Losing your players trust

do you ever worry about losing your players trust? I have a current group that I may lose soon, but I am taking the risk. We are all friends, and have been playing for years but I am concerned gamewise that they may not trust me anymore after what I am planning for them. heres the scenario: The party has been trapped in a nation that is 'dark'. I don't say evil, because thats not necessarily true though the players may believe it. The nation is fresh out of a war, so tensions are high anyway. The nation they are in worships the goddess of death, and has a very open relationship with the undead. Standard fare I guess. Anyway, there is a strong undead military presence that the pc's find somewhat disconcerting. There is currently a drought going on, and strong political instability. Add to this a fundamentalist terrorist sct looking to bring down the current government. The pc's have been enlisted to 'save the people' and stop group A from destroying Group B and using the people as their pawns. Group A is in power, Group B wants to be. Where this gets tricky is that the parties benefactor is secretly the leader of Group B, and much worse than anyone else. So he is using them as his guerilla shock troops to steal from Group a and essentially carry out his terrorist plots. Eventually he will get what he needs from them, collect all the information/artifacts and be able to stage his revolution. The party will, in the end be killed and resurrected as undead. That is Part 1 of the campaign. Part 2 will focus on them 'curing' themselves of the undead-ness. Part 3 will be, maybe, getting revenge. The issue is that we only play bi-weekly. This is the second shot at the campaign, as the first died due to logistics and timing. I kind of talked them into retrying, but of course always planning on this betrayal. I am concerned that Part 1 ends and they say "screw it" and give up. I don't know for sure this will happen, but it's a possibility.They don't handle being misled very well. However, in my defence I am leaving clues everywhere that should explain the betrayal. The should, possibly see it coming though it will be maybe too late by then. Do you think dm's have an obligation to always be honest, or at least not knowingly provide them with information designed more for the good of your own story than for their characters?

Feefait said: Do you think dm's have an obligation to always be honest, or at least not knowingly provide them with information designed more for the good of your own story than for their characters? Depends entirely on the players' ability to separate player knowledge from character knowledge. If they're good at keeping them separate, talking with your players about their plans is a good idea. If they're not so good at keeping the knowledge separate, misdirection is almost necessary to make the story work.

If I'm not sure a group will enjoy a particular element of the game, I simply ask the players directly. It really is that simple. I can hope that they'll enjoy it. I might even be right most of the time. But hope is not a battlefield strategy. There is absolutely no room for anything in my game that the players won't enjoy for any reason. It's a game made purely for our entertainment. If a particular element is not going to be fun, then it gets taken out, no questions asked. You've got yourself a plot. You've decided, apparently, that it supersedes everything even unto the point of losing your group. Might I suggest just writing a novel? Characters in a novel won't get upset at you for misleading them or circumventing or negating their choices to affect a desired outcome. Or for wasting their valuable entertainment time on things you already know they may not enjoy ("they don't handle being misled very well"). You say you have the "defense" of having left clues, but is that really going to matter if the players don't enjoy the outcome? Yes, DMs do have an obligation to always be honest. That doesn't mean you can't have secret plots. But it does mean you communicate with your players that such elements will be present in the game and seek their buy-in on that premise. It also means you offer them a fair legitimate in-game challenge - information garned both by interaction and mechanics appropriate to their level - to uncover that plot before it comes around to bite them. The plot is something you have created; the story is something you create together by playing the game ( plot is NOT story ). Keyword: Together . Don't forget that without the players, you have no game.

Very fair points. I think what we are running into is the Vampire:The Masquerade syndrome. We have kind of become gun shy about trusting random npc's, or even players. I think we have worked to become pretty cohesive. DO I think they will enjoy it? Yes, to a degree. i think that they might be angry initially, but will see the fun in it too. Hopefully, they will recognize and appreciate the very very convoluted plot i have created to bring them to the point of death and rebirth. The game is called Heroes Ascend, which is kind of a play on what will end up happening. I think though this will be of such epic proportions that they may never fully trust my npc's again. :) It should totally be worth it, if they are open to it. I guess we will see soon. They are at the point where the S is really starting to hit the fan. lol And I cannot outright ask them how they feel about it without losing the entire element of surprise. I like to work in episode arcs, and we just completed the first arc, ending with killing a major boss. Tonight is a framework planning session where we will discuss their thoughts, plans etc. and plan for the future. if they decide they want to get out of dodge I will let them, and just put the story aside for a new one. however, if they decide to stay then they will, assuredly, die. :)

