How to Lie to Your Players

[scsimodem]

So, I'm a big fan of deception in an RPG, at least when done well. I love it when I find out something that contradicts what I thought I knew, but there were clues or at least logical reasons to doubt the story. When I play, I like to question the sources of exposition. I love finding plot twists that defy established knowledge.

As a DM, I try to call into question the integrity of all sources of exposition and see how long it takes for the players to figure out that just because it's exposition doesn't mean it's new. This can set up good twists:

That glorious historical battle was actually a slaughter of innocents.
The evil emperor is really a naive puppet or, alternatively, doesn't even exist.
The villains are actually the good guys, and vice versa.
The previous adventure was an elaborate illusion.

It's even better when I can twist it, then untwist it (official history says the last king died in battle against [kingdom], then the players find out the 'army' was unarmed civilians and the king's own guards turned on him, followed by the revelation that the king's men turned on him because he was defending the civilians).

So, I guess I'm wondering where deception fits into most people's campaigns here and how best to do it. I mean, sure, I sometimes like a simple, "That guy bad. You good. Kill," campaign, but I eat this stuff up.

P.S. On a totally unrelated note, Knights of the Old Republic 2 is probably my favorite RPG ever (not what I think is the best, but my own personal favorite), partly because your primary source of exposition (Kreia) is a pathological liar and even gives you contradictory information. I'm still shocked how many people discussing KotOR 2 will argue "But [x] is true!" even after pointing out that the one who told you that was Kreia.

[valadil]

I like this kind of thing too. Here's the best lie I ever told my players (http://gm.sagotsky.com/?p=75). (tl;dr I told the players there was a fifth player in the game who couldn't make it most weeks. His PC was actually the ranger's imaginary friend.)

I've had bad luck with it too. The players can't always tell when information is coming from the omniscient narrator or a poorly informed NPC. I did a murder mystery several years ago. The players talked to all the NPCs and gathered all the clues.

They put the info together and told me I screwed up. The puzzle wasn't solvable. Obviously I'd given them the wrong clue.

We took 5 and I explained that it was a social puzzle, not a logical one. Sure, they didn't think they'd been lied to but it never occurred to them that an NPC could repeat a lie someone else had told him. They went back and approach the game with this in mind and it went fine, but I was annoyed we got derailed.

[Airk]

I don't think anything that is presented as "History" can be considered "deception". Even when that history comes as part of the pre-game writeup. That stuff should be considered "Here's what your character knows." not "here is absolute fact." unless it directly ties to game mechanics.

OTOH, too many shades of grey in your grey/grey morality and people may start to lose interest.

[Grinner]

Sparingly. As valadil demonstrated, the subversion of expectation can make for excellent storytelling, but it can also backfire.

Also, some people just don't take deception well. Your mileage may vary.

[Qwertystop]

Personally, though I haven't had experience GMing, I like the philosophy from WoT - all the legends aren't real per se, but there's usually something true they can be sourced back to. Apply equally to myths, legends, rumors - anything from a source that might be mistaken or twisted. If there's a legend about ancient monsters ravaging the lands every thousand years, to use a cliche, it's more fun and less immersion-breaking to see that they aren't exactly how the thousand-year-old legends said they were.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't lie outright to the players very often, because that's not very interesting. However, what I do much more often is withhold certain facts from them; everything the NPC said was technically true, he just conveniently (for him) didn't mention something that would turn his story around completely! I find this more interesting, the players still need to dig deeper to find out the truth, and the NPC is shown to be more of a manipulative bastard by leading the party astray without technically lying.

I'm not a fan of "it was just a dream/illusion!" scenarios. They feel like a cop-out to me. Unless the PCs are tripping on some suspicious "medicine" or "herbs" and it's played for comedy.

[Mr. Mask]

War is deception, and you must know your enemy in order to deceive them.

Work out your players' expectations, then work out ways to fool them. Have plans that if they start to learn one trick, you'll start fooling them with another. Make it so that they can't tell if you're luring them into a trap or being sincere.


Talking from the players' perspective is pretty fun. "The next room is as grey and morbid as the last. A similar array of two inch stalactites commingle on the centre of the ceiling, with the only difference being some green mould th THERE'S A BIG BLACK DRAGON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM!!"


Arrange situations and understand them so thoroughly, that no matter how your players respond, you in turn shall have a response.

"You've come home from a long, arduous trip. Everyone you know, when they see you again, they greet you with great elation, and say how they had assumed you were dead. When questioned, no letter, no tell of disaster had brought them to this conclusion... they had just thought this was the case
"Eventually, you must retire to one of the rooms of your great house, and the fire is already lit for you, radiating a pleasant light. You prepare to go to bed... and the fire disperses, leaving you in darkness. What do you do?"

Anyone want to say what they do?

[Jay R]

I've never needed to lie to them. Their own misconceptions are far more fun.

[RochtheCrusher]

I've never needed to lie to them. Their own misconceptions are far more fun.

