| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of Lie (and any other social skill check) against PCs, there is precedent in the rules with regards to the Diplomacy and Intimidation actions in the "Changing Attitudes" side-bar, and I do not see it as a stretch to also include Deception in the advice even though it's talking about the loose attitude mechanic. https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=7
"No one can ever change the attitude of a player character with these skills. You can roleplay interactions with player characters, and even use Diplomacy results if the player wants a mechanical sense of how convincing or charming a character is, but players make the ultimate decisions about how their characters respond."
So 'allowing' players to decide themselves whether their characters believe the lie or not is not just age old GM advice, but almost outright recommended by the book.
I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to bring that up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to bring that up.On the topic of Lie (and any other social skill check) against PCs, there is precedent in the rules with regards to the Diplomacy and Intimidation actions in the "Changing Attitudes" side-bar, and I do not see it as a stretch to also include Deception in the advice even though it's talking about the loose attitude mechanic. https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=7
"No one can ever change the attitude of a player character with these skills. You can roleplay interactions with player characters, and even use Diplomacy results if the player wants a mechanical sense of how convincing or charming a character is, but players make the ultimate decisions about how their characters respond."
So 'allowing' players to decide themselves whether their characters believe the lie or not is not just age old GM advice, but almost outright recommended by the book.
I mean, that was largely the same point I brought up, I didn't reference the changing attitude rules which already suggest this general course of action for diplomacy (because I forgot/didn't know).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What could I have done to make this go more smoothly? What would be some good advice for similar situations in the future, in which an NPC lies to the party?
This may or may not work depending on if you're running a module or how important a plot point it is, but this is what I would have done:
She is telling the truth - I change the situation so that she isn't a succubus and the PCs are, in fact, wrong. I let their suspicions get them into trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would take the "metagaming is horrendous cheating by the players" claims more seriously if the modules and GMs did not also cheat by metagaming.
Imagine at 1st level the PCs start in a small town where they have to respect the strength the 2nd-level town guards and their 4th-level captain of the guard. Later at 5th level the party enters a new town, of the same size and the same economy. What level are the guards? The new town guards are 6th level and their captain is 8th level. Why does the new town have much stronger guards? Solely because the party is higher level. To enforce obedience to the law necessary for certain adventures, the town guard has to be stronger than the PCs. That is metagaming.
Suppose that the module plans to have the 8th-level party battle a young red dragon, creature 10. However, the sorcerer in the party has an ice theme and regularly throws cold damage. The GM decides that the red dragon's weakness cold 10 makes it too vulnerable. He replaces the young red dragon with a young forest dragon, creature 10. That is metagaming.
Balancing encounters is the job of the GM, so attention to the vulnerability of the young red dragon is justified. Swapping it out, nevertheless, is a letdown. The GM is skipping out on his other job of creating excitement. The players would be happier if he left the dragon as red and added some minions to make the battle as tough as the module intended. Then the ice sorcerer can shine, "Dragon, you are fire. And that is your downfall, for I am ice!"
My players routinely roll Recall Knowledge checks when they encounter an unfamiliar creature. How often does the GM make the creatures roll Recall Knowledge checks about the PCs? I do. It feels fair and sometimes the results are great. I told the story back in comment #56 of when a pair of korreds failed to identify the halfling in the party, because they had never seen a halfling before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the Deception topic. I have not run the module with the succubus, but I did have a similar suspicious check in my own campaign. A pair of bugbear assassins named the Dreamstride Sisters had been hired to assassinate the party. Their modus operandi was to weaken their target with a Nightmare spell, which works better if they once met their target in person.
The party was in an adventurers tavern hiring temporary minions. The sisters, disguised by illusion as humans, visited the tavern and asked about the job. Alas, the halfling PC conducting the interview had maxed out his Lie to Me ability and realized that the sisters' story of being mercenaries from the north did not ring entirely true. They were hiding a more wicked profession, perhaps assassin. The catfolk PC noticed that they smelled like bugbears, and some of the party's enemies were bugbears. The sisters left, and three stealthy party members followed them. The sisters spotted their followers, they failed to escape, and died in combat. I myself had hoped that they would survive long enough to cast Nightmare, a new experience for the party, but I had left realistic clues that the party acted upon.