No surprise is worth losing players over, in my view. It may seem counter-intuitive, but surprises actually work better on characters if you involve the players on making it happen. As well, spoilers don't actually spoil anything - in fact, it's been shown they enhance enjoyment. If your players think it would be cool to be betrayed and turned into undead, then they will actively help you make it happen. The game then becomes not about the destination but the journey, the "how" instead of the "whether." If they don't think it's cool and you don't find that out until after you've pulled the Big Reveal, will it have been worth it if you lose your group?

Ah dude...I hate to be dramatic but that last line I think it's the scariest thing I've ever heard from a DM. DM must always be honest. No RPG system is Player vs DM. IF you lie to your players they will feel that the game is you vs them. Do what ever is good for their characters . If you want the story to come out in a curtain way write a book. Doing things for the story is railroading and the quickest way to lose your player interest once they realize the story isn't about them and they have no say over it. (Unless your a damn good writer, in which case you should be writing a book) Never make your players the audience to your story where the only input they get is killing the thing someone else told them to kill. I'm sure if you read this your a little annoyed or mad. I was too when i was first told that. But trust me your games will have the players more involved and more interested if the story is about them and they feel like your on there side help them move their story along.

:) No, no annoyance or anger. It is obviously something I have been thinking about, or I would not have posted. I guess what we are coming down to is that age old line about half truths or leaving out information is the same as lying. "Son, did you do your homework?" "yes, Dad of course I did (half of it). lol It's not really that i want the story to end a certain way. My campaigns have always been very very free form, with an idea where we might want to end up but not a clear end. However, our group tends to break up and take breaks very easily. We have not gotten more than half way through any particular story arc because A. They wander B. Stuff happens and we stop for a while. Take for example last night, when they should have been moving onto the next section 2 of our players let me know they weren't going to be able to continue 2 hours before game time, and another had to bail because of work stuff. So, we just move on. Our games have always been very fluid like that. I like them to feel like they are part of the whole, so we generally find ways to involve anyone who is going to miss a session.However, this group is not very exploratory. Because of our limited time and infrequency of gaming they like being told where to go and when. If they do decide to wander, the option is there for them. In terms of the story, they are certainly not making this easy. I had a very clear plan of how this was going to happen.They are not doing things as I planned, but in other ways they are making it easier. For example... in order to become undead they were to have imbibed a certain amount of the bad guys potions. He gives them potions at the beginning of each session to 'help them out'. They haven't been drinking them. :( I am not going to force them to drink them, though Armen (the bad guy) does make suggestions now and then. If they never drink them (they need at least 10) before they get to the Change then I will have to go in a different direction. We still have time.They have also killed a major boss way ahead of schedule, but rather than capturing and interrogating him they outright killed him. also, whenever they find an incriminating note or evidence to prove that things may not be as they seem they read it then hand it over to Armen for safekeeping and guidance. So... that will be interesting. The incriminating documents will obviously disappear... :) It is very interesting to see how they are reacting to all this so far, and I can't wait to see what happens. The reason I am so set on the big betrayal is because i think they will really enjoy it, as mad as it might make them. I am gambling that the notion of getting revenge on me/Armen Tanzaryan (the bad guy) will outweigh any anger over me making them undead for a couple sessions. The two people who dropped were the ones i was really concerned about, because they were new to our group. The others I have been friends with for years and we have always gamed together. I think once ina while it is maybe okay to throw that crazy curve ball and just say "this happens".

