriously, I do my best to maintain character/player separation. This means when you lie to me you are lying to me. My character can be given all the false information you want to give him, but he is not me.

Do you WANT your players to maintain player/character separation and to not metagame? Then DON'T lie to the players to support a missunderstanding that the CHARACTERS have. You are either (A) deliberately encouraging metagaming by destroying the very idea (that the character and player are separate things) that prevents metagaming or (B) deliberately lieing to the PLAYERS, not characters about the rules of a game they are playing.

Which of these is a good idea?

*Nods* I understand. The werewolf thing was actually an afterthought, a way to pad an already depressingly thin campaign (or at least add in more substance to those "going from point A to B" bits). The whole "there are no magical/mythical creatures" thing was established to 1) help explain how the tech level is around Industrial levels, and 2) to keep the players from making insane characters.

Now if I started hinting at the existence of these mythical elements early on, would that be better than springing something lie werewolves on the players? For example, the players are gonna start in a village near a sort of Black Forest type forest. Maaaaaassive forest stretching for tens of miles. Maybe drop hints of monsters of fairies in the woods that, hopefully, the players will discount as nothing more than rumors and such.

Deepbluediver
2013-05-01, 01:12 PM
I think I see the issue here: Tabletop gamers can get kind of jaded experienced over time, and something that should evoke shock and awe becomes mundane and humdrum.
Werewolves? AGAIN? Oh well break out the silver and fire.

So the DM is, I think, trying to bring some of the shock and surprise and excitement back into the game. (correct me if I'm wrong)

That being said, while lycnathropy is labeled as a magical disease in D&D, it doesn't have to be, and werewolves are not (I think) normally considered an inherently magical creature. They are typically classified as human(oid) with either a subtype or a template.

So rather than saying "no magical creatures", a better way to phrase it might be: the following creature types do not exist: dragons, fey, elementals, outsiders, whatever else you want, etc. Also, there are no intelligent humanoid races other than humans.
Which makes for a perfectly viable game world, without needing to "lie" to your players.


As several other people have said, your group's reaction will depend largely on the group, which you know better than the rest of us. If it where me and some one mentions "Wolf Men" then werewolves are the first thing that comes to mind no matter what else the DM might have told me.
Either that or its just bandits in funny costumes.


If you really want to surprise and/or confuse your players, a better option might be to do the "Our X are different" trope. Cultured and sophisticated orcs, savage and barbaric gnomes, mechanically inclined elves, etc, which keeps players on their toes but won't trap you with your own words.

Coidzor
2013-05-01, 01:17 PM
With me being the DM in this situation.

So here's the short of it. Running a game with a world with "no magical creatures" (dragons, chimera, fey, etc). It's one of those things that I'll emphasize to the players every time they bring it up. Of course I'm lying through my teeth and plan to throw some "magical creatures" (see: Werewolves) at the players in a "Yeah, the world if more complex and strange than you thought it would be". Not out of the blue mind you. There'd be some buildup to the whole "Surprise! Werewolves!" thing.

As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

Yeah, you could have communicated that idea to the players without having to directly lie to them. Ambiguity is your friend. So, yes, I'd be upset at the DM for violating the compact of trust about when deception is acceptable as part of the game and when the DM is not to act with deception because we're not actually playing the game when the deception is made.

Silus
2013-05-01, 01:19 PM
I think I see the issue here: Tabletop gamers can get kind of jaded experienced over time, and something that should evoke shock and awe becomes mundane and humdrum.

So the DM is, I think, trying to bring some of the shock and surprise back into the game.

That being said, while lycnathropy is labeled as a magical disease in D&D, it doesn't have to be, and werewolves are not (I think) normally considered an inherently magical creature. They are typically classified as human with either a subtype or a template.

Well the idea is that the players would encounter the werewolf/ves in the northern reaches of the world where there's an increasing amount of magical radiation (outright rumors of Winter Wolves at the north pole for example). Likely gonna treat lycanthropy as a curse if anything. Or I'll just take a wolf and tack on the Manimal template to it and use that.


If you really want to surprise and/or confuse your players, a better option might be to do the "Our X are different" trope. Cultured and sophisticated orcs, savage and barbaric gnomes, mechanically inclined elves, etc, which won't trap you with your own words.

Already doing that =P

Drow are a race of mad scientists that use magic to dabble in genetics, Orcs take after the WoW noble shamanistic savage, and Centaur kinda bounce between tribal and city dwelling.


Yeah, you could have communicated that idea to the players without having to directly lie to them. Ambiguity is your friend. So, yes, I'd be upset at the DM for violating the compact of trust about when deception is acceptable as part of the game and when the DM is not to act with deception because we're not actually playing the game when the deception is made.

What I'm worried about though is that the players see through the deception. They are, in all probability, more experienced than I am and therefore more genre savvy. I understand that they'll likely keep up the IC/OOC separation, but I still want to try legitimately shock/surprise them the first time one of these supernatural things shows up.

I'm worried that dropping too many hints will have the players going "Ok, he's dropping hints, so there's a chance that he's gonna throw this stuff at us in the future". Next thing you know, they'll be buying silver weapons "just because" or something :smalleek:

TheStranger
2013-05-01, 01:28 PM
I don't know if it's early enough in this campaign to do this, but you could have the "no magical creatures" thing play out in-game instead of just telling your players.

What I mean is, you do your worldbuilding such that people may believe in dragons, goblins, or whatever, but all "reasonable" people know that these are just stories - folklore, but not something that educated people believe in. Then you build on that by having a couple adventures where your players investigate something that looks like a vampire attack, and that all the villagers are insisting is a vampire attack, only to find out that the "vampire" was really Old Man Withers in a mask. Throw a couple of those at your players, then have an actual werewolf start killing people.

Geordnet
2013-05-01, 01:29 PM
Regular magic (probably a tad heavy on the arcane side). And....I dunno, there just aren't typical magical creatures. Sure, some cryptids (yeti, sea serpent, etc) may exist, but big city destroying things like dragons and the like don't because....*Shrugs* They just don't. Killed off en masse I suppose. Driven to extinction then forgot about. Faded into legend or something.

The general way I'd try to handle the whole werewolf thing would be something like this:

"While you're at the bar, a dwarven woodsman stumbles in, covered in blood and a little drunk. He's babbling about 'Wolf men' in the woods and seems half deranged. A few bar patrons help the dwarf to a table and fetch him a beer."

"The centaur barman shakes his head and looks to you (the players). 'Pay him no mind. Local legends and whatnot. Everyone 'round here knows that the wolf-man legends are just that. Legends.'"
Hm, it seems that you're going back on yourself here. I don't know about anyone else, but I would classify both dwarves and centaurs as "magical creatures". :smalltongue:


You shouldn't worry about surprising the players so much, methinks. Lying about traditional monsters might work for the first encounter, but it's more likely to end in bad feelings. Either way, once the dam breaks, they'll go back to expecting everything again.


I think a better idea would be to subvert the natural expectations of the players. Tell them that all traditional monsters exist in myth, even when they ask if they exist in (in-verse) fact.

But then, when the players (and PCs) think "werewolf", throw in a new twist. Make the werewolf the Cŵn Annwn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C5%B5n_Annwn) instead (or at least a "backwards" werewolf). Make it so that the full moon is their weakest moment, because it drives them crazy. When they bring silver weapons, have them find out it they're worthless without the right protective runes. When they go seek out a wizard for the runes, have them turn out to be just shapes that anyone can draw.

If you want to really surprise them, you'll have to get creative. :smallbiggrin:

Silus
2013-05-01, 01:32 PM
I don't know if it's early enough in this campaign to do this, but you could have the "no magical creatures" thing play out in-game instead of just telling your players.

What I mean is, you do your worldbuilding such that people may believe in dragons, goblins, or whatever, but all "reasonable" people know that these are just stories - folklore, but not something that educated people believe in. Then you build on that by having a couple adventures where your players investigate something that looks like a vampire attack, and that all the villagers are insisting is a vampire attack, only to find out that the "vampire" was really Old Man Withers in a mask. Throw a couple of those at your players, then have an actual werewolf start killing people.

Hmm...

That...

I actually think I'll do that :smallbiggrin: I need to pad the first three or four levels out before the big bad shows up anyway. They'd probably get to the werewolves by level....5-6? There's gonna be like 6-7 players and I've all but outright suggested they pick up the Leadership feat...



You shouldn't worry about surprising the players so much, methinks. Lying about traditional monsters might work for the first encounter, but it's more likely to end in bad feelings. Either way, once the dam breaks, they'll go back to expecting everything again.

The idea is that the werewolves will be a sort of wakeup call in the "monsters do exist" kinda way.

I mean, they're going off to a huge druid controlled world tree city to meet an oracle that turns out to be a Gigantean Awakened Giant Owl Lich Oracle to get info and directions to three other sites, one of which is the den of a Sphinx (likely the last living one) and eventually to an underground location to stop a Denizen of Leng from using a lost Cubic Gate to rip open the planar barrier that's locked down the world so Leng has a direct passage for slave taking. And the tearing down of the barrier sets off a planar beacon that attracts extraplanar entities to the fresh, ripe world of unclaimed souls.

Splynn
2013-05-01, 01:39 PM
I wouldn't be upset at all. Hell, I would even applaud the move, since you're starting to tinker with the setting you've created and that usually produces the most interesting stories.

The role-playing part of this is what should be more fun. Even to the players; not just the characters. Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back wouldn't have been nearly as fun if, every time Luke mentioned Vader, someone said "btw, Vader is Luke's dad. You're not supposed to know this, but we don't want to lie."

Not only is that idea ridiculous, it's crap storytelling. Roleplaying should be telling a story just as much as allowing the players to overcome obstacles such as werewolves.

It's not about whether or not the players would allow the information to affect their decisions; it's about having a surprise in the story. This is no different than having a major villain be the father of one of the characters and not telling them until the reveal.

The one thing you ABSOLUTELY have to do, though, is make sure that the group has adequate resources once they do go monster-hunting. If they go after a werewolf, they should be able to roll "gather information" or knowledge checks in order to decide what the weaknesses of such creatures are. And then they should be able to procure the items.

If you don't allow that then you are probably just making the fight more annoying than it should be, and setting the group up for failure. That is where this turns from storytelling to sabotaging the group; avoid that line.

Silus
2013-05-01, 01:42 PM
The one thing you ABSOLUTELY have to do, though, is make sure that the group has adequate resources once they do go monster-hunting. If they go after a werewolf, they should be able to roll "gather information" or knowledge checks in order to decide what the weaknesses of such creatures are. And then they should be able to procure the items.

If you don't allow that then you are probably just making the fight more annoying than it should be, and setting the group up for failure. That is where this turns from storytelling to sabotaging the group; avoid that line.

Find some silver weapons in the cabin they're holed up in alongside an Apocalypse Journal mentioning how "the wolf men don't seem to care for the silverwear I shot at them. That might be the way to bring the beasts down"?

Splynn
2013-05-01, 01:47 PM
Find some silver weapons in the cabin they're holed up in alongside an Apocalypse Journal mentioning how "the wolf men don't seem to care for the silverwear I shot at them. That might be the way to bring the beasts down"?

Yea, that'd work fine. Or, for example, if it's trolls, then perhaps have the fight start in a dry part of the forest, then lightning strikes a tree and now there's a source of fire.

The troll seems particularly concerned about the fire.

You don't have to hand stuff to them directly, but you do need to make sure that your players can handle what you're throwing at them. What you've just described should work more than great. Even only one silver weapon is enough. Just don't handicap your players for the purpose of storytelling.

Darius Kane
2013-05-01, 01:49 PM
I wouldn't believe you. If there's magic, there are bound to be magical creatures. If you would say "There are no magical creatures" I would say "Why you lying, bro?"

Coidzor
2013-05-01, 01:57 PM
I wouldn't be upset at all. Hell, I would even applaud the move, since you're starting to tinker with the setting you've created and that usually produces the most interesting stories.

The role-playing part of this is what should be more fun. Even to the players; not just the characters. Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back wouldn't have been nearly as fun if, every time Luke mentioned Vader, someone said "btw, Vader is Luke's dad. You're not supposed to know this, but we don't want to lie."

Wrong way of thinking about it. Obi-Wan used weasel words to dodge the issue. This scenario is more like if Luke had point-blank asked Obi-Wan if Darth Vader was his father and Obi-Wan point-blank said no with no room for ambiguity.

TinyHippo
2013-05-01, 01:59 PM
If you tell the players (players, not characters) something, it should be the truth. If the DM changes the rules of the world, that breaks trust in the DM. It would for me, anyway.

Deepbluediver
2013-05-01, 02:01 PM
@Silius

It might help if you gave us more background on the starting scenario and the long-term goal for this game.

For example, if the players start of in a magic-creature-less land, and have several adventures without seeing a single dragon scale or tuft of werewolf fur, then the slow introduction of new species of the ramping up of magical effects can make for a very interesting campaign.

If the story starts out like "You all meet in a tavern when werewolf victim #1 tumbles through the door..." then at best your players will wonder what the point was. And the implications for your style of DMing are not very good.


If you want to set the stage a little bit, rather than declaring something like "no magical creatures", just TELL the players that, up until this point, most people think that stories of magical creatures are just that: myths and legends. And while your players may know whats going on, no NPC will believe them. You can set up a scenario and if your players are decent people they should go along with it, but at all costs I think you want to avoid any statements you know will be outright false.

Silus
2013-05-01, 02:23 PM
@Silius

It might help if you gave us more background on the starting scenario and the long-term goal for this game.

For example, if the players start of in a magic-creature-less land, and have several adventures without seeing a single dragon scale or tuft of werewolf fur, then the slow introduction of new species of the ramping up of magical effects can make for a very interesting campaign.

If the story starts out like "You all meet in a tavern when werewolf victim #1 tumbles through the door..." then at best your players will wonder what the point was. And the implications for your style of DMing are not very good.


If you want to set the stage a little bit, rather than declaring something like "no magical creatures", just TELL the players that, up until this point, most people think that stories of magical creatures are just that: myths and legends. And while your players may know whats going on, no NPC will believe them. You can set up a scenario and if your players are decent people they should go along with it, but at all costs I think you want to avoid any statements you know will be outright false.

Well the "no magical creatures" thing was, at the time, a sort of catch all where the players wouldn't be asking if X creature existed (Kobalds, oozes, dragons, demons, etc).

The campaign is gonna run like this (with some variation, sandboxing and more than a heaping helping of improvisation).

