Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8768844" data-attributes="member: 29398">Situationally dependent in each instance, I suppose, but on the outside ends you're right.I agree the resources to figure this out should be there, but IMO the players/PCs have to get suspicious enough to proactively go looking for said resources before they will be made accessible.&nbsp; If they never get suspicious enough to do any digging, then so be it.Good.&nbsp; Some NPCs can be trusted, others can't.&nbsp; It's often but not always made reasonably clear which is which, and again if they blindly trust everyone then sooner or later the odds are high they'll get burned.I don't see those things as being connected.&nbsp; If in hindsight the untrustworthy NPC makes sense then I-as-player might even end up trusting the GM even more, in that I know she's presenting a consistent and realistic setting in which - just like real life - trusting the wrong person can get you hosed.First big campaign I ran, they got burned by this patron-turns-villain play in their second adventure.&nbsp; Players* and PCs* alike learned that blindly trusting people in the setting is a bad idea,; and the campaign went on for ten or so more years.Second big campaign I ran I pulled a similar thing; only this time the players/PCs had more clues up front (all ignored) that things weren't as they seem, and two adventures in they became fully aware things were wrong.&nbsp; The next three or four real-world years of play were spent either avoiding that whole mess or, later, going back and dealing with it.* - well, most of 'em, anyway.&nbsp; One or two never quite did get the message... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No matter what else I-as-player have my PCs doing in the moment, as a sidelight I always want to be exploring and learning more about the setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8768844, member: 29398"] Situationally dependent in each instance, I suppose, but on the outside ends you're right. I agree the resources to figure this out should be there, but IMO the players/PCs have to get suspicious enough to proactively go looking for said resources before they will be made accessible. If they never get suspicious enough to do any digging, then so be it. Good. Some NPCs can be trusted, others can't. It's often [I]but not always[/I] made reasonably clear which is which, and again if they blindly trust everyone then sooner or later the odds are high they'll get burned. I don't see those things as being connected. If in hindsight the untrustworthy NPC makes sense then I-as-player might even end up trusting the GM even more, in that I know she's presenting a consistent and realistic setting in which - just like real life - trusting the wrong person can get you hosed. First big campaign I ran, they got burned by this patron-turns-villain play in their second adventure. Players* and PCs* alike learned that blindly trusting people in the setting is a bad idea,; and the campaign went on for ten or so more years. Second big campaign I ran I pulled a similar thing; only this time the players/PCs had more clues up front (all ignored) that things weren't as they seem, and two adventures in they became fully aware things were wrong. The next three or four real-world years of play were spent either avoiding that whole mess or, later, going back and dealing with it. * - well, most of 'em, anyway. One or two never quite did get the message... :) No matter what else I-as-player have my PCs doing in the moment, as a sidelight I always want to be exploring and learning more about the setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification