PDA

View Full Version : DM Help That Lying Bastard!



Yora
2014-04-28, 01:53 PM
I've been going over my ideas for my campaign setting again, this time specifically with a look at what kinds of reactions and emotions I want to evoke in the players. (Something I've read here (http://tao-dnd.blogspot.de/2014/04/function.html), but never consciously gave much of a thought before.) Some themes I want the setting to encourage are trusting in what you think is right, and always questioning what hidden motives both enemies and allies may have.
And that of course means that NPCs will be lying a lot. Which interestingly, villains in fiction rarely do. When an enemy gets defeated and cornered and the protagonists start to question him, he usually will just tell them everything he knows, the heroes take it as truth, and it all turns out to be completely correct in the end. Players will probably not expect that NPCs will lie to them, which is good. But it also means that you can't simply copy things you've seen before. So using lies in RPGs is something that can use a bit additional thought.

Now, one very important thing to remember is that an RPG is not just the actions that happen to the characters in the game, but often even more importantly also the interaction between the players, which includes the GM. Unless you're a terrible person, you don't want the players to be angry at you, but at an NPC who fooled them. And at the same time applaud you for playing things so well.
As GM, you're not only the eyes and ears of the PCs, you are also to a great extend all their background knowledge about the world around them. The GM filters everything that's going on before telling it to the players, by not only deciting what things are important, but what the players and the PCs would consider important. Everything has already been interpreted by the GM, who only tells the players what he wants them to notice. If you're a really good GM, you can describe things in a way that may look unimportant but still stick in the players minds and minimize any bias, allowing the players to make their own interpretations and conclusions. But even then you still have the ability to make the players believe anything you want them to believe. Even if the players have not consciously been thinking about it, they still understand at some level that they depend on the GM to get an accurate mental picture of the world, with which they can draw the right conclusions or make wrong interpretations. So I think the subject of decieving the players is something that should be treated with extra care. Making a big mistake in a game can be a lot of fun. Feeling that you've been set up to do something that you could not have possibly avoided, but still get blamed for is probably the worst thing that could happen in a game. If in any way possible, avoid this from happening.

That being said, I have three ideas how to make lies in RPGs work without making the players feel abused by the GM:

Straight Lies: Let an NPC say something that is just straight out false. Not just mostly wrong, but a complete fabrication. For example, tell them that a passage has no traps, an item will prevent a monster from attacking, a key can open a lock, or the location where a special item is stored. When the PCs get there and try to use the information, it's immediately clear that the NPC lied to them. Nothing ambigous. They took his word for it, even though they shouldn't. The GM didn't pull any mean tricks, he just played the NPC as he should have, and it's the players fault for just trusting him. No bad blood here, and the players will learn to not take things at face value in the future.

Tell the truth, but make it work for the villain: Even if the players get the information they are asking for, it doesn't have to be the information that they actually need. Probably a bit difficult to pull off, since it depends on what exactly the PCs will be saying to the NPC, but he might even give them additional details in an attempt to trick them into doing something that will benefit him. For example, if the players ask from whom they can get a key, the NPC could direct them to one of his henchmen who already betrayed him. The PCs get what they wanted, but the NPC benefits from it as well.

Avoid Jedi-Truths: No, "what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.", is still a lie. That line is one of the most infamous from Return of the Jedi, and rightfully so. However, Obi-Wans real mistake was not to tell the lie. But to deny that it was a lie even after the truth came out. Yes, an NPC might make such a claim because the NPC is a terrible person and the GM does not share that view. But will it really ever feel that way to the players? You just can't help but feel that the GM played you by telling everything in a way that would only allow you to think it was the truth. Unless you feel really super-sure about it and it's an NPC that has already been well established as a terrible person and constant lier, I'd say avoid this entirely.

What do you think of this so far?

Rhynn
2014-04-28, 02:36 PM
I think you're pretty much spot on. Avoid messing with the players as much as possible, and keep it relatively simple.

Obviously, if you know your players, you can do triple-bluffs and red herrings painted gold and whatever else, but as a general rule, keeping things simple and letting them see something was obviously a lie is the best way to go.

Plenty of anecdotes suggest that some players will still get mad at being fooled by straight-up lies, even obvious ones, but you can only do so much, and the rest of the responsibility falls on the players...


I think you could probably construct some kind of hierarchy of falsehoods and misdirections, organized by how likely they are to frustrate or annoy players. For instance, I think Straight Lies are going to go over better than Making the truth work for the villain (half-truths, basically); the latter involves a greater level of deception, and is more likely to put the players in a bind.