Players meet up and preform some odd jobs until about level 3-4 (Backstory, establishing character personalities and inter-party dynamics, bounty hunting, exploring, etc). When they get to the city Tamaria at the edge of the Black Forest esque Fairywood, a sort of magical SETI like research station explodes (The station is attempting to contact the "outside" that lies beyond a several millennia old planar barrier). They players rush in, maybe save some lives, and come across a being that'll be called "The Denizen" (A Denizen of Leng Summoner which breaks all the stablished rules about summoning and extraplanar creatures due to him essentially sledgehammering his way through the barrier). A little later, the players get called upon by a person known as "The Queen", the benevolent ruler of Tamaria and the Fairywood.

Players go meet her, tell her what happened. It's likely gonna be obvious that she knows more than she's letting on. She sends the players north to Calastiss, a druid controlled city inside the base of a massive World Tree up in the magically rich Northern Reaches (Basically Canada/Russia). Players get there, meet with the government, find out that they are to see the oracle that lives high in the boughs of the tree. Players travel up and find that the oracle is really a massive undead owl (In a rather shameless shout out to Secret of NIMH). The owl tells the party that bad stuff is going down and that there are three locations they must go to to get all the knowledge they'll need to combat the rising threat: A temple on a desert/jungle peninsula for the location of where the Denizen is headed, a lost library in a desert canyon to what the the Planar Barrier is, what the Denizen plans to do, and what will happen if the barrier is dropped, and lastly to a mountain monastery to learn just what the Denizen is and how to kill him permanently.

After that they have to travel to the industrial city of Bastion to head underground (there's a train) to the Drow city of Markibyr. From there, they descend to the lowest caverns of the world to locate a lost and partially sunken city that holds the only remaining Cubic Gate that the Denizen will use to bore through the Barrier. Various alternate paths here (at least deciding to go through a downed spacecraft that holds an Elder Evil is stasis or through a glowing fungus forest and play hide-and-seek with an albino Gug), and they end up at the edge of an underground sea. The Denizen is already at the city, which lies on an island out on the sea. Party goes out, stomps him and his summoned beast and realizes that they are too late and that the Barrier will fall in 1d4+1 years.

After that they players are tasked by the Queen to rally an army and stock up resources for the inevitable extraplanar invasion.

TL;DR The players start out as regular adventurers and realize that the rabbit hole that is the world goes far deeper than they thought and that the legends that they thought were just legends are indeed fact.

The end goal is for them to save the world from a fiendish invasion and either A) stay to protect the world and then ascend to diety status upon death, or B) launch a counter invasion of Hell. The lack of the planar barrier will also allow for Summoners to be a thing and the extraplanar influences to start to affect local politics and races.

JusticeZero
2013-05-01, 02:25 PM
Right - if you want to surprise them, it is best to do so by introducing a formerly unknown element that the players have never heard of. Look into mythology of other countries for things that are downright odd. Slip them in in your game in places where they did not think anything was, even though they are not in the context of your game culture. Qalupalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qalupalik) or Kushtaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushtaka) in your Mediterranian-ish setting, for instance. (Don't know what those are? Neither will your players, most likely.)
Then, and this is important, do not name them. Just give description. If the players nickname them, write that down as the name and use that name instead.

illyrus
2013-05-01, 02:31 PM
Personally if we were playing D&D and the GM was swearing up and down that there were no monsters then I'd expect them even more. I think a simple "your characters have never seen a monster, they only ones who have get put away for being nuts; if they exist it all then they'd have to be pretty good at hiding" would do fine.

Personally I'd rather do the first reveal as more subtle then something like a werewolf attack (I realize it was just an example). Maybe some fey that masquerades as a human and knows some common vampire lore. The fey starts playing up the vampire tropes one by one and the party becomes more and more convinced that they have a vampire on their hands. When they finally splash it with holy water, present a holy symbol, turn it, try to drive a stake through its heart (thank goodness for fey DR) it screams in terror/pain that gives way to laughter.

If I was going to run it more straight then I'd modify a bunch of the weaknesses. Shapechangers have DR/obsidian, a troll-like thing looks human and only gains regeneration for a few rounds upon consuming the flesh of humanoids or by ripping off their limbs to replace its own, etc.

Stuff that within the game will make sense and the characters can research, but the players having foreknowledge on monsters will do them little good because the smart monsters will play at being something else or monsters are just different than presented in the MM.

Alejandro
2013-05-01, 02:34 PM
That'd be like saying "you don't need to put points in swimming because the campaign takes place in rural colorado", then magically teleporting your party to oceanworld in the first session.

Depending on where and what season in Colorado, you'd be surprised. :) But I get your point.

Water_Bear
2013-05-01, 03:00 PM
I like the idea that a seemingly mundane(-ish) world where the characters think they know what they're dealing with suddenly turns around on them, but this seems like the wrong way to do it.

Rather than manipulating the Players directly, which is going to piss them off and make them less likely to trust you in the future, you should control character knowledge.

Like, you might say "Learned people know that monsters only exist in fairy tales" instead of "This world has no monsters" in the beginning.
Or if they make a Knowledge (Monster Lore) check, say "You remember that the <Monster> is a fictional creature which in myths is said to <Monster Info>."
Or if a +1 Sword of Ogre Decapitation shows up and they identify it, say that it's a weapon which in legend was said to be able to cut the head off an ogre in one swoop.

That way the Player's don't feel dicked around, their abilities still work, and there are even rewards for players smart enough to read between the lines.

TheStranger
2013-05-01, 03:17 PM
Hmm...

That...

I actually think I'll do that :smallbiggrin: I need to pad the first three or four levels out before the big bad shows up anyway. They'd probably get to the werewolves by level....5-6? There's gonna be like 6-7 players and I've all but outright suggested they pick up the Leadership feat...

Just don't make it the whole campaign. If they're doing nothing but uncovering Scooby-Doo monsters, they'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop. Do one as the first adventure, then have them do something else for a level or two, then do another one, then some other adventure, then the werewolves.

Man on Fire
2013-05-01, 03:35 PM
With me being the DM in this situation.

So here's the short of it. Running a game with a world with "no magical creatures" (dragons, chimera, fey, etc). It's one of those things that I'll emphasize to the players every time they bring it up. Of course I'm lying through my teeth and plan to throw some "magical creatures" (see: Werewolves) at the players in a "Yeah, the world if more complex and strange than you thought it would be". Not out of the blue mind you. There'd be some buildup to the whole "Surprise! Werewolves!" thing.

As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

I probably wouldn't, if you had explained what you tried to do later. It is a bit tricky, and if done badly player can feel lied to, and that' a bad thing. One of the reasons why I' not that sold about Spoony's advice about Cthulhutech.

Quirken
2013-05-01, 04:12 PM
With me being the DM in this situation.

So here's the short of it. Running a game with a world with "no magical creatures" (dragons, chimera, fey, etc). It's one of those things that I'll emphasize to the players every time they bring it up. Of course I'm lying through my teeth and plan to throw some "magical creatures" (see: Werewolves) at the players

I'd probably be fairly upset at outright lies. Now, if you intentionally phrased things to suggest otherwise, that's different.

If they ask about werewolves, you can say nobody has ever seen a werewolf. If they keep asking, have them make a knowledge check and tell them they believe werewolves are just a story to scare little kids.

The trick is being subtle enough your PCs don't see it coming without outright lying.

Razanir
2013-05-01, 04:25 PM
I don't know if it's early enough in this campaign to do this, but you could have the "no magical creatures" thing play out in-game instead of just telling your players.