Have you ever sat down with your group and asked for honest feedback on the game? If so, what did they say? If not, why haven't you? I understand that schedules and whatnot can get in the way of the group getting together or for players to have to drop due to the same. But generally when I see players are dropping and the DM is constantly on "recruit mode," that's a sign that there may be something off about the game. As a GM myself, I'm constantly examining my methods, approaches, and outcomes. I seek player feedback all the time to see what works and what doesn't, and this can even vary from player to player, group to group.

I am not in recruiting mode. :) My dm'ing is not the issue here. The 2 that dropped did so because we are east coast and they are west coast, and we could not solve a severe echo either in Roll20 or in G+. The last time we 'disbanded' was because of 2 members moving cross country (no roll20 at the time) and 2 others being really busy. I have three kids in hockey, and have a demanding job. Same with my wife (who plays with us), and our other members who travel for work a lot. I am not concerned with my players quitting, though that would be a logical discussion for player/dm trust in general. As far as feedback at the end of every 3-4 adventures we sit down and recap and do a quick survey. I have tried questionnaires etc, but honestly they just don't do them. I think things work much better organically adjusting the game as we go along. The plan for last nights session was a 'recap' session where we leveled, reset macros and discussed the future plans. That will happen next time, but either way they aren't going to find out their benefactor is in fact their villain until the time is right. I have a group that would either kill him outright or just leave, and I am not goign to create arbitrary limits to stop that from happening.

Ok first let me say, very nice name for a bad guy and then let me ask you a question, is he also known as Skinner? With that out of the way, I can get to the real point. If you are planning on them becoming undead in order to flip the script as it were there are some awesome ways you can accomplish this without the players getting all angry. I mean if after you killed the last player you immediately start setting the stage for their rebirth it lets the players know that while they were defeated it is not the end of the story. If it were me I would leave it as a cliff hanger for the session and say something like. "Emptiness....a bitter cold that grips your entire being. How long have you been like this? Time seems to stretch on for far to long. A bright light appears in the all encompassing darkness, beckoning you forward. You feel yourself being drawn towards it inexplicably, you yearn for its warmth. In an instance the light and the darkness are gone, replaced by the blurred image of the world that slowly becomes more focused." End scene/session. Now keep in mind that I literally wrote that on the spot and in the actual game I would probably put more time and effort into it but you get my point. Leave them with something, let them know they are still alive. Then when you come back to the next session, reveal the horrific truth of their nature, play up the fact that they still retain their humanity or what is left of it. Dangle some piece of "fruit" in front of them that they can be restored and then continue on. From here you have to play it rather loose as you never know, maybe the characters will become twisted and want to keep their undead forms and work to usurp Armen, or maybe they want to act for justice but keep their current forms as some sort of staunch reminder of the cost they have paid. Hell this could very well lead to some very intense inter-character dialogue as they discuss whether or not they should attempt to regain their life. You never know. Is it railroading? Yeah...a little, I mean you've stated that they don't have to follow said path. But is it a bad thing? I definitely don't think so. Games, books, movies, television shows...they all have this level of railroading but it does not make it a bad thing. Even improve can have structure and pre-set twists to it. So don't look at it like it is a bad thing. Personally I would love to be a player in a game where something like that happened. Which brings me to the heart of the matter. Trust of your players. If they have been playing with you for any length of time let alone the fact that you have known them for a while then there really should not be any concern about the players losing their faith/trust in you. By now they should know that not only are you not out to get them and are in fact trying to make stuff interesting but that in any story, bad shit is gonna happen whether they like it or not. Conflict where the players have a chance to win is essential but at the same time, shit happens that is just beyond their control...it happens in real life too. So if you are afraid that they are going to no longer trust you then I think there is some other things that need to be resolved first. I suggest that you talk to them about, before or after a game..or perhaps completely separately from a game day. Ask them how they feel about the game, what they like or don't like while subtly re-enforcing the fact that you are not their enemy or out to get them. I am by no means the greatest DM out there, nor is my style the best style there is, however even with running games online I have never felt for a second that any of my players did not trust me, especially after they have gamed with me for a few sessions. Maybe I am lucky, maybe I just give off a trust worthy vibe...who knows. But I have had some new players join my games only to have their characters die after three sessions, and even then I didn't feel I lost any trust with them. Most players understand that this is a game and that bad shit and crazy twists make it more enjoyable. And if you do talk to them and still feel you will lose it then either change your play style/plots or get new players. As shitty as that sounds, it is better to do one of those two options then also second guess yourself and be afraid to try something new.

