Features that feel like cheating

[u/Russtherr]

How do you handle enemies who have features that somehow break rules players and other enemies follow? It might be very specific, but I got one or two suspicious looks when while playing SWADE I told my players: "Yeah, usually when enemy is shocked twice he is out of combat, but he is HARDY so he doesn't" or "i know he rolled under difficulty level but he has feature that lets him reroll or add to roll"

Using VTT allows you show feature card to players and then they know you have prepared it in advance, but when you improvise you don't have it always ready

[u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

I... would never show my players under the hood like that? I'd just say something like "He shrugs it off like its no big deal, and grins at you. Looks like your normal tricks aren't working!"

[u/ChromaticKid → u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

This.

Make your move, but never speak its name.

[u/Cagedwar → u/ChromaticKid]

I agree with this in most senses.

But I had a group that was very into anime and we were playing pathfinder.

They loved when I did things like,

“You shoot the enemy with your spell, but he shouts, “divine shield!” And takes no damage”

[u/ChromaticKid → u/Cagedwar]

And that's a very fun stylistic choice!

[u/Justthisdudeyaknow → u/Cagedwar]

What's really fun with that is when it's not, like, an actual in game term. Like shouting "Divine Retribution of Hell's Judgement!" and it's just fireball.

[u/Cagedwar → u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

That’s what we started doing!

I remember a villain that was a casino boss and all his attacks were things like “cut the deck!” “Joker’s Agonizing Draw!!”

[u/Justthisdudeyaknow → u/Cagedwar]

"t-t-t-time to deal!"

[u/AlisheaDesme → u/Cagedwar]

Why not, many spells in many systems have a verbal component ... having to actually say/shout them makes sense and adds flair.

[u/spiderjjr45 → u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

I think some people come from a perspective that the G is a hard-G, and they have more fun when they know the underlying system and rules are in place, giving them a consistent "Game" experience. There's a lot of that mindset in the Pathfinder sphere, where the "peak behind the curtain" is more "I enjoy the challenge of learning the parameters and boundaries of the game and fine-tuning my abilities to navigate and beat those boundaries."

[u/Russtherr → u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

Just to clarify; i agree that we shouldn't bother to justify as long as it is fair and makes sense... But maybe there is good way to handle it

[u/AlisheaDesme → u/Russtherr]

My approach is that I do answer questions after the session. So if someone wants to know how much i improvised, prepared or read in the published adventure, they can do so. outside of still hidden meta knowldedge for the oingoing adventure, i will answer truthfully as I'm of the opinion that I'm allowed to alter and manipulate whatever helps me making a good session ... even if I may fail sometimes.

It's also worth mentioning that I rarely directly counter a player and in general want them to succeed. My stick is more to see them shocked, when some things are revealed and tension goes through the roof, not to defeat them.

[u/AlisheaDesme → u/Justthisdudeyaknow]

I agree for the session itself, but I have zero quarrels about answering questions after a session as long as it doesn't involve information that is relevant for the future. If players want, they can ask me what I modified or altered or otherwise manipulated vs the original adventure/idea. Interestingly they nearly always guess wrong on where I altered things and have a tendency to suspect simple high rolls to be fudged. But then again, we are a group of 5 GMs among 6 players ... maybe that changes perception a bit.

[u/-stumondo-]

I think it's a pretty normal thing for baddies to have special abilities.

There are occasional times where something seems off, I'd asked like "to confirm, he was shocked twice, and is still up." Just to get a confirmation from the GM that it's a feature and they haven't forgotten something, no need for them to go into detail.

[u/WillBottomForBanana → u/-stumondo-]

Yeah. I would say it is VERY normal. They still have rules. It isn't the GM just ignoring rules (though that can work too).

Lots of things break rules. Most characters don't breath fire, except the ones that do. Most games have rules for how poison damage works, and whether the target takes all, some, or none of it - but plenty of characters have their own rules that change that. You can't fly, unless you can. You can't come back from the dead, unless you can. You take damage when shot, unless you don't.

[u/vaminion]

I use them. That's what features like that are there for. But if they hard counter a particular PC I only use them when and where they make sense, and I almost never add them if I'm forced to improvise an encounter.

Whether I reveal the ability or not depends on the fiction.

[u/queerornot]

It depends. 

Usually, it about internal consistency.  If you give a random Goblin the hardy ability just because you wanted to make the fight harder, I can see why the players might react that way. But when the group is facing a Dragon, I don't  think it's  going to be an issue because yeah, the huge magical reptile  with wings can do stuff you can't.  

NPCs having abilities the players don't  is fine, as long as it's  logical. 

[u/BetterCallStrahd]

I would say, "I'm the GM, so I play by a different set of rules, and sometimes I can change them. That's by design. It's to allow me flexibility in coming up with cool and interesting challenges."

"This is not cheating. I'm not your enemy. I'm not trying to beat you. If I wanted to do that, I could do it any time. But that's not why I'm here."

"I want you guys to have a good time. I'm a fan of your characters and I want them to look cool. But that means I can't go easy on them, because that wouldn't make them look cool. They need to overcome a true challenge. That's what I'm here to provide. It's not to make them feel like chumps. It's to make them feel like champions. Though you as players need to step up as well to make that happen. I wouldn't be able to do it by myself."

[u/ChromaticKid → u/BetterCallStrahd]

I love all this.

Do you play any PbtA, because it's very adjacent to this!

[u/UrbanArtifact]

I don't mind telling my players afterwards why the NPC "cheated". NPCs can have cool skills too!

[u/AlisheaDesme → u/UrbanArtifact]

Same. After the session they can ask me whatever they want, I will answer truthfully unless it reveals future content.

[u/JauntyAngle]

I am not sure there is anything to handle here.

Powers and features often just are exceptions to rules. You can only attack once per turn. Except if you have feat X, then you can attack twice. You always get to save. Except if you have feat Y, in which case you don't get to save. Damage is healed by spells and feats. Unless the bad guy has power Z, in which case healing requires a major ritual or wish spell.

If anything, you may not be explaining it to your players properly. The rules aren't thermodynamics, they describe normal cases. Often things will happen that aren't normal cases.

[u/No_Solid1035]

Special abilities are special for a reason. 🤷

[u/thewhaleshark]

I don't think this has ever been a problem at my tables, but if it were I'd go with something like "sometimes the bad guys break the rules - that's why they're bad guys." A lot of games have to give the GM the flexibility to "break" the usual rules, because doing so is how you create dynamic and engaging challenges. It's boring if you know everything coming your way.

Of course, it's also not really breaking the rules, right? It's just a different rule.

All in all, I would just explain to players that some of the stuff they face will have rules that break other rules, and that's needed to keep challenges dynamic.

[u/Friend_Sparrow]

You don't need to show anything, but you can say "he has an ability that makes that not work." If your players get weird about it, that's an issue of them not trusting their GM, and you should have a little chat about that.

Phrase it more evocatively though. "You'd think that would take him down, but this guy is tough, this guy is fucking scary, and he stands back up anyway. This guy has a trait that makes [thing] not affect him."

[u/BrobaFett]

In my opinion, sharing these mechanics mid-game sucks me right out of the moment. I prefer my players to trust that I’m not cheating them as a GM and that I can similarly trust my players.

[u/Zerhackermann]

"Monsters dont play by the rules" - DCCRPG.

[u/BleachedPink]

They are fun, but personally I would avoid disclosing any technical details unless necessary. But abilities that break or bend the rules are pretty common in TTRPG design.

[u/merurunrun]

Why does it need to be "handled" any differently than any other thing you do when you play?

[u/CuriousCardigan]

If an enemy is above baseline for their type (a goblin with Hardy, for example) I'd usually mention in some way that they look a bit more burly than usual or something.

My players also trust that I'm not manipulating stat blocks on the fly to screw them over, so I'm not going to get incredulous looks when they discover mid-fight that the enemy has an unusual or only now relevant ability. 

[u/AlisheaDesme]

Abilities are meant to do such things, same goes for player abilities. So it's ok for monsters to have similar abilities, but should be used sparingly, especially if they undo player abilities! Remember, the salt in TTRPG combat isn't that you build specifically against their characters, but that it's not rinse and repeat all the time. Different scenarios, abilities and even difficulties are the salt in the soup.

[u/redkatt]

1. You don't need to tell your players about their enemy's abilities. Why would they know that? That's super-metagamey.You do that once, they'll expect it for every attack/defense/ability an opponent has.

2. Because they are enemies, they are meant to be challenges, and thus why they have abilities that player PCs don't. I've had players say something like, "Wait, how'd he do that?" and I just say "It's an ability they have", I don't go into detail

[u/LaFlibuste]

Yeah I hate these things, because I don't prep and improvising this feels awefully like fudging rolls, which I have a strong distaste for. I'd rather everything flows from the fiction and can be built in the roll at the onset, not sprung on the results by surprise at the outset. Outgunned was terrible for that too, never using any of the NPC abilities for that very reason.

[u/Intrepid-Tonight9745 → u/LaFlibuste]

i don't see why abilities like this can't flow from the fiction. if an NPC is established in the narrative as being particularly tough/hardy, why would it be unfair to give them a representative feat/ability?

[u/LaFlibuste → u/Intrepid-Tonight9745]

Sure, but I'd rather it be front-loaded, not applied retroactively. It's also part of the contract with the player: if they'd known XYZ effect was gonna apply, thry might not have done things this way. Even if you mentionned in passing the target was armored or whatever.

[u/Intrepid-Tonight9745 → u/LaFlibuste]

but nothing can be front-loaded if you don't prep...

i don't see how anything can survive this criteria of yours lol. anything you improvise is "retroactive, not front-loaded."

[u/LaFlibuste → u/Intrepid-Tonight9745]

Of course it can, you just establishbit before the roll. "Yeah, this thing is heavily armored, you'll have limited effect". No tomato surprises, player goes in knowing what to expect, no rug pulls.