The Jedi-truths (I'd call them Aes Sedai lies, myself :smallamused: ) are definitely more frustrating than either of those, largely because they're harder or almost impossible to see through beforehand. Players can feel quite unfairly done by if they're fooled by lies they never had any chance to see through to begin with. (Of course, this is really subjective - I expect my players to do some legwork to figure things out, but maybe someone's players can't or don't want to.)

The more lie you stack on lies, the more misdirections and half-truths etc. there are, the more frustrating the whole thing will probably become for the average player. Some of us have the wits and practice follow complicated chains of falsehoods and keep track of which bits are true, but it does require a lot of mental work.

For instance, reading A Song of Ice and Fire can be pretty mentally involving because you get everything from a subjective point-of-view and have to keep track of what is actual truth yourself - all of the characters usually have incomplete or untrue information about most things (sort of an intentional theme in the books; GRRM just delights in giving the reader false versions of events the reader already knows the truth of, in the form of rumors other characters hear).

Of course, there's a whole other category... "Truth is Subjective." Entire settings can be built on this (like Glorantha), but even there, it usually works out for players to take a stand on what their truth is (this is built into Glorantha), and that gives them a fixed point but makes the campaign setting flexible - they don't have to become monsters if they want to switch sides, etc. If you get deep into this stuff, it can get really confusing really fast. ("Oh, well, see, all these conflicting stories are simultaneously true...")

Spacebatsy
2014-04-28, 04:15 PM
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!


I think the question should be: ”why is he/she lying?” rather than of “how is he/she lying?”

What is the NPC trying to accomplish by lying? Save his skin? Get a slightly better price? Save the lives of her comrades? Hide a lover? World domination?
I have a lot of investigations in my games and people are lying all the time. But it’s a huge difference between the BBEG who wants to misdirect the PCs or make them do his bidding (or forbid, a demon making an offer) and the scared thief or the mischievous child.
So the next question should be: “who is the liar?”

I lie poorly a lot. Nervous motions, darting eyes and hesitant speech. Lying actually makes most people uncomfortable, and I think that should show if it’s reasonable. I think PCs should be given a fair chance to see through the lies, and roleplaying poor liars is a good way for that. (Not to mention fun. If the PCs gets used to scrutinize you then you will be nervous about lying for real.)
I never have my NPC lie out of spite. There must be a reason for them to lie, and the quality of the lie should reflect how important it is and how good a liar the NPC is.


I find lies taken from thin air usually confuses my players more than if it is spun around the truth, because then they will try and figure out how that story will make since. (But he said there would be a crown in the ruin, we must find that ruin!). And I find it, as a GM, harder to come up with flat out lies than half-truths.

And in the (paraphrased) words of Ron Weasley: it’s easier to pretend to be someone you already know something about than making up a person from scratch. By that logic it’s also easier to base the lies around a grain of truth.
I think it would be an easier lie to say “Yes he’s in that room” and neglect mentioning that he’s accompanied by ten soldiers, than flat out say “No, he’s not in that room”.

To summarize: I think that the straight lies is closest to the do-not-do pile. I think I would be more upset with a NPC telling me that there will be a dragon guarded hoard of gold two weeks travel away and it’s absolutely nothing, than there being a dragon but no hoard. In the first case I would think the NPC was a practical joker, breaking immersion. In the second case I would want to find out why the NPC is trying to get me killed. Okay bad examples, I know, but I still say that completely fabricated lies are less fair and less realistic.


And one should not be afraid to use stupid lies. When stressed it’s not always easy to think everything through (-They came through the windows! –We’re underground! There are no windows!). And having the PCs getting used to a world of possible liars by giving them plenty of easily spotted lies is a good way of making room for the more elaborated ones


It’s very late, and I’m not sure how much sense this makes. But still, here’s my input

Eisenheim
2014-04-28, 04:49 PM
I think the real issue with outright lies to PCs is that the players have a significantly lower degree of general knowledge about the game world with which they can fact check the NPC's statements then people in the real world generally have access to. Bearing that in mind, don't make NPCs lie about things the players would know, or make sure you give them a reasonable opportunity to get conflicting evidence before they have fully acted based on false information.

In terms of mechanical fairness and lying, I would make any kind of meaningful interrogation a series of opposed checks, with at least the NPC's side rolled in secret if not both sides, and then give them outright lies only on a loss. An experienced cleric or bard with high ranks in diplomacy, intimidate and sense motive should only get taken in by a world-class huckster.

All that being said, if they simply assume their defeated foes will be completely forthcoming and honest, you shouldn't feel bad about curing that assumption harshly.