What I mean is, you do your worldbuilding such that people may believe in dragons, goblins, or whatever, but all "reasonable" people know that these are just stories - folklore, but not something that educated people believe in. Then you build on that by having a couple adventures where your players investigate something that looks like a vampire attack, and that all the villagers are insisting is a vampire attack, only to find out that the "vampire" was really Old Man Withers in a mask. Throw a couple of those at your players, then have an actual werewolf start killing people.

I might steal this idea, actually. A campaign where the world is at least less magical. Magic is still there, but it's a dying art form. And since this is Legend I'd be running, I'll probably just ban the magic classes, but still allow the tracks. Paladins are fine, though. Anyway, it'd seem less magical, but those long-forgotten monsters would be making reappearances

Anyway, my reaction to the question in the OP–

If you flat out said no magical creatures exist. Period. Yeah, I'd be a bit mad. But if you worded everything in a way that it's a possibility, probably not. It sounds like a neat idea. To use that Star Wars analogy, it'd be Obi Wan directly saying Vader and Anakin are different people versus him leaving it open. Although that's a bad example, because one could argue that they are different people, at least as much as Gollum and Sméagol are

Rhynn
2013-05-01, 05:15 PM
As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

I don't really hold with lying to my players OOC. I would not tell my players "there are no magical creatures in this world."

Omission is a different thing. "As far as you know..." etc. The players are not entitled to OOC knowledge about the world's secrets.

Misleading, false expectations, etc. are all gravy, when it's to an end: for instance, starting a campaign under false pretenses (e.g. "It's a police action game in modern LA" -> "Zombie apocalypse!") can be practically necessary to get the right reactions from your players.

None of this should ever be done to get one over on your players or to prevail against them.

Mr Beer
2013-05-01, 05:49 PM
I personally might be irked, it would depend on a couple of things:

1. As said above, if it was really difficult to defeat said werewolves specifically because we didn't have items we otherwise would.

2. If was reasonable or not for our characters to be pretty certain such creatures don't exist.

Item 2 seems more of a problem, given there already is magic and somewhat magical races around, I don't see why we'd all be convinced that werewolves and dragons are such mythical and impossibly unlikely creatures. So I'd feel it was contrived and/or slapdash on your part. In a different setting, maybe not so much.

EDIT

However, I wouldn't be going around with the feelings of being deeply and personally betrayed as some other respondents have indicated. You did it to spring a surprise, I suggest there are better ways of doing that, but it's not like you stole my wallet IRL.

EDIT2

GM: "It's a low magic setting, reduced spell casting and just humans, elves etc; no million and one magic races like demons and werewolves and dragons"

Player: "What NO magic races at all?"

GM: "Well, legends tell of such beasts, but you have never seen any first hand or even heard of sightings from anyone you'd consider a reliable source. The elves still sing of the dragons, but who knows what was really around a thousand years ago?"

Emmerask
2013-05-01, 06:39 PM
With me being the DM in this situation.

So here's the short of it. Running a game with a world with "no magical creatures" (dragons, chimera, fey, etc). It's one of those things that I'll emphasize to the players every time they bring it up. Of course I'm lying through my teeth and plan to throw some "magical creatures" (see: Werewolves) at the players in a "Yeah, the world if more complex and strange than you thought it would be". Not out of the blue mind you. There'd be some buildup to the whole "Surprise! Werewolves!" thing.

As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?


No what you are telling them is what their characters know at that time... so its not actually a LIE.

If you would tell me as a person that there in fact will be some magical creatures at some point, then I would have to play my character without using that knowledge anyway...
so there is nothing gained from it :smallwink:

The only thing I could think of would be a player who enjoys none magical games and is psyched about the prospect of playing one...
so if you have such a player then maybe tell him ^^


There is only one instance I can think of where that would be bad: if there are any substances or weapons that would have an advantage over magical creatures that they didn't buy because you told them they wouldn't need to fight any magical creatures and you then have them fighting magical creatures all the time. That'd be like saying "you don't need to put points in swimming because the campaign takes place in rural colorado", then magically teleporting your party to oceanworld in the first session. This is intentionally misleading your party so they will be worse off in your campaign when, under normal circumstances, they should have been way better off.


If the players would use that knowledge they would be metagaming bordering on cheating, sure they might wanted to use that particular weapon anyway or wanted to be the odd character who learned swimming (in the desert somehow) but there would always be the suspicion that they just "cheat".
So in not telling them you would do the players actually a favor.

Geordnet
2013-05-01, 07:44 PM
Misleading, false expectations, etc. are all gravy, when it's to an end: for instance, starting a campaign under false pretenses (e.g. "It's a police action game in modern LA" -> "Zombie apocalypse!") can be practically necessary to get the right reactions from your players.

The problem is, the "right" reaction isn't what you're going to get unless you know your audience really well. If just one player feels cheated, it'll spoil the fun for everyone else. (Who cares about that player, at least. Or cares about that player complaining...)

scurv
2013-05-01, 07:50 PM
Aside from know your players. I would suggest avoiding the appearance of forcing your players to make tactical mistakes with this ploy. This is the line were it is not so much your intent that matters, But how your players perceive the impact of your actions. It is a fine line and this ploy happens to find it.

Raum
2013-05-01, 08:09 PM
I'm not sure you're quite there from what you've said, but I'm not a fan of bait and switch games. Doesn't mean I expect to know everything about the setting but I do expect to know what type of campaign we'd play and have a good idea of how my character will interact with the setting.

That last point is important - don't set false expectations that end up screwing characters built with those expectations in mind.

Rhynn
2013-05-01, 08:16 PM
I'm not sure you're quite there from what you've said, but I'm not a fan of bait and switch games. Doesn't mean I expect to know everything about the setting but I do expect to know what type of campaign we'd play and have a good idea of how my character will interact with the setting.

That last point is important - don't set false expectations that end up screwing characters built with those expectations in mind.

I don't really agree. A lot of game types - horror mostly - work better if the PCs aren't created for the genre/type of game. Call of Cthulhu, for instance, is generally at its worst when the party is composed of several ex-soldiers and policemen/private detectives, and a token antiquarian/professor (who, between them, perfectly reasonably happen to read and write Latin, French, German, Arabic, and Greek). Zombie apocalypse games that start at/before the apocalypse are the same deal - if everyone creates a survivalist who stockpiles weapons and ammo, or a person with just a perfect or necessary skillset, it's going to be pretty boring. ("Yeah, we just happen to have an ex-military cop, a medical doctor, a kendo master...")

The warning is true for some game types. Unless play is meant to revolve around and account for the dissonance, you shouldn't make your players create, for instance, a bunch of musicians and authors for a scifi space exploration game, or a group of corps and rockers for a Cyberpunk 2020 game that's going to be about being boots on the ground fighting a drug war in South America...

Coidzor
2013-05-01, 08:56 PM
If the players would use that knowledge they would be metagaming bordering on cheating, sure they might wanted to use that particular weapon anyway or wanted to be the odd character who learned swimming (in the desert somehow) but there would always be the suspicion that they just "cheat".
So in not telling them you would do the players actually a favor.

