So I Lied To My Players...

[JNAProductions]

Well, deceived them, at least, but it's basically equitable.

It's a High School (College) Harem Comedy game, one where I disallowed supernatural archetypes, but I made the Protaganist supernatural herself.

At least one of the players was pretty upset about the switcharoo, and I very nearly lost players over it.

Before you ask, I have been talking to the players about it, and I have apologized several times.

Does anyone have any advice they'd like to share?

[Airk]

Did you DISALLOW supernatural types, or did you say "They are no supernatural types"?

Because the former is not lying, and perfectly allowable GM behavior, and the second IS lying and kindof being a jerk when you could have done the former, and your players are right to be annoyed.

Or, to put it another way, it's basically NEVER a good idea to change the premise of a game after you pitch it. Don't tell them "We're playing a game about space exploration" and then having them crashland on a primitive planet in the first session and be stuck there because they can't repair their ship.

Or, to put it yet another way: Why would you NOT have told them that "protagonist" was going to be supernatural?

[JNAProductions]

Did you DISALLOW supernatural types, or did you say "They are no supernatural types"?

Because the former is not lying, and perfectly allowable GM behavior, and the second IS lying and kindof being a jerk when you could have done the former, and your players are right to be annoyed.

Or, to put it another way, it's basically NEVER a good idea to change the premise of a game after you pitch it. Don't tell them "We're playing a game about space exploration" and then having them crashland on a primitive planet in the first session and be stuck there because they can't repair their ship.

Or, to put it yet another way: Why would you NOT have told them that "protagonist" was going to be supernatural?

They were disallowed. I never said they didn't exist.

As for the bolded portion... I wanted it to be a surprise. Which feels like a real bad idea in retrospect.

[Airk]

Hmm. Grey area then. If they ASSUMED that there were no supernatural types because they weren't allowed to make them, that's kinda on them.

As a rule though, pulling the switcheroo isn't "clever" or fun, it's basically just telling people "Get excited about X" and then expecting them to be excited when you reveal it's actually Y.

Edit: Anyway, it sounds like you've learned a valuable lesson here, which is all to the good. :) Allow me to endorse your feelings - it probably WASN'T a good idea for it to be a surprise. ;) Because, really, what would have been different other than that moment of "WTF?!"

[DireSickFish]

There is a very weird dichotomy about wanting to hide things from a narrative perspective to enhance the story while needing to disclose what is going to happen and be likely in the game so the players can play accordingly. It takes a lot of trust for players to go along with a switcharoo like that. That kind of trust is built up over multiple campaigns worth of GMing.

The best thing to do going forward is just explain what you were thinking and why it would be cool to have the group be the mundanes. To keep the game alive I'd totally open up that now magic is real the players have access to respec as supernatural characters, its there "awakening".

Another option is to kill off the protagonist and allow the players to have to solve these problems int he mundane way that were supposed to be solved by the protagonists powers.


The biggest concern I am seeing here is that you have a protagonist that isn't a player. Why are the PC's playing second fiddle to a DMPC? That is typically an unfun arrangement magic powers or not.

[mephnick]

Surprises and twists are never as fun for the players as they are for the DM, so it's usually a bad idea. The players generally don't have all the information to see it as anything but cheap or eye-rolling. You can't really enjoy it like a twist in a movie, because the movie hasn't had you personally invest a bunch of time and effort into it, if that makes sense.

[JNAProductions]

Oh, that's the whole point of High School Harem Comedy. Everyone competes for the affection of the Protaganist.

I actually did offer a supernatural respec, but one of the players said he'd leave if that happened. He wanted to keep being mundane. That being said, I'll bring it up again, because he might have had a change of heart.

Surprises and twists are never as fun for the players as they are for the DM, so it's usually a bad idea. The players generally don't have all the information to see it as anything but cheap or eye-rolling. You can't really enjoy it like a twist in a movie, because the movie hasn't had you personally invest a bunch of time and effort into it, if that makes sense.

That makes sense. It's definitely something I'll keep in mind for the future.

[halfeye]

Does anyone have any advice they'd like to share?

Don't do that.

[JNAProductions]

Don't do that.

Helpful. :P

I meant more post-screwup management. Damage control, if you would, rather than avoiding damage that's already occured.

[halfeye]

Helpful. :P

I meant more post-screwup management. Damage control, if you would, rather than avoiding damage that's already occured.

I tend to take the view that there are no white lies, only pale shades of grey, and they all end up hurting someone, somewhere, eventually.

[BWR]

Whether it's your mishandling a game or players overreacting really depends on how you handled it. If you just said 'no supernatural PCs', I would be fine with it. If you said 'there are no supernaturals' then pulled one out, I'd be a bit miffed.
If someone threatens to dump the game because of that you either did something a lot worse and haven't told us yet or the player in question is an entitled brat who takes the game way too seriously. I can see getting a bit annoyed at a switcheroo, especially if it's to something you don't like, but I usually cut GMs a lot of slack in how they run their game and what they keep hidden from players. As long as I'm having fun I don't mind a bit of secrecy and minor deception to enhance it. But, that's just me and the degree of acceptable deception obviously varies from person to person.

Short answer: you never know what some people will find offensive and some people will have no problem with.

[Mr. Mask]

I really, really can't understand this. Now, if you're excited to play in space, and then day one your ship crash lands and the adventure will revolve around surviving on a planet of primitives Flash Gordon style, that could be annoying because you didn't want to play that game, and won't get to play the one you want to. In that case, I'd offer the players the chance to veto the crash essentially, they can get their ship repaired after a one-off adventure with space natives, or they can have a full-on campaign in this area.

But, for subverting their expectations... why play games if you don't want that to happen? A supernatural theme, admittedly, can be a pretty big twist on the setting, if not done right it make hurt immersion or the engagement of the setting. It's possible your supernatural didn't have enough build up or hints. If that's not the issue, it sounds like the players are really overreacting.

I've seen some people get really extreme on this topic. One GM had an adventure where the players were being tricked by their employer, and when they got to the target they were meant to steal, the trickster left them a mocking note. The GM then showed them the notes from the adventure, showing that at several points they had the chance to uncover the trick and stuff the bad guy had to do to react to the players' actions. I think that's great. Someone else was totally against it, saying you can't trick your players ever. A game entirely without tricks and mysteries, I have little interest for, and I'm not sure where this evasiveness towards such comes from. I'd guess because such twists are hard to do well, so you might feel like the GM is stringing you along without a chance to catch him.


Advice: My advice is play to your audience. These players, for whatever reason, despise twists beyond a certain threshold. Work out what that threshold is, and stick to that. If you end up players who like bigger twists, then you can unleash bigger twists. Just remember to foreshadow and build them up, when you do twist, along with chance to catch you in the act.

[Hawkstar]

There are generally two problems here. One is that the players want to play the original concept, not the 'twist' concept. The other is that the twist takes the game from a fun and interesting initial concept to complete bull****.

You're not the first to make the mistake. Some of the biggest recurring examples are:

• Dragonless fantasy world, possibly 'low' fantasy... then SURPRISE! DRAGONS HAVE COME AND HIJACKED OR EATEN THE PLOT! *Yawn*
• Realistic contemporary setting adventure. SURPRISE! Zombie Apocalypse. Nobody likes zombies, and now the fun world and adventure was eaten by zombies
• Down-to-earth realistic setting. SURPRISE! Magic!

[Keltest]

There are generally two problems here. One is that the players want to play the original concept, not the 'twist' concept. The other is that the twist takes the game from a fun and interesting initial concept to complete bull****.

You're not the first to make the mistake. Some of the biggest recurring examples are:

• Dragonless fantasy world, possibly 'low' fantasy... then SURPRISE! DRAGONS HAVE COME AND HIJACKED OR EATEN THE PLOT! *Yawn*
• Realistic contemporary setting adventure. SURPRISE! Zombie Apocalypse. Nobody likes zombies, and now the fun world and adventure was eaten by zombies
• Down-to-earth realistic setting. SURPRISE! Magic!

Oh come on, Dragons coming along and eating things is the plot. Its in both the name of every one of the main line of books, and the freaking setting name.

[Piedmon_Sama]

I don't like dragons, they are too silly.

As to the OP, you committed a venal sin of Gamemastering but not a mortal one. Learn, grow, go forth and meta-twist thine games no more.

[Lentrax]

Hey, JNA. So I have a couple of things on this.

1. What you did was, from your point of view, perfectly acceptable. You said the PCs could not have supernatural types. Your mistake here was not saying that doesn't mean they don't exist.
2. Now that you have done it, because of the backlash at the chance of respec with supernaturals, you have two choices on the respec: Leave the choice of Supernatural Respec available for the between episodes, or drop it and keep moving.
3. Another choice, and probably the hardest for you, would be introducing a second (non-supernatural) protagonist. Where this leaves you is running basically two games, unless you slowly ween the primary off the game and make it a straight game for the second protagonist.

