"Is It Okay To Lie To Your Players?" Topic

It's not necessarily wrong, but unless handled with care it may well justifiably upset a player, so, well, handle with care.

Personally, I wouldn't make the arrival of reinforcements definitive. I would tell the defenders that reinforcements have been sent, but there is a chance of them being intercepted. Then at the right time I would (publicly, but secretly) roll a die and announce that the reinforcements have indeed been halted and there are new mission parameters….

Dave

Lie , NO…mislead…Certainly.

It's fine if your intention for the scenario all along was for the defender to have to retreat, saving as many forces as possible. Telling the defender that that is the objective up front is going to affect how he deploys and fights the battle, which may negatively impact your intent on how the scenario plays out.

If I was going to run a scenario where no reinforcements were coming but the situation is such that it was seen as a possibility by the player, I would tell him that it is unknown whether or not reinforcements will be arriving, and to plan for both contingencies.

I think there is a better way to handle it. "You were told to expect reinforcements, but you do not have any idea when they will arrive." I believe at a certain point in the game the defender will know that they can't wait anymore and need to save their command, or the GM could give them a nudge in that direction.

I usually tell them up front in my write up of the scenario and tell them verbally, you are not getting any reinforcements. However I never tell them about enemy reinforcements.

I don't see a reason to get their hopes up and I don't want them nagging me about their reinforcements. You would seriously affect their strategy and screw up the game and yes there would be some consequences after the game. I just wouldn't do it. No reason to.

I could see not telling them about reinforcements they are getting. In fact I have done that before. But I wouldn't do to often.

I think Last and Fitzovitch have the right of it. Sometimes a whole historical battle hinged on a commander believing something which turned out not to be true, so you can't refight it any other way. Seriously turned flanks and impassable terrain which turned out to be passable are pretty common. But it can be a real problem with people you'll play with again next week.

I'd say (1) make it clear before you host any specific game that such things are not beyond you, and (2) be very careful to spread this out, so no player has reason to feel especially picked on.

Saying a side "expects" reinforcements that don't arrive isn't a lie – it's often historically accurate.

Giving players false information as part of their perception in the scenario is also not lying. This is why it is important to separate things like "rules" from "scenario" and within scenario "statistics" (parts of the game proper) from "milieu" (in-world perception/information).

That's the setup I use in OXI Day. link

Both sides have an expectation of Axis reinforcements, but know it is a stochastic process. The scenario doesn't represent the hour-to-hour arrival of Axis forces, but it does represent the various' commanders' dilemma.

-----

Representing, "You will get X..Y reinforcements at turns A..C." as part of the deterministic matter in the game is a lie.

If it's your game, it's not unethical. It's likely to be poorly received by some players and very well receieved by others (including ones who counted on the reinforcements). It's a volatile approach, and one I think is unnecessary.

I think that this is an example of reality and theory being different. I think any time you lie to someone your on shaky ground and there may be consequences. So as other's have said find another way to miss lead.

A GM who lies to his players is trying to play himself, and pre-determine the outcome. Let fate and/or a die roll decide.
If the GM dumps on the players that they suddenly need to retreat, that should be a campaign game decision, not a god-like decree from On High.

There are better ways to introduce uncertainty into a scenario without deceiving the players. That is going to feel like cheating or manipulation to many, even with the best intentions. I would also not want to be in a position as a GM of dictating deus ex machina-style intrusions.

I think it is fine in this scenario – as long as the player is given the chance to meet their victory condition, it would be a fine balance to not "cheat" either player.

However, if the games used chance cards, and the card "expected reinforcements have been delayed – to achieve victory you must now undertake a fighting withdrawal" came up I reckon most players would be aghast but would accept it.

I think as noted above that vagueness is better than lying – they don't call it "The Fog of War" for nothing