The sisters had not fooled the party like the succubus in the original post, but the Lie-to-Me check had given only a clue, not their full nature. Letting the sisters walk out of the tavern would have been reasonable, since I was willing to give unsuitable candidates for minions.
A mixture of skill checks and situational clues gives the party something to follow up on. It enables player agency. Let the players congratulate themselves for paying attention to the right clues.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What could I have done to make this go more smoothly? What would be some good advice for similar situations in the future, in which an NPC lies to the party?This may or may not work depending on if you're running a module or how important a plot point it is, but this is what I would have done:
She is telling the truth - I change the situation so that she isn't a succubus and the PCs are, in fact, wrong. I let their suspicions get them into trouble.
Now [i]that's[/s] metagaming!
I kid, but if the players figure out your plan don't just change it so that they didn't figure it out. That's just like a TV show finding out their audience correctly theorized the ending and then changing it the next season just so that it's surprising.
At least, don't do it all the time. Being "right all along" is a great feeling to let them have. They're wrong so many times already, no need to force it so that they don't "win"
There's a difference between "figuring out the plan" using clues and in game information and PCs willfully disregarding the consequences of failed checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What could I have done to make this go more smoothly? What would be some good advice for similar situations in the future, in which an NPC lies to the party?This may or may not work depending on if you're running a module or how important a plot point it is, but this is what I would have done:
She is telling the truth - I change the situation so that she isn't a succubus and the PCs are, in fact, wrong. I let their suspicions get them into trouble.
Now [i]that's[/s] metagaming!
I kid, but if the players figure out your plan don't just change it so that they didn't figure it out. That's just like a TV show finding out their audience correctly theorized the ending and then changing it the next season just so that it's surprising.
At least, don't do it all the time. Being "right all along" is a great feeling to let them have. They're wrong so many times already, no need to force it so that they don't "win"
While I don't think it would have been appropriate here, I think changing some details based on player choices isn't necessarily bad, especially if it cuts both ways. IE, if the players have a clever idea that wasn't true before but makes for a good story, you can make it so they are actually right.
But on generally I've been swayed by systems which give players more agency in determining the narrative than Pathfinder, D&D, or APs generally support. I tend to let players in on decisions or details I am unsure of and my people usually appreciate it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through Unicore's account of the encounter, I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.
The encounter is horrible(without wholesale changes) nothing would make even new gamers not think something was up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... The instance as described would likely have any party on guard. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is and if you are wrong, what's the risk? Surely the PCs aren't going to initiate combat, but if they interrogate the NPC, either she is a monster who will eventually realize their facade isn't working and attack, or it really is just a captive NPC who would understand that the circumstances are odd, but their are saved by the PCs so how upset can they really be? Its a lose-lose for the GM unless you are especially careful.
And sometimes we GMs have to rewrite the encounter, because we know that with our party, it won't work as the module intended.
Assault on Longshadow had a forest encounter with a maenad, a chaotic evil CR 8 creature. I am converting the adventure path to PF2, and maenad is not yet in the PF2 bestiaries, so I ported her myself. The PF1 maenad is mostly a violent being:
Creatures of unbridled violence and decadence, maenads roam the world inviting others to join in on their debased revels. Though they can otherwise pass for humans, maenads appear bestial when raging or engaging in a bloody revel. They consume massive amounts of wine and food, cause fights, and tear their foes limb from limb. They control people’s minds, subconsciously inviting them to engage in their bloody festivities and fostering urges that lead to excesses of hunger, lust, anger, and violence.
The maenad in the module was indulging in a musical revel with enthralled captives rather than a bloody revel. Perhaps the writers, Benjamin Bruck and Thurston Hillman, wanted to befuddle the players momentarily with the incongruous scene. Or perhaps they wanted to add a fey-like scene to the fey forest Fangwood, even though maenads are not fey. I went with the 2nd idea.