There is wisdom here.

I have gotten quite a bit of mileage out of simply not correcting the party's misconceptions. Like, "Oh, clearly this Butterfly River that's supposed to make everythinf better is a metaphor! (It sort of is.) For us, and something awesome we're destined to do! (It totally isn't.)"

I have also seen my players act on assumptions which they know are false... or, at least, they should. Adding deceptions of my own devising would be largely superfluous.

[Airk]

Talking from the players' perspective is pretty fun. "The next room is as grey and morbid as the last. A similar array of two inch stalactites commingle on the centre of the ceiling, with the only difference being some green mould th THERE'S A BIG BLACK DRAGON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM!!"

No, this is just dumb. There's a long running joke in my group about a module that was basically written like this, because it didn't have any boxed text, so the GM would sortof fumble through the description of the room like:

"It's a 20 by 30 room, rich wall hangings, carpet. There's a desk at one end with elaborate scrollwork on the lid... in the compartment on...nevermind that part. Oh, and in the middle of the room there's a hydra."

Funny. Once. But bad overall.

[Mr. Mask]

I don't get what you're saying. Other than, "don't overuse the same joke," which doesn't need saying...

[MonochromeTiger]

I don't get what you're saying. Other than, "don't overuse the same joke," which doesn't need saying...

I believe (note I didn't say "know" just "believe") it's a comment that when there's a big obvious feature of a room and some details that would have to be searched for after you need to know that before you start describing, give away all the hidden details, then when everyone is thinking of loot go "oh oops there was a horrible eldritch abomination of +5 tentacles right in front of the door roll initiative".

[Mr. Mask]

Well, personally, I have a dislike for that style.

From my perspective, descriptions should be from the players' perspective. That example is something I came up with on the spare of the moment, when remembering some games' habits to give you as much information about candlesticks as the dragon in the middle of the room. When, from my perspective, you should be describing the room as the players' will see it, with their priorities in mind. "Oh wow, that's a really nice vase at the back there. Probably worth.... is--is that a dragon? Mother..."

That being said, I think it can still be a pretty good joke if you mention the horrifying monster as a footnote (which of course, I'm not advising be done to the point where it gets old).

[Prince Raven]

I don't, it's so much more satisfying to mislead them with the truth.

[supermonkeyjoe]

You don't usually need to lie to the players, just tell them exactly what their characters experience and then let them draw their own wild conclusions, the same as with random dice rolls and responding to theories with a knowing smile and a "well wouldn't that be interesting".

Players are better than any lie at obfuscating the truth.

[Mastikator]

[snip]

That glorious historical battle was actually a slaughter of innocents.
The evil emperor is really a naive puppet or, alternatively, doesn't even exist.
The villains are actually the good guys, and vice versa.
The previous adventure was an elaborate illusion.

[snip]

So, I guess I'm wondering where deception fits into most people's campaigns here and how best to do it. I mean, sure, I sometimes like a simple, "That guy bad. You good. Kill," campaign, but I eat this stuff up.
[snip]
1. Fine, history isn't an exact science, and it's written by the victors. Victors sometimes lie and there's nobody left to correct them.
2. Fine. Empires are big and require a lot of delegation, the emperor may simply not know how his subordinates carry out their orders, or may be given false information.
3. I prefer not to have "good guys vs bad guys". "us vs them" is fine though, but who's in the right is something I tend to not decide.
4. That is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned. When you use illusions on your players they stop believing in you and start assuming that everything is an illusion, this may become a hard habit to end since they may never get a reason to ever trust you again. I'd use it sparingly if at all, and then only bits and pieces are illusions.

[NichG]

Occasionally having an NPC be wrong or misinformed is a good way of breaking the appearance that the game is the PCs on one side and the DM in a large number of masks on the other side. If individual NPCs end up being shown to be wrong, then that helps the players realize 'hey, not everyone knows everything and not everything everyone knows is right - accurate, correct information is actually really valuable!'

This also opens the door to things where the players can make stuff happen in the world by telling the right people the right secrets. If on the other hand there's a feeling of 'NPCs are the source of knowledge, PCs are the source of action' then that doesn't tend to happen.

[CombatOwl]

So, I'm a big fan of deception in an RPG, at least when done well. I love it when I find out something that contradicts what I thought I knew, but there were clues or at least logical reasons to doubt the story. When I play, I like to question the sources of exposition. I love finding plot twists that defy established knowledge.

Best way I know is to give them a lot of truthful clues, but a set of clues that logically follows to the wrong conclusion.

"The baron's wife is dead, of poison."
"There was a long running feud between the baron's family and this other noble family."
"A large and inexplicable pouch of gold lies in the steward's secure chest."

Does that mean the steward killed the baron's wife? Possibly, maybe even at the behest of that other family. People are so ingrained with this assumption that the conservation of detail is always true that they'll come up with the most wild and elaborate hypothesis to explain what's happened that includes every piece of evidence... Maybe all of those are relevant. Maybe none of them are. But you can bewilder players for hours as they try to make every piece of evidence match to a theory, even when some of it had nothing to do with the "crime."

