Quote from: RPGPundit;848223I think this whole issue is only a problem if you've had players coming from situations where the GM makes just about everyone betray the PCs.  
But saying "no NPC will ever betray the PCs" seems just as stupid to me as saying "Bwahahaha, ANYONE who the PCs dare to build a relationship with will end up screwing them over!"

I would think the trick is somewhere in between these extremes.

I don't think the problem is in all-betrayal-all-the-time games.

The more common problem is games where the PCs have to rely on NPCs or they're breaking the adventure. For example, a man comes up to the PCs telling them about a strange threat over his town to the east - and he asks their help. If the players interrogate him, and check up on his references, the GM gets annoyed about them derailing the adventure.

In the case where there are a bunch of NPCs that GMs want and expect the PCs to rely on, then the players get used to accepting NPC offers as a way of getting to the adventure. Suppose then the players accept an offer, and it turns out to be a trap for the PCs - and the NPC betrays them.

The players get rightly annoyed, because they got into accepting offers as part of going with what GMs wanted.

Well, if you're talking Shadowrun/Cyberpunk or a lot of other games, the PCs are deniable assets if not outright professional criminals.  Even in the most hierarchical organization, and you're "made", all that means is someone has to get the right ok to bury you in the desert.

The "Fixer is gonna screw us" trope is a comic cliché really, I have practically every Shadowrun adventure ever published and the number of fixers who screw you I can count on one hand and have fingers left over.  As was said above, a Fixer who betrays his clients is a Fixer without clients and/or dead.

That having been said, it depends on the PCs.  If they are fuckups who like collateral damage and have a shaky street rep, sending them on a suicide run as a distraction for the real professional team is just good business.

Bottom line, every society has rules, even anarchist ones, and PCs who don't follow any of them are asking to be dry-gulched.

Vreeg may have the record for long-term campaign time compression, but during one harrowing Shadowrun episode when we were running for our lives from an unknown enemy, we had to be extremely careful how we looked for information, who we dealt with, what resources we relied on, etc...  A single 24 hr period in-game played out over 5 full 8-10 hour weekend sessions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;848298Well, if you're talking Shadowrun/Cyberpunk or a lot of other games, the PCs are deniable assets if not outright professional criminals.  Even in the most hierarchical organization, and you're "made", all that means is someone has to get the right ok to bury you in the desert.

The "Fixer is gonna screw us" trope is a comic cliché really, I have practically every Shadowrun adventure ever published and the number of fixers who screw you I can count on one hand and have fingers left over.  As was said above, a Fixer who betrays his clients is a Fixer without clients and/or dead.

That having been said, it depends on the PCs.  If they are fuckups who like collateral damage and have a shaky street rep, sending them on a suicide run as a distraction for the real professional team is just good business.

Bottom line, every society has rules, even anarchist ones, and PCs who don't follow any of them are asking to be dry-gulched.

Vreeg may have the record for long-term campaign time compression, but during one harrowing Shadowrun episode when we were running for our lives from an unknown enemy, we had to be extremely careful how we looked for information, who we dealt with, what resources we relied on, etc...  A single 24 hr period in-game played out over 5 full 8-10 hour weekend sessions.

In my cyber punk games the big bad is much more likely to cut the PCs a deal than try and fight them. In one memorable scene reminiscent of the shoot out in True Romance. All but 1 of the PCs are dead, all the bad guys are dead, the big bad, a Sony Executive who has been running a Terrorist Group called the Blue Circle is sitting in the middle of the room gut shot and bleeding out.  The remaining PC, Dragard D'Bard, ex-popstar, ex TV actor, ex drug dealer turned fixer is about to shoot the guy that poisoned him, killed all his mates, framed him for a series of murders in a lunar space station etc. in the head. Lawrence just looks at him and says,"So isn't it about time we talked about your future TV career."

Quote from: Warthur;848226To return to the original topic of the thread: in my gaming circles I've not seen a problem with PCs mistrusting NPCs in general. The specific issue is the old "NPC who employed the PCs turns out to be the bad guy, betrays them" plot point, which became such a cliche that these days people would be faintly embarrassed to run such a thing.

Yeah, pretty much this.  If an NPC betrays the PCs, and it makes sense in context, and as a result of the developing situation, then I don't know many people that would have issues with it.

The issue arises, I think, when it was clear that the betrayal was planned from day one.  It's less about "betrayal" and more about "GMs fucking with you."

Quote from: jibbajibba;848303In my cyber punk games the big bad is much more likely to cut the PCs a deal than try and fight them. In one memorable scene reminiscent of the shoot out in True Romance. All but 1 of the PCs are dead, all the bad guys are dead, the big bad, a Sony Executive who has been running a Terrorist Group called the Blue Circle is sitting in the middle of the room gut shot and bleeding out.  The remaining PC, Dragard D'Bard, ex-popstar, ex TV actor, ex drug dealer turned fixer is about to shoot the guy that poisoned him, killed all his mates, framed him for a series of murders in a lunar space station etc. in the head. Lawrence just looks at him and says,"So isn't it about time we talked about your future TV career."