I dug back to the ancient Greek Stories of the maenads. Originally female priestesses of the Greek god of wine, Dionysus, the women practiced frenzied dances and were called maenad, meaning "raving women." The mythology about wild women who did not obey men grew and became more savage. My PF2 port of the maenad had them fey priestesses of the gods of wine in the First World. They became frenzied and corrupted when they came to Golarion. They still worshipped any god with the indulgence domain. They had the abilities of the PF1 maenad, except I replaced Mad Feast with an ability to magically create enchanted wine that had the same effect as a moderate Juggernaut Mutagen.
Despite the changes, my maenad was still creature 8. Against my 7th-level party of 7 skilled characters, she would lose combat quickly. I decided to change the encounter from combat to negotiation. When a few party members openly approached the maenad and her dwarven captives, with the rest of the party hidden in ambush, she said, "I was waiting for you Chernesardo Rangers to show up."
That part of the Fangwood was claimed by the Chernesardo Rangers, the elusive protectors of Nirmathis. The Rangers had not killed the maenad, because technically she was a priestess of Cayden Cailean. They instead declared that if she captured any civilized peoples then instead of ripping them apart and eating them, she had to trade them to the Rangers for sheep. The party had become official Chernesardo Rangers, so this left them with a moral dilemma. They could break the prior deal and kill the maenad to free the captives, or they could try to honor the deal. They invited her along and she indulged herself by killing Ironfang Legion soldiers.
A low-threat encounter became quite memorable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through Unicore's account of the encounter, I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.
The encounter is horrible(without wholesale changes) nothing would make even new gamers not think something was up.
I don't think it is necessary to say that anything went horribly. The Encounter was not "encountered" in the order the story was written for, as our party was backtracking through a dungeon where the bosses were already defeated, so Raving Dork was already in a position of trying to improvise and integrate the initial intention of the encounter with where our party was at. I also have no idea what role the succubus could have continued to play in RDs version of this campaign, but it seems like he was not really interested in having it develop into a long term NPC, meaning that combat was probably inevitable and the deception was primarily about what the circumstances were going to be when combat occurred.
The key to good encounter design as a GM is in learning how to give up narrative control of the story durning the encounter, and how to adapt and anticipate that the PCs are going to do completely unexpected things and not get overly attached to any potential outcome that might result. I think the point of this thread was not to create the correct answer for how the GM or the players should have handled this situation, but just to learn from what did happen and see how other GMs would have reacted to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through Unicore's account of the encounter, I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.
The encounter is horrible(without wholesale changes) nothing would make even new gamers not think something was up.
I don't think it is necessary to say that anything went horribly. The Encounter was not "encountered" in the order the story was written for, as our party was backtracking through a dungeon where the bosses were already defeated, so Raving Dork was already in a position of trying to improvise and integrate the initial intention of the encounter with where our party was at. I also have no idea what role the succubus could have continued to play in RDs version of this campaign, but it seems like he was not really interested in having it develop into a long term NPC, meaning that combat was probably inevitable and the deception was primarily about what the circumstances were going to be when combat occurred.
The key to good encounter design as a GM is in learning how to give up narrative control of the story durning the encounter, and how to adapt and anticipate that the PCs are going to do completely unexpected things and not get overly attached to any potential outcome that might result. I think the point of this thread was not to create the correct answer for how the GM or the players should have handled this situation, but just to learn from what did happen and see how other GMs would have reacted to it.
And this is why I said I am of the opinion it is a ridiculous encounter that is totally out of place and the OP didn't do a good job GMing it.
The encounter is too odd, too out of place with how everything else is. Which means every gamer is on edge looking and pushing to find out why, just like you all did.I don't see where the OP tried to improvise or integrate anything, looks and reads like they where just reading straight from the module.
This thread is a perfect example of why GMs should read, reread, and skim the module before attempting to run the module.
Because then an adequate GM should be to improvise or integrate.
When players have choice, there can never be "The Encounter was not "encountered" in the order the story was written for" a GM has to be able to improvise or integrate as the story unfolds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only terrible if you're assuming the encounter is designed around the expectation that the succubus is supposed to be credible and successful.