Not telling people that the campaign is actually going to be an aquatic campaign is doing them a favor because building a character that makes sense in an aquatic campaign is horrible meta-gaming? :smallconfused:


I don't really agree. A lot of game types - horror mostly - work better if the PCs aren't created for the genre/type of game. Call of Cthulhu, for instance, is generally at its worst when the party is composed of several ex-soldiers and policemen/private detectives, and a token antiquarian/professor (who, between them, perfectly reasonably happen to read and write Latin, French, German, Arabic, and Greek). Zombie apocalypse games that start at/before the apocalypse are the same deal - if everyone creates a survivalist who stockpiles weapons and ammo, or a person with just a perfect or necessary skillset, it's going to be pretty boring. ("Yeah, we just happen to have an ex-military cop, a medical doctor, a kendo master...")

Well, yeah, you're supposed to knowingly create kooky characters for Call of Cthulhu. Not create a bunch of characters with disparate backgrounds because the GM lied and told you that you were playing a variant of CLUE and instead springs Call of Cthulhu on you. :smallconfused:

Same with zombie survival games, it may go against the intent of the game to set out to win it, but that's the prerogative of the group as a whole, not something so sacred that a GM has to lie to the group to make sure it turns out correctly.


The warning is true for some game types. Unless play is meant to revolve around and account for the dissonance, you shouldn't make your players create, for instance, a bunch of musicians and authors for a scifi space exploration game, or a group of corps and rockers for a Cyberpunk 2020 game that's going to be about being boots on the ground fighting a drug war in South America...

It's true for all the types of games that I can think of. If the GM feels that the players can't deal with creating characters for a given scenario then it behooves the GM to rethink that path.

Scow2
2013-05-01, 09:09 PM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but in order for "Rumors of magical beasts/etc are just that" to work, you have to introduce them as rumors, and then have the players dismiss those rumors Scooby-Doo style. Otherwise, no matter what you say, Conservation of Detail dictates that All Myths are True, and the players will know that there ARE magical beasts/fey/etc out there - unless you have them PROVE otherwise first. Only then can you spring a "This time, the monsters are real" trick.

Raum
2013-05-01, 09:25 PM
I don't really agree. A lot of game types - horror mostly - work better if the PCs aren't created for the genre/type of game.Have to disagree with this. Mismatching characters and campaigns tends to result in a fail-fest...which is only fun if slapstick humor was your intent. Not exactly horror.


Call of Cthulhu, for instance, is generally at its worst when the party is composed of several ex-soldiers and policemen/private detectives, and a token antiquarian/professor (who, between them, perfectly reasonably happen to read and write Latin, French, German, Arabic, and Greek). Agreed. Which is why I'd be irritated if you told me we were going to play a 'monster hunting campaign' and then substituted Cthulu.


Zombie apocalypse games that start at/before the apocalypse are the same deal - if everyone creates a survivalist who stockpiles weapons and ammo, or a person with just a perfect or necessary skillset, it's going to be pretty boring. ("Yeah, we just happen to have an ex-military cop, a medical doctor, a kendo master...")It's one thing to say "We're going to play normal people put into extreme situations." and quite another to say "We're going to play hackers and con-artists..." ...and then launch unending streams of zombies at them.

Set expectations appropriately. Else you'll run into players who aren't willing to go down the same road sooner or later. Worse, you'll chance destroying the trust between GM and players.

KillianHawkeye
2013-05-01, 09:55 PM
I dunno, if you're including centaurs, then I'd expect werewolves wouldn't be that far behind.

Rhynn
2013-05-01, 10:16 PM
Well, yeah, you're supposed to knowingly create kooky characters for Call of Cthulhu. Not create a bunch of characters with disparate backgrounds because the GM lied and told you that you were playing a variant of CLUE and instead springs Call of Cthulhu on you. :smallconfused:

CoC works perfectly fine with disparate characters, and they certainly shouldn't be kooky. That sounds awful.


Same with zombie survival games, it may go against the intent of the game to set out to win it, but that's the prerogative of the group as a whole, not something so sacred that a GM has to lie to the group to make sure it turns out correctly.

If you're going to start before or right around the outbreak, and aren't using premades, IMO players should not know what they're getting into. The shock of the outbreak is a big part of the RP to me, and I don't like to spoil surprises for my players.


It's one thing to say "We're going to play normal people put into extreme situations." and quite another to say "We're going to play hackers and con-artists..." ...and then launch unending streams of zombies at them.

Replacing your own argument for mine and arguing against them? Is that man made of straw? It is, it is made of straw!

Raum
2013-05-01, 11:03 PM
Replacing your own argument for mine and arguing against them? Is that man made of straw? It is, it is made of straw!Really not sure how you get that but, whatever. I simply reiterated the same point I made in the post you objected to - setting false expectations often causes problems.

Coidzor
2013-05-01, 11:18 PM
CoC works perfectly fine with disparate characters, and they certainly shouldn't be kooky. That sounds awful.

Kooky being relative, and I suppose that's more from the perspective of making an adventure log that has an amusing read to it. The core that you're not losing anything by having the players know what they're playing because they're supposed to know what they're getting into and choosing to play the game is an acknowledgement of playing it in a certain way.

Which is my problem with your stance that it's OK to casually mess with people's volition because it's too damn close to acting like a dictator by running X game and the players can hang when you're supposed to play the games you play by agreement. Or making RPing into a game of Mao because the players aren't allowed to know the rules at all.

Lorsa
2013-05-02, 02:56 AM
You don't need to tell your players exactly how it is, you just need to tell them what their characters know. Explain that in the world there's no knowledge of any magical creatures, tell them what legends and myths there are but that these are commonly known to be not true. Outright lying to your players can be bad in the long run, but you certainly don't need to be lying to surprise them. Just make it clear you talk about in-character knowledge.

endoperez
2013-05-02, 05:40 AM
If you want to shock/surprise the players, you could add in something that isn't a D&D werewolf, even though it could be inspired by RL werewolf stories. If these wolf-monsters are not werewolves the players know about, your original message of "no monsters" becomes "forget everything you thought you knew about monsters".

For example, what if there's a magic ritual (probably evil) that can be used to create a magical wolfskin that lets you transform into a wolf? It could have the mind of the slaughtered wolf inside it, growing ever more crazy and mad, and as time went on the wearer would be more affected by it, eventually totally losing his humanity as the wolf takes over. If your setting has druids, one of them could have made it.

Add some twists of your own into it. What if the transformation is triggered by falling to sleep over the wolfskin, instead of wearing it, and skins of wild animals are used in beds all around the area? What if the wolf form is immortal, but the human suffers the wounds when the transformation ends? What if the wolf body-jumps from one body to the next, abandoning the possessed human whenever one is defeated? What if the way to transform him back is the kiss of the princess?

Emmerask
2013-05-02, 06:18 AM
Not telling people that the campaign is actually going to be an aquatic campaign is doing them a favor because building a character that makes sense in an aquatic campaign is horrible meta-gaming? :smallconfused:


If the campaign starts out with a desert tribe who´s members never have seen a large pool of water then yes it absolutely is.

If I tell them that the desert campaign will actually take place in an aquatic environment at one point and then suddenly all my players are Olympic swimmers then yes its the worst kind of metagaming...

where would they have learned it despite there being no water for swimming? why would they have learned it when in the current environment its a completely useless skill? How would they have learned it when there is no teacher around?

Of course one can always come up with an elaborate backstory that explains all this but if a player does so with the knowledge that the campaign will shortly be in an aquatic environment, it leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

If a player does so without knowing that the campaign will at some point be aquatic this sour taste isn´t there :smallwink:

Of course as the dm you would have numerous ways for them to overcome their zero aquatic experience anyway, "you drown" is not a fun campaign :smallbiggrin:


And its the same thing with magical creatures suddenly appearing (that have never been there before) why would any player in a game set in the present run around with sanctified silver bullets when the game was about a swat team in the beginning?