Thanks for the vote on the name. :) I know it is from somewhere, I just could never place it! It just kept rattling around in my head, so finally I used it. I like to use also names of pro sports athletes because none of my players watch sports. :) The stage will go as such... with the information they got last session they will hopefully connect that they need to go see an abbot at a certain place, who they now have knowledge linking to the terrorist sect, and proof that he is feeling betrayed and questioning the cause. Doing this should lead them to the reveal of Armen as being not what he seems. This should, hopefully lead them to a confrontation with him in his secret lair. Upon confronting him, where he will have all the artifacts he needs to complete the ritual (courtesy the players) he will incapacitate them, hit a 'button', the chamber will be flooded by a green light and they will 'die'. Cliffhanger there. :) I am pretty sure they will go with the "get him! " strategy because that is there history and they should be angry. Last session they took out a major boss with a gang rush mentality, where i had provided them with multiple other options - including just running away. violence is generally there answer. lol when the arise they will have the option of siding with the forces in power to stop him, go somewhere to be cured, or hunt him down themselves.I am kind of looking at it like the beginning of a video game where the first few levels are on rails, but once you hit a certain point you have free roam.

I don't know if I would go about it in a fashion where he just pushes a button or has a one shot ability that kills them. Have them face him and his group of "minions" I use that term loosely in case you are playing 4th edition. Have them actually have to fight against the group just make Armen at good deal stronger than them. This way it doesn't come across as you just forcing the scenario but shows them that yes this leader of bad guys is quite strong and they will have to get stronger in order to beat him. Also it should be noted that any time you as a DM decide on the outcome of anything regardless of whether or not the players choose it themselves you are in fact railroading them. If you present them with several options on how to handle things, you are obviously going to figure out the outcome, even if you have to alter it somewhat on the spot based on the characters actions. The only way you could do that is to let the players decide the outcome in which case they are the ones railroading themselves. Railroading like roleplaying or metagaming is a term that is often misunderstood or misused. If you create a story and no matter what the players do they end up at your preset plot points then yes, that is the worse form of it. But no matter which way they choose to go at a juncture they will always be on a track leading them somewhere. Even if that track is mid mission the group decides to go get ice cream...

Hmm, seems to me you are running a game and your players think that you're running a different one. If players enjoy "free form" sessions and you make them believe that they are, but hide that in fact, you're running a "railroad" game, somebody's gonna have to give at some point. "..The party will, in the end be killed and resurrected as undead." Some pre-ordained events can be useful to ignite future sessions, but this one is...drastic. This is not a boulder that "just happens" to block the tunnel the PCs just came from because you need the PCs to be trapped and moving forward somehow, this is...wow. Personally, as a player, unless it's done PERFECTLY in game and I've had so far the time of my life, I'd probably hate it. If you present this like: "And so you return to the guy and have dinner. The dinner was poisoned and you all died", I'd probably quit right there. For this situation, personally, I'd give the PCs one HELL of a fight but a fair one (no dice fudging). Even if the odds are overwhelming, they should have at least a sense that they can get out. Heck, maybe 2 will die and be turned and 2 will escape. Such a fight could see heroics of insane level with PC sacrificing themselves in blazes of glory for the sake of others and whatnot....but at least, they might feel that they had a chance and this might create situations you guys will remember for years to come. After that, I'd end the session officially and sort out what's what, especially with the newly undead players. If there is NO WAY they want to be involved, don't force them, have them reroll but use their previous characters as undead that they'll probably meet. If they are interested, then see what can be done about re-uniting the party, maybe the survivors will hear some rumors about horrible rituals done to the dead and they'll try to get the bodies back, etc. Then move onto the curing part Also, in the situation you described, you don't need everyone to be undead, heck, you don't even need one. Use a potential contact of the PC, get him somehow turned undead, they'll probably try to find a cure if they think one exists! Just my 2cp.