Given the way the scenario is written, the opposite seems more likely. The various context clues in the room provide a counterbalance to the succubus' overbearing deception modifier that would otherwise pretty much guarantee their success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only terrible if you're assuming the encounter is designed around the expectation that the succubus is supposed to be credible and successful.
Given the way the scenario is written, the opposite seems more likely. The various context clues in the room provide a counterbalance to the succubus' overbearing deception modifier that would otherwise pretty much guarantee their success.
It's terrible because it's out of place.
It's seeing 1,000 flightless birds running around, but I'm not supposed to think the 1 ostrich is any different then the 999 chickens.
You get new, more gullible players to replace the other ones, problem solved.
Otherwise, you just accept that you done messed up, A-A-Ron, and move on.
|
RD doesn't necessarily need new players, he probably just needs to lay down the law and tell them it's unacceptable in his games for the players to ignore the results of the checks and rules of the game so they don't suffer the consequences.
Clearly, they felt comfortable with crossing a line that RD (and many others here) consider unfair and gamist metagaming, maybe they didn't even think it's a line that was crossed at all but clearly it's a divisive issue. It's a shame it came out during a game but it does sound like the group could stand to have a discussion about where to draw the line between in-game and out-of-game knowledge.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to call players out on metagaming, but ultimately, most social skill checks are more the players and not the DM.
I never roll to Lie, Make an Impression, Request, or Impersonate vs pcs. It just present the information to make it seem earnest and let the players believe it or not. My players are good enough roleplayers that they usually act in character; I recently had a PC get totally suckered into accepting a succubus' Profane Gift because she offered something that was extremely tempting and targeted at their desires.
Generally speaking, I present these interactions in plausible/positive ways, as though they had passed the roll, and if the player pass a sense motive, I give them a detail that points something out. If my before mentioned player passed a roll, I would have given her a hint that the person was acting much more intimately aggressive than the person the succubus was impersonating, or mention that there was a minor detail that was off.
As far as I'm concerned, the PCs are allowed to believe and react however they want to my NPCs, just like I'm free to control the info the players learn about my NPCs without rolls
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RD doesn't necessarily need new players, he probably just needs to lay down the law and tell them it's unacceptable in his games for the players to ignore the results of the checks and rules of the game so they don't suffer the consequences.
I think laying down the law like that is VERY likely to result in him needing new players as the old ones decide to find another game :-) :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
Clearly, they felt comfortable with crossing a line that RD (and many others here) consider unfair and gamist metagaming,
I want to point out that it looks to me like the majority of people disagree with this assessment, and ultimately so did RD. He seems to have come around that the encounter went exactly as intended. He just initially misunderstood the intention.
It's terrible because it's out of place.
It's seeing 1,000 flightless birds running around, but I'm not supposed to think the 1 ostrich is any different then the 999 chickens.
This reads as "it is terrible to have variety in encounters." I'd sure hope there's an ostrich somewhere to break up 999 chickens. I'd be so bored with chicken.
Maybe I missed your point, but I can't really see how this is supposed to be a response to what Squiggit said.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned, the PCs are allowed to believe and react however they want to my NPCs, just like I'm free to control the info the players learn about my NPCs without rolls
I'm pretty much of the same mind. Failing a sense motive check that I rolled in secret just means the PCs don't get any free hints, not that they have to take the NPC's every word as fact. There's a huge difference from reading the AP in advance and putting the dots together based on everything presented to you in character.
...unfair and gamist metagaming...It was in-character knowledge that the situation was suspicious; there is nothing unfair, gamist, or metagaming about remaining suspicious of a suspicious situation even though you can't tell a person involved in that situation is lying to you.