But the most important part is to talk to your players about these ideas. Don't just do it.

And I know about pulling something over on your players. Blustery Hearts, a game I killed off because of an overall dropping in posts and interest due to issues with how I felt about some things happening in the game. Anyway, a solution I had was introducing a second protagonist. Who happened to be Trans. Who became very open about it after she was drugged. But I made enough points in her introduction and her behaviors that it wasn't much of a surprise when she outed herself.

So, now that I have rambled on enough, my point is to not deny that something is or isn't, but make it clear the possibility exists. if you do that, if they know it can happen, it probably won't be deleterious to the game when it does.

[Esprit15]

Having been in Len's game, I can say that the reveal was very much an "Oh, that's what they were hinting at. Makes sense." It's fine to pull a surprise on the players, and is good for making the game a bit more surprising. The supernatural archetypes are of questionable balance anyways, and I don't see you as having done anything wrong.

[goto124]

One GM had an adventure where the players were being tricked by their employer, and when they got to the target they were meant to steal, the trickster left them a mocking note. The GM then showed them the notes from the adventure, showing that at several points they had the chance to uncover the trick and stuff the bad guy had to do to react to the players' actions. I think that's great.

If, before the game started, the GM did not let us know it was one of those games where anyone could be deceitful, I would feel very cheated. After all, I started the game with the employer telling me what to do, it was reasonable to assume that the employer was not going to turn her back on me. Since it's part of the OOC trust that I put on the GM, even if I spotted the points where the trick could've been revealed, I would've attributed it to other reasons such as the GM slipping up.

Now, by 'tricking the players', the GM has broken this OOC trust. That's why I'm so upset.

[Mr. Mask]

Well, it was Shadowrun. If everyone(anyone) is trustworthy in Shadowrun, I tend to feel you're doing it wrong.

[JNAProductions]

Hey, JNA. So I have a couple of things on this.

1. What you did was, from your point of view, perfectly acceptable. You said the PCs could not have supernatural types. Your mistake here was not saying that doesn't mean they don't exist.
2. Now that you have done it, because of the backlash at the chance of respec with supernaturals, you have two choices on the respec: Leave the choice of Supernatural Respec available for the between episodes, or drop it and keep moving.
3. Another choice, and probably the hardest for you, would be introducing a second (non-supernatural) protagonist. Where this leaves you is running basically two games, unless you slowly ween the primary off the game and make it a straight game for the second protagonist.

But the most important part is to talk to your players about these ideas. Don't just do it.

And I know about pulling something over on your players. Blustery Hearts, a game I killed off because of an overall dropping in posts and interest due to issues with how I felt about some things happening in the game. Anyway, a solution I had was introducing a second protagonist. Who happened to be Trans. Who became very open about it after she was drugged. But I made enough points in her introduction and her behaviors that it wasn't much of a surprise when she outed herself.

So, now that I have rambled on enough, my point is to not deny that something is or isn't, but make it clear the possibility exists. if you do that, if they know it can happen, it probably won't be deleterious to the game when it does.

Thanks for the advice, Len, as well as everyone else.

[Chauncymancer]

If someone threatens to dump the game because of that you either did something a lot worse and haven't told us yet or the player in question is an entitled brat who takes the game way too seriously.

I would be roughly as upset if my friend lied to me about something as trivial as a game as if he had killed a small animal. I don't consider people who lie to me over games to be my friends, and I don't want to play games with them. I'm not an "entitled brat", just because I don't approve of dishonest cheaters. This is why when there's a twist you say " there is a twist, but I'm not telling you what it is, okay?" And I'll be like "as long as the twist isn't that Protagonist is a vampire, go right ahead.". And that's fine

[Mr. Mask]

Erm, considering someone lying in a game equivalent to animal abuse seems messed up. Heck, this isn't even lying, it's withholding information. That's where this mentality that the GM can never ever trick the player seems contrived, as it would render poker, liars dice, and so many board games unplayable.

[goto124]

That's where this mentality that the GM can never ever trick the player seems contrived, as it would render poker, liars dice, and so many board games unplayable.

This is why when there's a twist you say " there is a twist, but I'm not telling you what it is, okay?" And I'll be like "as long as the twist isn't that Protagonist is a vampire, go right ahead.". And that's fine

The two paragraphs here go along.