Ok this thread has gone from being about the dm/player relationship and an honest discussion of the trust involved to "Dude your game seems like it sucks!" lol So I am going to just address this one more time. The players will be, hopefully, turning undead. Now if they decide somewhere they have had enough and just leave the country, then that probably won't happen. If they, after finding out the good guy is actually the bad guy and decide to just run, then again - they will be safe. I am not going to force them to confront him. However, if they do then they will be killed and resurrected as undead. Their missions are to collect ritual implements and books from past great necromancers, with the story given to them that they are trying to keep them from a really great evil. Instead they are are stealing them from Not So Nice Guy, who has nothing against the pc's and giving them to Bad Guy B who is using them to overthrow Not So Nice Guy. The hope is that when they confront NSNG and he says to them "Wait, you've been betrayed!" they listen and go back after their former benefactor. Along the way they will be encountering NPC's that have gone missing in newly undead form. They will be collecting books and treatises about resurrection, undead grafting and other sicko rituals. They are also meeting people and gathering books that hold the key to their return to life from undeath. That is, if they figure it out. The writing is, as they say, on the wall, they just need to open their eyes and read it. The whole plot stems on them believing their benefactor, which to this point they do. That's where my question arises. I will never arbitrarily kill my players. I've in games where this happens. It sucks. I played once where the dm had crystallized rust monsters in bottles thrown by frost giants, who threw them at us. Once all our stuff was eaten away we were then crushed into the dirt. I made the mistake once, years ago, of creating a "Mario World" extraplanar adventure where a few bad jump rolls doomed the party. I've learned my mistake there., cause that sucked. people died and got angry. My question is not whether my game is good, or my plot okay. That I am cool with, and my players genuinely like my games. I was just curious as to how much information people really felt it was necessary to share with players, and if you find ti easy to regain trust if you've lost it. :)

I hope the players don't look at the community forums! Ha! I don't think you have to be 100% honest as npc's of the world. So I think you could have npc's all over the world that are dishonest. But perhaps you might have more fun if they are obviously dishonest or the players do not trust certain ones after certain events. Honest npc's could also be fun in this campaign. What if they find an honest one and have to rescue the npc someway? They might be keen to protect anyone that is honest or whatnot in this "dark" setting. But 100% honest as the dm? I'd lean more toward yes than no.

I apologize if it seems like people are saying your ideas suck as I don't think that is the intent of anyone, at least I hope not. We are merely stating our personal preferences while giving you potential ideas to lessen the trust issue with your players. Once again though I feel you only have to reveal as much as you think is necessary. Mystery and surprise are great elements to any story, if you know what is going to happen it kinda takes some of the fun out of it (not all, but some). As for getting trust back, it is possible to do just like with anything although if they are losing their trust in you over this there was in fact a bigger problem. End of the day, just do what you think will cause the most fun to be experienced by you and the players. Fuck what everyone else thinks.

Thanks to Alex for sharing this article: <a href="https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20121101" rel="nofollow">https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dmxp/20121101</a> In there I found the perfect summary: "My D&amp;D campaign weighs the percentages more equally. I have a higher percentage of clearly trustworthy NPCs and clearly untrustworthy NPCs, mostly because I believe players get tired of psychoanalyzing every NPC they meet. They don't want to be concerned about some nameless dude who just sold them a horse to replace Kikkers McHoofenstein, the paladin's trusty mount that was devoured by a bulette in the last adventure. They don't want to cast detect poison on every flagon of ale they get from the tight-lipped half-orc proprietor of the Fat Fanny Tavern, either. And last but not least, they'd rather not have to do a background check on every hapless sod that pitches them a new quest. The flipside of the coin is that players like crossing paths with NPCs who are so blatantly untrustworthy that they practically have the words LYIN and SCUM tattooed on their fingers. It makes the NPC predictable and easy to deal with." I come from a long history of DnD with dm's that just liked to effe with us. I have also extensive experience with vampire and Shadowrun. I lost friends to Vampire. I had to abandon my last SR game because the players (I was new to the group) were so paranoid of EVERY npc that it took us literally 3 hours to even rent a vehicle because they trusted no one and always had to cover themselves. That, to me, is no fun. The group liked it fine, but I couldn't handle it. I guess where my morality compass is on alert is that i don't want them getting to that point. I normally do not have this sort of thing going on. I do fe.el like if every NPC is utterly transparent and lacking ambiguity it gets incredibly friggin boring. I would not have every npc being a 'lyin scum', but clearly they have their place. :)

