Hey /tg/, a little advice perhaps from DMs who have done it.
So basically I'm GMing the final session of this arc and the climax is the party climbing this huge tower where at the top stands the avatar of the God of Lies whose ritual they need to stop because reasons. This avatar however isn't so powerful physically since he's in mortal form, so in order to provide a challenge and make things interesting for the finale, I wanted to try and turn the players against each other sort of like he's whispering in their ears and "revealing" secrets to them about each other that will cause their trust to break down. What I'm wondering is how to go about this especially when it comes to providing the different players different information. I don't trust my players enough to not metagame so I have to sort of manipulate them in real life as well.
The advantages I have is that this avatar is actually my old player character who became the villain after I betrayed them and left at the end of the last arc (DM needed to go overseas so he needed me to replace him) so there's precedent for in party betrayals. Also due to some very poor decision making last session, they came very close to a TPK which may make it seem like some of the players are actively trying to cause their downfall. Lastly, one of my players picked up an artifact that used to be owned by the God of Lies and attuned to it and everyone sort of assumes (in game and out) that he's going to use that in the climax to take control of that player's mind when the time comes.
Basically /tg/, do you have any advice for handling asymmetric information, sowing distrust among players etc? Advice and/or your own stories are welcome.
Sounds like some funky ideas, see if your players are on board with the whole betraying everybody, then make sure the other players would be down with role-playing it out "BUT YOU WERE MY BROTHER ANAKIN" style, the final encounter can be an awesome role-playing opportunity as well as a cool combat
>>46219732
Now see the thing is I don't actually intend on them betraying everybody, but I do want the paranoia to slow them down so the evil ritual can continue as long as possible.
I was thinking of mentally pairing up each player (I have 8) with another and telling them that the other has been corrupted by something or another (of course there's no corruption at all) so that when they try and "help" each other overcome the "corruption," to the other person it'll seem like they are the one who was corrupted. For example:
>Player who attuned to the God of Lies artifact is paired with the paladin. This player also happens to be holding the Macguffin that the party intends to reverse the ritual
>Tell the paladin that the Macguffin player has been corrupted by the artifact and that in order to help them, they have to remove the Macguffin and the artifact
>Tell the Macguffin player that the paladin is a double agent and is just trying to get rid of the Macguffin so it cant be used to stop the ritual
>Neither player can trust the other player
Then I was going to have it culminate in a trap which involves two players having to trust each other in order to get through safely.
Turning the party against each other usually sounds like a great idea when you are GM, but will always 100% of the time end up with real-life butthurt and rage between your players. No one will have fun but you, it may even break your group up.
Don't do it. It sounds like a decent premise for a climax, but it is not worth it
>>46219818
Yeah this can happen alot of the time, unless your players are down with it OOC
>>46219818
Even if I dont actually want them to turn against each other fully? Like I want one of those scenes were everyone is ready to fight each other but then the heart of the group does a "cant you see what hes doing to us? Hes tearing us apart!" kind of thing
>>46219898
If there is any dodgy relations in the party anyway they might use it as an excuse to kill that particular bastards special snowflake
>>46219898
The problem is that a staple of GMing is the phrase:
>Never plan ahead, think ahead.
And right now, you're doing some hard planning.
One or more parties is going to be severely disappointed. Some will definitely feel unjustly victimized.
I have to agree that irl manipulations will probably lead to irl hurt feelings in the end.
So, I think you definitely should talk to the players ahead of time, and ask them if they're willing to RP infighting with each other. If they agree, there's no need for irl manipulations because the players will happily play along with whatever you give them.
THIS NEXT PART IS IMPORTANT:
If they don't agree to RP infighting, or you don't trust them to actually go through with it, then THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN *MAKE* THEM do it. Any attempt will result in hurt feelings, and even if you get what *you* want, the others won't.Remember, in the end the GM is just one more person playing the game.
In this case, I recommend that you simply give the Liar God and ability to make one PC make a will test or lose an action for a turn, or 'accidentally' attack an ally, or something of that nature.That's what will checks were made for in the first place.
Despite the ungodly amount of "no! that's badwrongfun!", I have to agree with some finer points. You can't guarantee people won't use the premise as an excuse to deck that one guy they secretly despise, or that they are even going to reach that "oh wait, these are lies! we have to fight it!" and end up with party brawl then TPK... so many problems with the plan.
Honestly, for a God of Lies, I would expect him to be cunning enough not to rely on a simple physical body, but rather set up events so the party isn't actually speaking to his embodiment. I.e. twist it so old player BBEG is actually a dummy (or fall guy) and is actually good aligned, trying to stop the ritual etc, and the God is an NPC that tagged along to help party take down the house, or hijinks with a clone of a party member and stall them that way so the entire party is looking intently on these two identical characters who perform every action the player says. "I stand on one foot!"
>Both characters stand on one foot
"I attack the clone!"
>Both characters begin fisticuffs and have even strengths
And so on while the ritual is proceeding.
Choice, I think, is important. Maybe the party doesn't give a shit about this clone bullshit and ignores it anyway. /shrug
