Do you want your players to ever trust npc's?
If you do you have to have most of them be reliable, if you don't they will not ever trust anyone. If they have sense motive skills let them roll them to assess how trustworthy an npc is, that way they will sometimes get useful information.
It sounds to me like you over use treacherous npc's so you are programming your players to trust no one. This makes treachery less interesting and also less likely to succeed.
I think the issue is that the PCs shouldn't be going "oh s!+*, this is obviously a trap" just to be proven right time and time again. At that point it is just too predictable. Betrayals seen coming a mile away get greeted with yawns when they are revealed, and if everyone is literally out to get the party, those betrayals WILL be seen a mile away.
If you want an untrustworthy NPC to have impact then make sure the party actually has dealings with NPCs who may or may not be trustworthy, but who are at least civil and keep their word. Then again, perhaps in the game you are running literally everyone is a backstabbing prick, and that's cool, but just don't expect the PCs to see negotiation as a legitimate tactic to solve their problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second chaoseffect's opinion. The problem is not that the players are worryed. If done right that's great, since keeping the players on their toes is a BIG part of the GM's job.
The problem is that the players seem to get what's going to happen way too easily. If every NPC you build up is a backstabber then the players have an easy job of distrusting one and all of them. If your NPCs are mostly shady but ultimately trustworthy (on the matters they'll deal with the PCs at least) then when you introduce an actually untrustworthy PC they'll actually be surprised. As a GM being told "we were not expecting that to happen" is a symptom of a job well done imo.
Note that you should not put the PCs against impossible odds. Just make them sweat for it but ultimately let them suceed. They got ambushed, they weren't prepared. They got wounded and some of them even went into negatives and was just barely saved in time. This will give them a thrill, the idea they managed to suceed DESPITE the odds. If all you throw at your players are encounters where they walk down the dungeon and wipe out the opposition things get stale pretty quickly. Try to spice things up and always keep players on their toes.
It doesn't happen often. Last adventure (lasted 3 or 4 sessions) there was only a single wrong'un, and none in the adventure before then. Its just when it does its a big thing so people remember it.
This time I wanted to have someone manipulate the party for his own gain for story reasons, but I also don't want to get into a situation where every adventure someone betrays them.
You could go with the middle ground and have the quest giver be manipulating the hell out of the party, but also offering adequate compensation as presumably already agreed upon.
"Hahaha, you fools! Now the magical seals imprisoning my dark master are no more, and now he again walks this world and it is all thanks to you! Now you will serve him one last time... as dinner!"
Maybe replace that with something like: "Unfortunately you weren't actually commissioned to find my family's ancestral cookbook, but instead to inadvertently break the seals binding an evil god. You've done well, so take the agreed upon trinkets. My lord would like to thank you for your contributions to his return. Now begone you insipid mortals, until my master wishes to hire you again."