Works the same way with plot twists. It's really just about setting expectations and breaking them later. Never reveal a twist in the same settion you establish the facts.


So, I guess I'm wondering where deception fits into most people's campaigns here and how best to do it. I mean, sure, I sometimes like a simple, "That guy bad. You good. Kill," campaign, but I eat this stuff up.

I'm running a Shadowrun game. If things were what they seemed to be, it would be poorly run. This current run is like a layer cake of deception.

[Airk]

Well, personally, I have a dislike for that style.

From my perspective, descriptions should be from the players' perspective. That example is something I came up with on the spare of the moment, when remembering some games' habits to give you as much information about candlesticks as the dragon in the middle of the room. When, from my perspective, you should be describing the room as the players' will see it, with their priorities in mind. "Oh wow, that's a really nice vase at the back there. Probably worth.... is--is that a dragon? Mother..."


It's dumb because people notice big things before they notice vases that they probably can't even see because the big thing is in the way. It's also dumb because this isn't remotely "how the 'players' (I presume you mean the -characters-) will see it" because, as mentioned, big things before small things.

It is, quite literally, a joke, and shouldn't be used outside of a humorous context. Which is not at all what this thread is about.

[ElenionAncalima]

I don't make a habit of lying to my players...but lately it has been really tempting, since I realized the highest sense motive in the party is a +2.

[Spore]

Do not lie directly to your players. People dislike dishonesty and will probably hate you as DM if you pull that one too often. However if it is backed up by poor Sense Motive rolls, or by things that the NPC thinks are true (and thus isn't forced to bluff) it's okay.

Just be sure to have a mechanical way for them as players AND as characters to get behind it. (Players are not the tag-along of their characters, they like to think too).

Example: If you want the heroes to slay something unprepared you might have the king mention "some huge magical beast that was in the way" and start to describe it as an troll or ettin. If you show on the scene, it's actually a frost giant along with some well hidden minions. The king was not wrong, maybe the druid could've told you that trolls to not live here. The wizard could've divined the area, the rogue could've scouted or the cleric gathered information.

Lie to them but give them a reason to distrust the info. (Also roll Sense Motive/Bluff in secret. Along with some alibi rolls that don't do anything.)

[DrBurr]

IMO Every adventure should have some kind of twist, but that doesn't mean every twist has to be dramatic. It could simply be that the merchant is a jerk and has been riping you off this whole time. And sometimes to protect the twist you need to lie, or at least bend the truth to the perspective of your NPCs, but their probably should be some kind of hint.

For example There was a group of Bandits in my game called the Scarlets, the party asked the Count who their leader was and they were told it was a guy named Vassar. They go to the Bandit's hideout and defeat all the minions and during the battle with Vassar its revealed the real leader was the Cleric's Sister. This absolutely shocked my players even though there were a good amount of hints.

The best trick I ever pulled, I don't think Ill ever be able to do again without killing my game. The party had been split for almost a month, and the Cleric and Barbarian were returning to the Capital city to quell a civil war. On the way their they met some guards on the edge of the forest and I gave each of my other players a guard, not something unusual I typically give NPCs to Players. What they didn't know was they were both traitors leading the group into a trap, the moment I tossed them payment for their unknowing deed was hilarious and still one of my group's best stories.

[Mr. Mask]

Airk: I made the hypothetical room, so I decide if the dragon is obscuring the vase or not :smallwink:. I'd like to recommend, "The Invisible Gorilla," to you. I feel manipulation is relevant to the thread.


Sporeegg: NPCs can constantly lie to the players. What you need to watch out for, is giving them the impression that the game won't contain that. If its your thing to trick and prank people and the players are cool with that, maybe every game can be a trick and they play them because they think it's cool--but normally, you don't want to try a "this is just a regular game... psych, everyone is lying to you in it!" thing more than once.

[jedipotter]

I lie all the time.

In a general sense, the DM (me) won't lie to the palyers. I won't say ''A'' when it is ''B''. But I won't tell them everything.

NPC's , skill checks and other sources can not be trusted 100%. When the DM is talking for them he might very well lie.

Lots of ''lies'' are just mistakes....a winged reptile attacks a town and everyone says ''it's a dragon'', but it might be a wyvern or another such creature.

[Necroticplague]

The best lie is one you never say. if you really want them to beleive something wrong, give them enough info that they start jumping to conclusions:but not the right ones. Mention some 8 legged beasts attacking the town. Let them make the logic leap to "monstrous spider", ignoring the fact basilisks also have 8 legs. If they feel lied too, politely ask to point out where you gave them false information. Use sparingly, because excessive use just makes you look like a prick.

[The Oni]

Might I suggest Glibness?

[Jay R]

Might I suggest Glibness?

Unnecessary. The players have already drunk a Potion of Inattentiveness.