The only thing that will come from telling the players will be:

a) you deprive the players of a great "oh **** moment"
b) you lure the players into using that player knowledge while building their characters

There is only one instance where it might be appropriate to tell your player(s) and that is if you have a player who genuinely would love to play a game like for example the "swat team", he/she might feel cheated when suddenly vampires appear.

BWR
2013-05-02, 06:57 AM
If you have to lie to players to prevent them from metagaming, there is a problem with your players. If you feel you have to lie to them to preserve some element of surprise, then you have a problem. Players should be mature enough to go along with the premise of the game and roleplayer that their characters are surprised when something supernatural turns up.

Sure, surprises can be fun, but some players (like me) get pissy when the GM has told you one thing then shoves something entirely different at you shouting "surprise".
You don't have to trust NPCs, you must be able to trust your GM.
Other players will just roll with it and enjoy the story, accepting the deception with good humor. Witholding information and giving slightly distorted facts are one thing. Damned lies are another.

prufock
2013-05-02, 07:41 AM
Wouldn't bother me at all. You're trying to create a certain atmosphere about the game - that magical creatures don't exist except in fairy tales. In such a world, there would be no reason for me to buy silvered weapons or holy water or whatnot. I'd be caught with my pants down, so to speak, when such things finally showed up.

And I think that's fine! It's a way the DM is trying to deepen the immersion. Just choose your words carefully. IE don't say "you won't encounter any magical beasts in this game." You should phrase it in terms of the characters' world - if there once were magical monsters, something like "monsters of legend have faded to nothing but memories, having been wiped out by etc etc."

Hey, your monsters don't even have to be things out of the monster manual. Change things around. The werewolves aren't lycanthropes, silver doesn't affect them any more than normal weapons. And so on.

It depends on your players, it depends on your gaming style. I can't understand people who would be offended by this, honestly, and those who claim foul over this type of thing, or suggest that you're a bad DM, or that your players have a "problem" are being kind of dramatic.

I say "go for it." It's a game; if your players object, you can change it. Maybe it turns out the wolf people aren't werewolves at all, just afflicted with some curse (since you described it as a high-arcane setting).

Jay R
2013-05-02, 12:54 PM
Don't give flat statements of fact; give observations.

"There are no monsters in this world" is the DM making a flat statement of fact to the players about the game they are in. It is presumably unlimited in scope.

"Your characters have never heard about magical creatures in this world, except in weird legends known to be fiction" is an observation made by the character within the world, and limited by the PC's experience.

The first is a lie to your players. The second is a game situation for the characters. No resemblance.

Scow2
2013-05-02, 02:04 PM
You don't need to tell your players exactly how it is, you just need to tell them what their characters know. Explain that in the world there's no knowledge of any magical creatures, tell them what legends and myths there are but that these are commonly known to be not true. Outright lying to your players can be bad in the long run, but you certainly don't need to be lying to surprise them. Just make it clear you talk about in-character knowledge.

This doesn't work because players are savvy. Want to know what happens if you try to specify that "As far as your characters know, X is true."? The players IMMEDIATELY realize that X is false, and if/when you DO bust out the magical things, the response from the players isn't "Oh ****! What is this, what's going on?!" It's "HA! I knew it!", and suddenly back to hyper-aware, hyper-prepared players ready to take on the whole monster manual.

Lord Torath
2013-05-02, 03:35 PM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but in order for "Rumors of magical beasts/etc are just that" to work, you have to introduce them as rumors, and then have the players dismiss those rumors Scooby-Doo style. Otherwise, no matter what you say, Conservation of Detail dictates that All Myths are True, and the players will know that there ARE magical beasts/fey/etc out there - unless you have them PROVE otherwise first. Only then can you spring a "This time, the monsters are real" trick.I think this is probably the way to go. Maybe have them investigate several "monster" attacks, and it winds up being a rabid bear or a band of thieves trying to disguise their actions. (The ghost upstairs is a pack of rats). After 5-6 of these "false alarms" (interspersed with other adventures) you can have them encounter the real deal. I'd give them a good amount of space and plenty of opportunities to flee when they do first sight it (maybe in dark woods at night).

But if you're going to pull this off, you're going to need to eliminate other magical races as well. So no centaurs, and maybe no elves/dwarves/halflings either.

Doug Lampert
2013-05-02, 03:36 PM
This doesn't work because players are savvy. Want to know what happens if you try to specify that "As far as your characters know, X is true."? The players IMMEDIATELY realize that X is false, and if/when you DO bust out the magical things, the response from the players isn't "Oh ****! What is this, what's going on?!" It's "HA! I knew it!", and suddenly back to hyper-aware, hyper-prepared players ready to take on the whole monster manual.

Unless of course pretty much ALL your answers to their questions are in the form of what the character's know, which is fine and avoids that problem as your so called savvy players will be WRONG in 99%+ of their ever so savy deductions if they assume that when you say what the character sees or knows that this means its a lie.

And then you can surprise them fine. I've NEVER noticed any trouble surprising characters or players without lying to players. How hard is it? You run a world, you tell them what their characters know about the world and what they're characters interact with in the world, and you DON'T apply special emphasis to the thing you want to have be a surprise till it hits.

I've never felt any need at all to say X doesn't exist in the setting to any player. If I did say that they'd be awefully suspicious. I have said, as recently as last week, "As far as your character knows Psionics doesn't exist", but only when asked (and I was asked because they were encountering strong evidence of psionics). No one suggested that this meant psi existed because they know from experience that this is THE EXACT SAME ANSWER they'd have gotten whether or not it existed.

Seriously, if I tell my players what their character's know they normally assume that it's CORRECT, because IT ALMOST ALWAYS IS, because almost everything they know about the setting comes in terms of what the characters experience or know and there's NO POINT to assuming that everything I tell them about the setting is a lie.

I see absolutely no benefit to lying to the PLAYERS. Give irrelevant setting details and they won't assume that every detail is important.

An RPG is not a novel or TV episode, conservation of detail is BAD. If I have 12 minions in a combat scene I WILL HAVE notes on all 12 minions as to motivation, sex, and appearance, I have a spread sheet which will spit sets out. I won't volunteer any of the info till it's relevant, and as a direct result my players DON'T try to read massive out of character information into every detail I give them. Details, they're your friend; in character information, it's your friend; lieing to your players, that's how you lose friends.

Lord Torath
2013-05-02, 03:48 PM
So don't tell them there's no such thing as magic monsters, just have them encounter nothing but mundane monsters, and if they ask, tell them they've never heard werewolves as anything other than a "monster under the bed" story. If they ask if there are any dragons they can slay, tell them know one they know has ever seen a dragon, nor heard tale of one.

I think the general consensus is No, do NOT lie to your players. Lie to the PC's all you like, but stay honest with your players.

mangosta71
2013-05-03, 02:39 PM
I'd think it depends. When you say there are no magic monsters, is that OOC or IC? If you, speaking as the DM, say there are no magic monsters, it's a lie. If you, speaking as the town mayor (or an innkeeper, or a random drunk dude at the bar, etc), say there are no monsters, that's a case of that NPC being wrong (or lying, depending on what that individual NPC knows).

NPCs being wrong is something that a lot of DMs don't do, which is kind of unfortunate. But it can make things more fun/interesting if you do it well.