When you play poker/liars dice/Paranoia/etc, you KNOW you're going to have certain types of information withheld from you, because it's part of the game. The knowledge of the nature of what you don't know (eh heh heh) allows you to be reasonable prepared for circumstances that surround not knowing certain things.

Now that I read the OP again, the DM has disallowed supernatural archetypes, but made the Protaganist supernatural herself. The players could've been upset at what they percieve to be the DM saying 'other PCs don't get magic but my special snowflake DMPC does!'

It goes back to how withholding information can put the players at an unfair disadvantage that breaks DM-player trust.

What game system was this, by the way? Did that system have rules for supernatural archetypes? How did the DM pitch the game?

[Mr. Mask]

What GM outlines the plot in detail before you get to it, with no twists? That'd be a horrible game. The Giant has neat examples on his site, like the adventurers who come to rescue the princess being served dinner at the villain's leisure by a dancing girl, who performs for them. Finally they grow impatient and say they're here for the princess. The villain gestures, and the dancing girl lifts her veil, revealing deep bruises--on the princess's smiling face.

That is a pretty neat twist for a villain. However, that would be totally out of the question, because the players will flip tables and shout, "BETRAAAYED!" if anything happens outside of their expectations. You're very much given the impression that people in the game can to lie to you, that you don't know everything about the world. That's what it means to play a roleplaying game, unless you're going with the plot-rail amusement park with a leaflet describing the attractions on your way through.


Issues of DMPCs and the like have not even come up in the discussion, so assuming that's the case is more than premature.... If that is the problem, then the problem isn't that the GM "lied," but that they wanted to be a DMPC.

[Quertus]

If most of the world believes that there is nothing supernatural in the world, and you wanted the players to create characters who not only were natural (banal, non-magical), but believed in a natural world, then, in my opinion, you did nothing wrong. In fact, the way you presented it was probably about the only way to ensure that the magical did not (subtly or overtly) influence the players choice of character. Kudos to all zero players who caught your clever rules loophole.

If their characters would have known that the world was at least somewhat magical, but you wanted them to create normal characters, then you probably presented things poorly.

As to how to fix things... I would not recommend letting players re-spec to supernatural - certainly not after one of the players has objected to it. I would recommend discussion, and trying to get buy-in.

Everyone signed on for what they thought was "Mundane High School (College) Harem Comedy". Explain your reasoning (whatever it was), and see if "High School (College) Harem Comedy with mundane characters and supernatural protagonist" is a game the group is willing to play. If not, discuss fallback options. One player has already rejected "Supernatural High School (College) Harem Comedy"; all have already accepted "Mundane High School (College) Harem Comedy". The "easiest" solution is to play what everyone has already accepted... if that is something you are willing to play.

Another possibility is to run "High School (College) Harem Comedy with supernatural protagonist and both mundane and supernatural characters". But I can see lots of reasons for people to object to that one, too.

[goto124]

What GM outlines the plot in detail before you get to it, with no twists? That'd be a horrible game.

Those are twists in the story. Twists in the genre itself, not so much. Space exploration shouldn't turn into swamp survival. Mundane genres shouldn't suddenly have magic in it. Etc.

[Tvtyrant]

Have a talk with the group, tell them what your intentions were and that you meant no harm, ask if they want a retcon or would like to proceed apace. The whole point of P&Ps is community participation.

[Mr. Mask]

Goto: Then your issue is with genre expectations, not with "lying"....

[BWR]

I would be roughly as upset if my friend lied to me about something as trivial as a game as if he had killed a small animal. I don't consider people who lie to me over games to be my friends, and I don't want to play games with them. I'm not an "entitled brat", just because I don't approve of dishonest cheaters. This is why when there's a twist you say " there is a twist, but I'm not telling you what it is, okay?" And I'll be like "as long as the twist isn't that Protagonist is a vampire, go right ahead.". And that's fine

Good thing we don't play games together, then. In one game I'm currently in, we were told "only humans". Fine, no problem. now, a couple of years later IRL and about a year in game we are told we might be allowed to play elves. ZOMG, he was lying. Or maybe he wanted us to start as humans and establish the setting for us and not spoil anything, letting the players learn about it at the same rate as the characters.
This is obviously as bad as running over a cat and he is a horrible person.

[tensai_oni]

I would be roughly as upset if my friend lied to me about something as trivial as a game as if he had killed a small animal. I don't consider people who lie to me over games to be my friends, and I don't want to play games with them.

You may want to re-examine your priorities because that's kinda screwed up.