Yup, "Nothing personal, it's just Business."  However, a lot of the time, guys in that position are so Alpha Personality the fact that you got one over on them and made them deal will stick in their craw, and you'll have to off them eventually.  So you get the money, they get to live, then you both start the shadow plans to kill each other once and for all.

Well, in a genre like cyberpunk you should expect that betrayal be a bit more common.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585.. I really do thing my players' willingness to invest in and fully interact with NPCs has improved since I secretly implemented the "no NPC betrayals" policy.

What do you folks think?

I think it's a really good idea, and I have been adopting a much more benign,

Yes, and..
Yes, but
Would you like to fail forward

approach to all my gaming recently, and this fits well with it.

Quote from: jhkim;848289I don't think the problem is in all-betrayal-all-the-time games.

The more common problem is games where the PCs have to rely on NPCs or they're breaking the adventure. For example, a man comes up to the PCs telling them about a strange threat over his town to the east - and he asks their help. If the players interrogate him, and check up on his references, the GM gets annoyed about them derailing the adventure.

In the case where there are a bunch of NPCs that GMs want and expect the PCs to rely on, then the players get used to accepting NPC offers as a way of getting to the adventure. Suppose then the players accept an offer, and it turns out to be a trap for the PCs - and the NPC betrays them.

The players get rightly annoyed, because they got into accepting offers as part of going with what GMs wanted.

The more 'social' or 'political' the game, the more this is true.

But there is a difference between betrayal and having self interest or motivation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;848769Well, in a genre like cyberpunk you should expect that betrayal be a bit more common.

Someone with relevant knowledge who tells you the whole, honest truth and nothing but the truth is so incredibly rare that the PCs should immediately distrust such an individual.  

In a cyberpunk setting it's best to setup a small, easily discovered covert agenda that's sufficiently innocuous that no one cares to dig further.  Like discovering corps advertising campaigns for a PR firm to let them get a leg up or something like that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;848769Well, in a genre like cyberpunk you should expect that betrayal be a bit more common.

Oriental Adventures had this too. Yakuza and Ninja masters might "test" you by sending you out to kill a loved one. Who might have been a plant by said master all along. So a double dose of screwover in the making.

Quote from: tzunder;848781Yes, and..
Yes, but
Would you like to fail forward

approach to all my gaming recently, and this fits well with it.

Jesus Wept.  RPGSite, we need an Intervention!

What I think is that, just to participate sanely in real life, people need to learn that one instance of a dirty deal does not warrant global paranoia.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846627"NPC betrays PC" is the second most overused trope in gaming.

The problem comes in when any NPC who is more than a simple shopkeeper ALWAYS betrays the PCs.  I've seen more campaigns than I can remember over the last 40 years where literally every NPC was treacherous.  In cases like that it's no wonder players acquire a "kill first and let the referee sort them out later" point of view.

I was in one game session where it had gotten so bad that the PCs, IN CHARACTER, were sitting at a dinner party discussing when, how, and why the host was going to betray them.

Which, of course, he did.

Yes, THAT creates a problem!

Having NPCs behave like the spectrum of real people is the way to go if we want PCs to be that way. After all, the players *are* real people, which means they are likely to notice patterns and make strategies in light of their own priorities.

Every table sort of establishes its own comfort zone.  For example, at my table if I have an NPC building up towards a betrayal of the party, or if I was setting up an encounter where a monster disguised as an ordinary NPC is bracing for an ambush, not only would the players in my longest-running game be fine with it, they would often play along when they could see the twist coming (I'm not that clever at hiding this kind of stuff I gotta say) "because [our characters] wouldn't know."  Which I always felt was a little condescending; if you saw through my trap then please blow it the fuck up and don't go all White Wolf on me but w/e.  

On the other hand one time I had a rifleman engage the party at something like 1,500 feet, an extreme but not impossible targeting range for a skilled marksman, and it took the party straight up 10 rounds to reach him and I guess nobody had Protection from Arrows prepared.  After that game I had two of my players come up to me and basically say if I ever did that again they'd walk out.  I really didn't know what to say... it was a campaign where flintlock weapons were a well-established part of the setting (which the PCs had basically chosen to never make use of) and an obvious tactic for the party's enemies to think of.  But in the mind of at least some of my players it violated some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" they thought I had been running with them.  People are weird.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851424On the other hand one time I had a rifleman engage the party at something like 1,500 feet, an extreme but not impossible targeting range for a skilled marksman,...

Yes indeed. Modern marksmen with smokeless powder and high quality rifles can hit targets way out there.

Also, welcome to the Forum!

Quote...and it took the party straight up 10 rounds to reach him and I guess nobody had Protection from Arrows prepared.

Does Protection from Arrow protect from rifle bullets? They have a lot more kinetic energy than an arrow.

QuoteAfter that game I had two of my players come up to me and basically say if I ever did that again they'd walk out.  I really didn't know what to say... it was a campaign where flintlock weapons were a well-established part of the setting (which the PCs had basically chosen to never make use of) and an obvious tactic for the party's enemies to think of.  But in the mind of at least some of my players it violated some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" they thought I had been running with them.  People are weird.

The sniper hit a moving target with a flintlock rifle from 1500 feet? That sounds unlikely to me with a flintlock black powder gun, rifled or not.