Kislath
2013-05-04, 11:31 AM
You could have some weird, big event happen that everyone sees but no one comprehends, such as a fantastic display of worldwide auroras all the way down to the tropics, after which the world's rules seem to have changed.
Or maybe the moon is green or purple for a few hours one night?

You could also have the party find a dead guy, an adventurer, and his journal describes his encounters with wolf men and other beasties, along with a few hints of what he'd learned from them before getting killed.

Darius Kane
2013-05-04, 11:53 AM
It's like in Berserk.

ko_sct
2013-05-06, 01:42 PM
Different playstyles,
Different playstyles everywhere !

It can be done well,
Like when my brother got nWoD and mages at the same time and told me: ''let's play a quick game, I haven't finished reading the mage's book and it's complicated so you're going to be a mortal and there won't be anything supernatural'' and suddently im running away from a breath-stealing ghost of a women I never knew, while a strange man is leaving tarot cards to make me understand something and I'm discovering that I have some strange powers after visiting a tower in a dream...

It can be done badly
Like I did in a campaign, not telling my players I intended to make it some kind of planar-travelling campaign and not realising both of their builds wouldn't be that good in this case...

Overall, it come down to how well you know your players.
I would advise as some people said, start by giving them quests where they have to debunk some false monster or something.

For extra point you could make superstitions really commons and have rogue mage abusing peoples superstitions to get what they want. (I mean, what with illusion being a school of magic and all....) so people would alway blame monsters for everythings.

Scow2
2013-05-08, 06:04 PM
Overall, it come down to how well you know your players.
I would advise as some people said, start by giving them quests where they have to debunk some false monster or something.

A problem with this approach, though, is that they might realize they've become Mystery Inc. and start up the jokes.

GoddessSune
2013-05-08, 08:02 PM
As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

I'd hate the DM forever and never game with them again. I hate the whole lie of surprise. It's not really a surprise if you lie. It's like movies with the ''what a twist'' type crap. Where something just happens out of the blue and your meant to be so shocked.

As a DM I will always be vague. So never tell a lie. But then I will also never lay out a campaign for the players either.

SowZ
2013-05-12, 12:49 AM
I don't see why werewolves are more magical than Centaurs. If Centaurs are considered non-magical, I would accept a werewolf since I would assume 'magical creatures' are creatures that can cast magic. A werewolf doesn't cast anything, so I'd assume its transformation is just a bizzare disease that denies the laws of physics and evolution in the same way a centaur does.

Knaight
2013-05-12, 10:08 PM
As a player, would you or would you not be upset if the DM had been all but swearing up and down that there are nor supernatural creatures, only to throw a pack of werewolves at the party?

I'd be annoyed that I signed up for a game under false pretenses, yes. If it had been something along the lines of "I'm running a fantasy mystery campaign and want to keep the details mysterious, so any questions about setting details will be answered based on character knowledge" there wouldn't be a problem, but as is this is just flat out lying to people. What roles you happen to be in in the game doesn't somehow make that acceptable.

Geordnet
2013-05-12, 10:25 PM
A problem with this approach, though, is that they might realize they've become Mystery Inc. and start up the jokes.

That's actually a very good thing, I'd think: when they stop taking things seriously they really let their guards down. Then there's an opening for actual player surprise, which is what the GM was going for all along. You might even get a genuine "trying to pull off his face" moment. :smallbiggrin:

Felhammer
2013-05-13, 01:48 AM
Magic exists.

Someone could use magic to create horrid abominations.

Therefore, werewolves. :smallsmile:

Jay R
2013-05-13, 01:20 PM
I always write an introduction to the game, with the background that everybody knows, any house rules, etc.

If I wanted to do something like this, my introduction would say some version of, "You don't know everything. Any answer I give you to any question is limited by the limits of your characters' knowledge and experiences."

Then a later statement that there are no magical creatures is implicitly modified by, "... as far as your characters know".

Icewraith
2013-05-13, 02:41 PM
The problem now is, NOW THAT THE DM KNOWS THIS, how does he backtrack or mitigate the damage without tipping his hand to the players or blowing up his campaign?

Saying "sorry guys, I made a rookie mistake and lied to you" sort of spoils the punch of the reveal even if it is a reasonable apology and should stop the group from disintegrating.

Edit: What you might try doing is some kind of social engineering. Manufacture a smaller scale screw-up related to setting, and then establish that the players have been given in-player knowledge and that you reserve the right to change how the setting works AS LONG AS YOU DON'T COMPLETELY SCREW OVER THE PLAYERS.

This sort of thing is sometimes necessary, if anyone's ever had a player with the sun domain in an undead themed campaign you know what I'm talking about. If you tell them in advance the campaign will be undead heavy, they will take the sun domain, and I bet you'll see a startling lack of precision damage-related classes.

Jay R
2013-05-13, 04:50 PM
The problem now is, NOW THAT THE DM KNOWS THIS, how does he backtrack or mitigate the damage without tipping his hand to the players or blowing up his campaign?

Ideally, invent some totally unrelated (and unimportant) detail that slightly contradicts what he's said before, and use it to make the point. "That's right - I told you that there was no Thieves Guild in town, because your characters had no knowledge of it. Now you've found out that there is one. When I answer your questions, I only tell you what your characters know. If everybody you know believes something is true, then I'll tell you it's true. No pronouncement from the DM will give you information that the PCs don't know."

That should make it easier to accept when something comes up that does matter.

Avilan the Grey
2013-05-14, 04:24 AM
I don't see werewolves as magical creatures. I know that they are supposed to be according to D&D, but to me "curse" and "magic" means slightly different things. It might have to do with culture; even though Scandinavian and British mythology shares a lot of creatures that have the same names doesn't mean they are actually the same in origin. Our fairies are very different from the "fairy courts" etc. Trolls too, but they are different everywhere anyway :smallwink:.

I know this is arbitary to a point but:

Not magical, just supernatural:
Ghosts
Werewolves
Vampires

Not magical and not even supernatural:
Trolls
Giants

Anyway I think a lot of people above have the right idea. A DM outright lying to the players would piss me off. A DM describing the world in one way, and adding hidden secrets to it... something completely different and yet so very close.

A low magic world where the mythos might exist, but only as legends from a long long time ago is actually very close to our own. After all, describe it in the right way and the players will accept all this after the initial surprise.

Everybody knows there is no such thing as magic. Undead are things you scare your children with so they won't play close to dangerous streams or run away from home. Werewolves keep them from playing in the forest unsupervised. The boogie man will take you unless you are very quiet after going to bed... But why did your great grandfather insist that your family would never get rid of the silver sword now hanging over the fireplace...?

Jay R
2013-05-14, 02:01 PM
Not magical, just supernatural

The only point of disagreement between us is that you think this phrase has meaning.

VanIsleKnight
2013-05-15, 12:27 AM
It would depend entirely on how you handled the situation leading up to the reveal, to the reveal itself. At some point it would become fairly obvious that magical creatures exist anyway if there was foreshadowing, because a fair amount of players can be genre-savvy and meta game without being able to stop themselves.

If it came out of the blue, or was so much of a shock when the reveal happened, I would immediately distrust you as a GM. Not in the usual slightly-paranoid way that is usually okay so that I wouldn't become too confident, but in the very negative, very game-breaking way.

I wouldn't feel confident in your ability to stick to your own rules, I'd second-guess everything you did, said, or explained to us rules and lore wise. I wouldn't trust you to not railroad, to not make heavy handed fudgings, or to be a fair and cooperative storyteller/referee/dungeon master.