Aedilred
2014-04-28, 05:31 PM
In terms of mechanical fairness and lying, I would make any kind of meaningful interrogation a series of opposed checks, with at least the NPC's side rolled in secret if not both sides, and then give them outright lies only on a loss. An experienced cleric or bard with high ranks in diplomacy, intimidate and sense motive should only get taken in by a world-class huckster.
The advantage of this as well is that it reminds the players - if not the characters - that the NPC might be lying, which helps to prepare the players for the consequences on the inevitable occasions that the NPCs are and might make them less aggravated at the GM.

Or they metagame their way out of it, but hopefully your players aren't like that.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-04-28, 05:39 PM
Absolutely nail the NPC's motives down. I hinged an entire NPC off of this. He had a very simple motive: he wanted to open the prison of a Fae Lord, so that he could kill the Fae Lord once and for all. So he helped the group, while singling out one of its members. He planned to use this member to open the prison.

Naturally, he lied his face off to the rest of the party, and I was lucky enough that circumstances fell together. (The character who got snatched by the schemer had been forgotten by his player--he'd left the character sheet behind. So I had him make up a different character, introducing him to the story. Everything fell together, so that I had an explanation of where the character had gone.)

It worked wonderfully.

In a game where deception is the norm, I'd do this with most of the NPCs. Everyone has an agenda, and everyone's trying to use everyone else. Each NPC gives you the information that they want you to have, so that you'll act in the way that they want.

neonchameleon
2014-04-28, 05:40 PM
Things that need to be true:

Anything that the DM says about the game world OOC. Also anything that the DM says that your character senses is something your character senses.

Things that don't need to be true:

Statements by NPCs. But this is not to be used as a dodge - if the NPC passes on Jedi-lies then they are the sort of character that Jedi-lies.

What your character senses is true rather than an illusion.

veti
2014-04-28, 05:50 PM
I have no problem with an NPC lying to me, at any level. I have levels of trust that I apply to all NPCs encountered, and I automatically truth-evaluate whatever they say in accordance with how much I trust them. I trust people more if they've given good information in the past, if I know their background, or if what they tell me is consistent with other sources I have.

To a quest-giver at the start of the campaign: I don't trust them much, but I assume that following their instructions will lead to, at least, some further clues or enlightenment, so we might as well go with them.

To a captured enemy: I don't trust them at all, and will make efforts to get independent corroboration of anything important they tell me.

To some random bod who approaches me on the street: very like the quest giver, "why is this person approaching me?"

Alberic Strein
2014-04-28, 10:38 PM
"The book is lying."

This was one of the few, and very successful lies that a GM dropped on the entire party. We were playing a Call of Cthullu one shot, so the last minute, world shattering twist worked. Since from the onset we knew we weren't supposed to win.

So context is going to be something you want to factor in.

For the rest, I think you are being quite accurately aware of the very, very dangerous caveat of unwittingly abusing the player's willing suspension of disbelief. Players drop their guard down whenever you speak because they can't just doubt everything and because nothing in the setting makes sense if you think a little bit too hard about it. So whenever you talk they start with believing you even if it makes no sense to, for reasons aforementionned. So you need to put them on guard, to give them a fighting chance to avoid your players feeling like they're being... Played. With no way out. Of course, ideally the players should wisen up and start getting back at the liar, but in practice it happens very rarely. Because players don't have the necessary "keys" to. Combat is easy. They know just how hard they hit, and how hard they can be hit. But the world? They don't "know" about that. They are aware of a number of things you told them (even though they forgot half of it) and assume much of the rest. However "assuming" leads to (in perspective) stupid behaviours and freezes up players. Whom start hesitating since they don't "know" for sure and don't know who could give them the relevant information either. They can't directly ask you, the GM, since their characters probably don't know that and so you can't just drop the information on them and they will have trouble asking NPC's, since you just proved them that any information NPC's tell them should be taken with a pinch of salt.

One very strong point that was brought up is using the game mechanics and being DEAD SERIOUS about it. On top of giving players ample information (if they don't fail their rolls) it will raise their alertness level. Like a discreet "Stop sleeping, it's a challenge, exactly like that forest troll a few minutes back!". It allows you to make make them serious about the social encounter, and maybe, just maybe, picking up a few bits of the crucial information which could lead them to unraveling the deception.

This false sense of security is another dangerous caveat, since it gives players the feeling to have been backstabbed while they were relaxing.

You don't need to be totally upfront with the checks however. Some minor and subtle details can be highlighted sufficiently for your players to be on guard.