Nononono, using presented information is gamest because games like Ace Attorney and Danganronpa gamify stuff like that.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
...unfair and gamist metagaming...It was in-character knowledge that the situation was suspicious; there is nothing unfair, gamist, or metagaming about remaining suspicious of a suspicious situation even though you can't tell a person involved in that situation is lying to you.Nononono, using presented information is gamest because games like Ace Attorney and Danganronpa gamify stuff like that.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
LOL If only Ace Attorney would appear on the screen pointing his finger at each question of something suspicious! LOL
Ace Attorney is a good example of what not to do really, since that's a game where it's very easy to come to the right solution in a way the game wasn't expecting and be penalized for it. That's kind of unavoidable with a computer running a glorified visual novel, which is part of why video games haven't replaced tabletop rpg's entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see where the OP tried to improvise or integrate anything, looks and reads like they where just reading straight from the module.
This thread is a perfect example of why GMs should read, reread, and skim the module before attempting to run the module.
Because then an adequate GM should be to improvise or integrate.
In my defense, I read the relevant sections at least twice before every game, once no less than a week in advance, and then again the day before/of. Oftentimes, I also have time to skim relevant sections a third time. Sometimes, the skimming takes place while the players are talking to one another about simple things that don't need a GM to adjudicate (such when taking care of inter-party healing for example), or during a game break.
I'm not the most adaptive GM, but I definitely do my homework.
Also, had I skipped the encounter altogether, the party would not have been able to obtain crucial details that allow them to get to Chapter Two of the Adventure Path. Furthermore, it would have prevented them from EVER seeing an adversary who--up to this point--is literally responsible (both directly and indirectly) for ALL of the hell the PCs have had to go through.
I sure wasn't going to deny them the satisfaction of seeing the face of what was essentially the BBEG of the early campaign.
I think laying down the law like that is VERY likely to result in him needing new players as the old ones decide to find another game :-) :-)RD doesn't necessarily need new players, he probably just needs to lay down the law and tell them it's unacceptable in his games for the players to ignore the results of the checks and rules of the game so they don't suffer the consequences.
This was also a Pay-to-Play game. Since my players are also my clients, I only have so much leeway when it comes to making GM moves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's terrible because it's out of place.
It's seeing 1,000 flightless birds running around, but I'm not supposed to think the 1 ostrich is any different then the 999 chickens.
This reads as "it is terrible to have variety in encounters." I'd sure hope there's an ostrich somewhere to break up 999 chickens. I'd be so bored with chicken.
Maybe I missed your point, but I can't really see how this is supposed to be a response to what Squiggit said.
There was a theme to the dungeon except one room....
Of course no-one should be suspicious of that one room...If that room had the same trappings of all the others and the Lie told, would there be any reason to be suspicious?
I don't see where the OP tried to improvise or integrate anything, looks and reads like they where just reading straight from the module.
This thread is a perfect example of why GMs should read, reread, and skim the module before attempting to run the module.
Because then an adequate GM should be to improvise or integrate.In my defense, I read the relevant sections at least twice before every game, once no less than a week in advance, and then again the day before/of. Oftentimes, I also have time to skim relevant sections a third time. Sometimes, the skimming takes place while the players are talking to one another about simple things that don't need a GM to adjudicate (such when taking care of inter-party healing for example), or during a game break.
I'm not the most adaptive GM, but I definitely do my homework.
If you are not adapting to what the players are doing, well, you get this thread
Also, had I skipped the encounter altogether, the party would not have been able to obtain crucial details that allow them to get to Chapter Two of the Adventure Path. Furthermore, it would have prevented them from EVER seeing an adversary who--up to this point--is literally responsible (both directly and indirectly) for ALL of the hell the PCs have had to go through.
I sure wasn't going to deny them the satisfaction of seeing the face of what was essentially the BBEG of the early campaign.
This is why I am not a fan of Paizo APs as is.
Odd though, that you were more distraught over them not believing the Lie.
Did they obtain the crucial details?
So this is the actual boss encounter?
Did they obtain the crucial details?
Yes, they did.
So this is the actual boss encounter?
It's uncertain. There are two other fights in the same dungeon that could be considered "boss fights." One is clearly against a pair of lieutenants and can be discounted as a "main" boss fight. In addition to the succubus, there is a hard hitting brute that could be considered the "final boss" I suppose, but I'm not certain that he's more of a threat than the succubus is.