I avoid pure hack n' slashes and dungeon crawls like the plague. I am the sort that believes that everyone at the table should be enjoying themselves and having fun, so if I start to lose faith in you, that will probably snowball into worse problems.

Mikeavelli
2013-05-15, 12:30 AM
It depends your players. You are essentially trolling them with your lies.

With my players, the moment they realize there are magical creatures in this world, after being told explicitly there are no magical creatures in this world, they would groan and throw things at me. Whether or not there's even another session in that world would depend on how well the 'twist' has been executed.

Avilan the Grey
2013-05-15, 02:29 AM
The only point of disagreement between us is that you think this phrase has meaning.

It does, at least in Swedish.

VanIsleKnight
2013-05-15, 01:11 PM
Heheh. The werewolf in his non-bitey state.

"Yeah, I'm definitely not magical. What happened to me wasn't magic. It's a curse, which -seems- like magic at first glance, much like how a tomato seems like a vegetable to some people at first glance. It's not."

Versus, say, a winter wolf that can apparently talk somehow

"Ayyuuuuup. It's freakin' awesome to be magical! I can breath magical cold air that hurts you, I've got a freezing cold bite, life is awesome!"

Actually I think a more apt comparison would be a worg and a werewolf. I think the worg counts as a magical beast, but I don't think there's anything particularly awesome about it. It could just as easily be a natural creature with superior stats.

Avilan the Grey
2013-05-15, 04:23 PM
In Swedish folklore, there is definitely a line drawn between Supernatural and Magic.

Supernatural is a being or a phenomenon that is not within the realms of science. That cannot be explained by scientific means.

Magic is... spells, incantations and things like that. A supernatural being might USE magic, but isn't magical in itself. Summoned creatures, too, probably.

Emmerask
2013-05-15, 04:50 PM
Heheh. The werewolf in his non-bitey state.

"Yeah, I'm definitely not magical. What happened to me wasn't magic. It's a curse, which -seems- like magic at first glance, much like how a tomato seems like a vegetable to some people at first glance. It's not."

Versus, say, a winter wolf that can apparently talk somehow

"Ayyuuuuup. It's freakin' awesome to be magical! I can breath magical cold air that hurts you, I've got a freezing cold bite, life is awesome!"

Actually I think a more apt comparison would be a worg and a werewolf. I think the worg counts as a magical beast, but I don't think there's anything particularly awesome about it. It could just as easily be a natural creature with superior stats.

worgs actually have their own language and some of them can speak common in d&d, not that being able to speak is something magical, humans can do it too :smallbiggrin:

(though that does ruin your first comparison with the winterwolf a bit too, but overall I agree)

The ability to speak is just a combination of having the intelligence to do so and vocal cords (not even that is strictly necessary) nothing magical about that ^^

Raum
2013-05-15, 05:31 PM
Supernatural is a being or a phenomenon that is not within the realms of science. That cannot be explained by scientific means.

Magic is... spells, incantations and things like that. A supernatural being might USE magic, but isn't magical in itself. Summoned creatures, too, probably.Kind of funny to see such cultural differences. I've grown up thinking of magic as "That cannot be explained by scientific means." It includes, but isn't limited to spells & incantations....assuming they result in some unexplainable effect at least. :smallwink:

BWR
2013-05-15, 05:32 PM
In Swedish folklore, there is definitely a line drawn between Supernatural and Magic.

Supernatural is a being or a phenomenon that is not within the realms of science. That cannot be explained by scientific means.

Magic is... spells, incantations and things like that. A supernatural being might USE magic, but isn't magical in itself. Summoned creatures, too, probably.

Supernatural is magic (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#_supernatural-abilities-su).

What is the definition of magic? Because


magic

mag·ic
[maj-ik]
noun
1.
the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2.
the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
3.
the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body.
4.
the effects produced: the magic of recovery.
5.
power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic.

And unless Swedish is radically different from Norwegian in this regard, magic is by defintion supernatural. It goes beyond the laws of nature, i.e. impossible in the real world.

Avilan the Grey
2013-05-15, 11:17 PM
And unless Swedish is radically different from Norwegian in this regard, magic is by defintion supernatural. It goes beyond the laws of nature, i.e. impossible in the real world.

I have never heard anyone, ever (IRL) describe things like ghosts, werewolves, trolls, gnomes, munchkins, tomtes or rås as Magic in Swedish. I have also never heard anyone ever make a direct connection between "Övernaturligt" (Supernatural) and "Magi" (Magic). Again, the being might USE "Trolldom" (archaic name for magic in Swedish) but the beings themselves are never described as magic.

Saintheart
2013-05-16, 12:01 AM
Really what the problem comes down to here is not so much the GM lying as the metagaming that leads up to it or possibly provokes it. One poster nailed the analogy down earlier: mention it's going to be an undead-heavy campaign, and watch as the Sun domains and bludgeoning weapons bloom on character sheets like weeds after a good burst of rain.

Players who don't metagame, or at least know how to separate the roleplaying from the mechanics, investing themselves in the role, should have no difficulty with being told "there's magic, but none of your characters know it exists." And the players who do take advantage of the revelation should be dealt with firmly by a DM: "I don't care that your thinly-veiled-Eddard-Stark-fighter has a 20 page backstory for how he managed to pick up that Keen greatsword and secretly hides its status and existence from the world. Your characters do not know magic exists. You don't get that weapon. Nor do you get to be The Only Mage In The World."

It's perfectly possible to generate excitement and anticipation even if you know the setting has magic hiding behind the curtains. First time I read A Game of Thrones, I read along with everyone else the descriptions of massive dragon skulls, the stories of the last Greenseers, and so on ... with excitement because I suspected we'd see them later since they were being mentioned now.

The difference is that through the campaign you try to deliver anticipation of magic being revealed, of discovering there's more to the world, and then making that magic so much more notable because it's so rare. What the OP did here is try and blindside the players with the revelation. That is confusing the characters with the players at best, or at worst reveals distrust that his players won't misuse the knowledge they have, or an apprehension that unless he keeps it secret, the players will be all "Meh" when he reveals it.

The first error is the DM's fault alone; the second is at least partially the fault of the players if the DM has come to that view after getting sideswiped by player metagaming in the past; the third is either jaded players or the DM having insufficient storytelling skill or a perception he has insufficient storytelling skill. Roleplaying isn't supposed to be a wholly passive entertainment experience, which is why a twist like this is acceptable for something like The Matrix. Players are meant to contribute, to invest in the world and invest in their characters. Metagaming kills that; being a jaded player interested principally in the numbercrunching kills that.

Magnet Tech
2013-05-16, 03:50 AM
You can't really call it lying, in my opinion; after all, the DM is just describing the world as you and everyone else see it.

TuggyNE
2013-05-16, 04:20 AM
You can't really call it lying, in my opinion; after all, the DM is just describing the world as you and everyone else see it.

As long as that's understood by the group, sure, it's not lying. If that's not clear to them, then it basically is, whether or not that was strictly intended.

And since the DM was a bit unsure of this to begin with, it seems improbable that the group as a whole has a handle on this.

Jay R
2013-05-16, 11:19 AM
You can't really call it lying, in my opinion; after all, the DM is just describing the world as you and everyone else see it.

The OP named the tread. If the only person with all the details isn't sure about it, I don't see how you or I could be.