Well the problem there is the fact that the DM/GM in those game seemed to think that the entire world needed to be out to get the players. That is not true...ever. Are there some that are trying to fuck you over? Sure, that is a given, but there is a far greater number that are going to be there to help you. I have played and GM'd most WoD games (old not new...fuck new), Shadowrun, D&amp;D, Robotech, Battletech/Mechwarrior, Star Wars and a few others and that concept has been the same in every game. It sucks to hear that that has happened to you as it tends to warp people and create players that spend 3 hours trying to rent a car or that use detect evil on EVERYONE, etc. We are playing these games to have fun and tell a story, not battle it out with the DM/GM to prove who is superior because ultimately Soundwave is superior.

yup and starscream is a whiny little brat.

Feefait said: I will never arbitrarily kill my players. I've in games where this happens. It sucks... Oh, my bad but that's what I thought you posted in your original thread and that's what you feared would cause the issue. That said, if that's the case, I fail to see any problem whatsoever and don't understand why your players would "lose trust". If they have options and you're not fudging everything to make SURE that they'll die and turn undead, then you're not being dishonest whatsoever, you're just playing the NPCs' agenda...

Hey, I'm not here to say your game sucks, but the sense of betrayal I would gain from having an undead hunter turned into undead (while dramatic and ironic) is not something as a player I would've signed on for. For me, what the above posts are pointing towards is the idea that you have already decided that "going undead" is "gonna be cool". I personally wouldn't go there. The options I see would be -have a big battle. make it a fair fight. if they did get captured and turned to undead so be it as a consequence. - or show their leader of B. who is their patron lying to other NPCs. Hint at the guy's betrayals. - show either his darkness or some other attribute or aspect that signifies that this guy is really not someone you want to trust. If you plot ahead the death of everyone you are not being fair. Your NPCs can lie. Your B leader can lie and betray, but I beg you don't pre-decide how cool it will be WHEN it happens, BECAUSE you FORCE it. I'm not saying you are a bad GM. I am suggesting that a lot of players will respond negatively to this as a storytelling technique. Your group might like it but as you say they might not and I get the whole flavor of why. I mean, you know it sounds cool as a story. But that it also takes away the player choice. Of who they are. Undead conversion is not just a line on a sheet. Some players it will violate basic religious principles, make their character seem stained, soiled or tarnished. and yes a true roleplayer or scotsman, or a paid actor could do it, but players being who they are, most of my players would bail. Figure the same way they'd feel about leader B, they will feel about you. Betrayal. Told one thing given another. Can you predict how hotly they will hate him within the story? except that's you at the table. And I understand it's a resolution of a battle. the players won't have a lot fo choices except try to survive. But it's just too much. In my whole GM philosophy it is Give players choices; the world reacts. the GM as world chooses, the players react. GM fairly. Be harsh, make it exciting. But you are with this choice invoking the fiat of all you dudes are gonna be undead. Same goes with replace Undead with some sort of stigma. Mentally Ill. Child Molesters. Serial Killers. IED making bombers, who use them against civilians. In a game, I don't want to play something I didn't sign on for. I can see scarred, maybe maimed with a prosthetic, but there are themes of cannibalism that go with undead. When they are cured, can they go back to society, a society where kids are screeching, "You ate my Mom!" I suggest, don't convert your campaign over to undead campaign just on your say-so. if you're worried that you know it's going to be giving away the big secret, ask them "hey would you guys like to be one day based in an all undead campaign?" Aand if you find that two people, three people say no, then hear them. At the point you decide "No, I'll do it anyway, regardless." There is your answer to your initial post. Respectfully. Good luck.