You could also play with the fact they are playing characters. One sense motive check from the cleric and the rogue could lead to vastly different results which are what showed up on the character's radar. The rogue might notice that, for an orb supposedly able to protect against monsters, the NPC is awfully lax with it's handling, like it's closer to "disposable refuse" than to "powerful artifact". While another character may notice that he is parting with the orb without issue, and even though it's supposedly so precious he is not uing it to haggle a lower pay for the adventurers. Or maybe the fighter could tell that for such a mission, they are being paid awfully well, etc...

These examples are about classes, but you could play more with the characters, their backgrounds, their traits, who they are beyond the race and class combination, to see what they would pick up.

Lastly, never expect a player to catch on to something because his character should. Players are players, they have additional layers, their avatar, their OOC banter with their teammates, between the game and them compared to you, and it makes them very, very distanced from the game, and thus unable to pick up things their character should.

A player not catching on to something their character should is an excellent reason to call for a check, and no reason to belittle the player for not being concentrated or stupid.

tl;dr : Players have very few keys to interact with the world around them besides bashing things, and you are their sole purveyor of such keys, so tread very, very carefully. And use the game system. And factor in that players will never be as committed to the game or as lucid about it than you can be.

veti
2014-04-28, 11:44 PM
For the rest, I think you are being quite accurately aware of the very, very dangerous caveat of unwittingly abusing the player's willing suspension of disbelief. Players drop their guard down whenever you speak because they can't just doubt everything and because nothing in the setting makes sense if you think a little bit too hard about it. So whenever you talk they start with believing you even if it makes no sense to, for reasons aforementionned.

Sure, the DM should never lie to the players. (Glossing over illusions/disguises/etc. for the moment, those are exceptions, but they're obvious when they arise and not the norm anyway.)

But NPCs are a different matter. Why should everything an NPC says (or writes, or communicates via ouija board or tossed runes or the flight of swallows) be completely reliable? Any PC who puts their trust in that without at least making some effort to corroborate it - is asking to be set up like tenpins.

Quite often, I'll ask the DM: "Is what this guy is saying consistent with what I've previously heard about $SUBJECT?" Often, of course, the answer is "hell if you know", but at least that's an easy way of establishing what's "common knowledge" in the setting.

Alberic Strein
2014-04-29, 01:21 AM
Not sure how I should phrase that but...

Yes. Oh gods yes. Players should be able to tell when you are being the DM and when you are simply giving voice to NPC's. They should oh so much.

However :

Well, first things first, the more as a DM you make NPC's drop exposition on characters, the more you strenghten their suspension of disbelief, since the exposition needs such suspension. It can end up blindsinding players. It's a logical consequence, not just players stupidly believing the clearly nonmagical orb will protect them against monsters.

Secondly, I honestly believe (hey, I might be wrong, hell if I know) that the willing suspension of disbelief applies to a person, not to a role. When you become the voice of the narrator, the players will have a tendency to believe what you say, not what your role (DM or NPC) says.

It has to do with being the narrator. Players believe the narrator.

The more an NPC is a narrator, the harder will it be for them to start disbelieving him without outside imput.

You, as the DM, as the person, not as the role, are the narrator. The more you are a narrator, the more they will unquestionably believe you, regardless of your role when you say said sentence.

Also, in campaigns and very long games, players can mistakenly believe the DM told them something, while an NPC in fact did.

The "unofficial" approach to giving information can easily give birth to confusions. Even if players SHOULD by all means be able to tell the difference, a single skill check when you start giving info as an NPC can cement the information as subjective, or at least make it easy to remember as NPC information, and not objective, always true DM information.

Yora
2014-04-29, 01:46 AM
The more an NPC is a narrator, the harder will it be for them to start disbelieving him without outside imput.

Very good point. I'm not sure yet what that means in regard to running the game, but this sounds really quite important.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-04-29, 09:28 AM
Well, a narrator type is treated with authority, often. It is interesting how in some groups (definitely not all groups!), the narrator NPC is given that implicit trust. Even though they're just another NPC. It's a nice blind spot that could be exploited to effect.

That highlights another good theme to harp upon: the theme of trust. You can't have a game with deception if it doesn't also contain trust. They contrast against one another, and it's trust that lets you push off into deception.

Oh, and that means NPCs trusting the players, too. An NPC who trusts the players is more likely to be trusted by them. And when you have a number of NPCs whom the players trust, then you can pull a deception or betrayal with one of them, and it works much better.

And in a game where there's a web of lies and deceit, having some moments of authentic trust make it that much stronger.