Meta-game knowledge versus keeping players in the dark

[csjames75]

Just curious what the elders of the circle around here think about letting a player in on revelatory information about their character. Is it better to surprise the player as well as the character with narrative changing information or should you enlist the player as your accomplice in making the story as dramatic as possible.

Take this purely hypothetical example *grin* - A well-meaning if naive character finds a ring that slowly seduces them to do darker and more cruel acts. Would you tell the player what was happening and enlist them in the narrative or slowly dole out the information so that the player's and character's perception of events were one in the same?

Thanks

Christopher

[Thor Olavsrud]

Just curious what the elders of the circle around here think about letting a player in on revelatory information about their character. Is it better to surprise the player as well as the character with narrative changing information or should you enlist the player as your accomplice in making the story as dramatic as possible.

The circle of elders is split on this, I think. :lol:

I come down on the side of telling the players. (Also, while I encourage players to have their characters engage in secret plotting, I also force them to do it at the table with all the PLAYERS in on it.)

I think that if your player is mature enough to deal with this sort of storyline (and if he isn't, why are you playing this with him?), he's also mature enough to run with it and make it dramatic. But, and I'm probably in the minority here on this, I wuld also let the other players know what was going on, and let them play into it.

In the end, it comes down to what you and your friends are comfortable with.

[luke]

let the player in. That doesn't mean you have to give away every secret of the ring's power, you're still allowed your surprises. But without the player's consent, how are you going to "encourage" a certain mode of behavior?

Encouraging by force is railroading. Railroading is bad.

-L

[Redoid]

For extended interactions, you need the consent of the player. If you take control of the character to reflect the ring's influence, it's OK once or twice, at the beginning (for the shock value), but thereafter it's better to have the player roleplay it (and know what's happening). If you do it, you'll have a perfectly normal character, with sudden fits of rage regarding his ring, if the player does it, he'll enjoy it and not see it as a loss of control, and spend his time nursing his ring. The latter is better.

Besides, if the players doesn't want to roleplay his "possession" then maybe he's highly resistant to the ring, which would make the ring cause other complications, and it's better not to introduce in the games themes your players aren't interested in. Discussing with the players before will maybe help select the "target" of the ring. If someone really doesn't want to enter a fit of rage anytime someone mentions his ring, let the ring go to another player...

Of course, if you reveal too much about something, you run the risk that the player will take great efforts to avoid being put in a detrimental situation, but I suppose everyone at the table is interesting in pushing the story forward, even if it implies suffering complications. In my game, we all know that the thief in our group hid the reward that was promised to our group, and took it all for himself. That doesn't prevent our characters to swear revenge against our treacherous employer who didn't leave the gold where promised :)

[csjames75]

So that's pretty much 3-0 in favor of inclusion and collusion with the player affected. That was my inclination and the way I've played it this time as well. I felt that the player involved (which wasn't a ring by the way) could best build the emotions himself through his own emoting rather than having me somehow secretly manipulating him into role-playing the encounters.

Taking possession of a character in game smacks a little too much like deus ex machina for my tastes, and nothing seems to dishearten players faster than the GM's heavy hand herding players in the direction he wants.

But I am playing on an epic scale. The characters were heroes from the get go. So it's a bit less, they are plopped down into a culture and told to Choose Their Own Adventure. They were, for lack of a better word, pre-selected to either save or destroy the world

[luke]

They were, for lack of a better word, pre-selected to either save or destroy the world

Even MORE reason for the players to be in on "the joke" -- save the world campaigns can run on tracks, if you know what I mean. the more self-determination you give the players, the less track you need.

-L

[TimP]

On the dissenting side: I LIKE the element of discovery in an RPG. I don't want to know every nook and cranny of the plot, every detail of a magic item. I want to experiencesurprises, cliffhangers, turn-arounds and drama through my character and as a player.

I also want my character to have a role in causing plot events. I want a world that is reactive as well as active: that lives and breathes.

GM as simulator?

Tim

[Mickeroo]

What about players that can't handle out of character knowledge? I have been in a few situations where a player acts out of character and refuses to admit he's doing so. FOr example,

Joe: Ok, I'm going to steal Bob's wallet when I bump into him.
(After a roll)
GM: OK, Bob, you're walking down the street and some guy bumps into you and keeps walking, no big deal.
Bob: I check my pockets, every last one of them. Do I have everything? I know how much money I had, do I have it all?

[Thor Olavsrud]

What about players that can't handle out of character knowledge? I have been in a few situations where a player acts out of character and refuses to admit he's doing so?

Tell you I'm sorry? I don't really have any advice for dealing with immature players like this.

I can say that if you use the Intent/Task system outlined in Revised, this sort of problem will be rare.

Why? Because when you set up the conflict you say: Brian is picking your pocket Joe. The test is opposed by your Perception at double-Obstacle. If Brian wins the test, he gets your wallet but you don't notice anything. If you win the test, he grabs your wallet but you notice it as he does so.

[luke]

On the dissenting side: I LIKE the element of discovery in an RPG. I don't want to know every nook and cranny of the plot, every detail of a magic item. I want to experiencesurprises, cliffhangers, turn-arounds and drama through my character and as a player.

I AM NOT advocating complete revelations of all secrets. Jeebus, what do you think this is, a hippie commune?

This weekend I ran Serpent Sun. In the course of the game, I had to pull a player aside:

"I'm talking to you now as GM to player. Understand?"

"Yah. What's up?"

"You are compelled to distrust Tomas. Utterly. You must. Do you understand?"

The player's eyes went wide, "Uh, ok. Cool."

What happened there? A roll had been made behind the scenes and that character was being psychically manipulated. I didn't reveal where from. I didn't reveal how or why. Just the fact that it happened.

Nor did I dictate the actual course of action. I relayed the manipulation intent and left it at that. It was up to the player to take it. It was also up to the player to discover what the hell was really going on.

that, my friends, is where the wheel meets the road.
-L

[Mickeroo]

The psychic powers floating around now adays, I wonder. In the case of mind control and similair abilities, not just psychic but I suppose some magic ones as well, does the character know who he's being controlled by? I mean, is there some sort of recognizable voice in his head or is there simply a lack of free will, unexplainable to the character?

[Bill Cook]

This is an interesting thread. I guess it's not so simple as (a) let them know everything or (b) everything's a mystery.

I feel strongly that you never want to discover what you're supposed to be doing during play. I assert that play in which that happens is rarely intentionally so. In other words, players generally aren't discovering the purpose of play because that's what play is about; they're doing it because they haven't discussed and agreed what it should be. A large subset of those cases, I assert, is where the GM has one or more play goals in mind but intensely resists disclosure because he wants his ideas to arise naturally. To me, it's pretty poisonous territory.

You don't have to use your players as confessors, though. In Sorcerer, you fill out the back of each character sheet with play targets, and the GM retires to create a related story-scape. If all goes well, incidents spark within the region of what the players indicated. It would spoil things if you, as GM, plainly outlined your investing material from A to Z.

In my current BW campaign, a PC who wanted to burn his hometown to the ground as revenge for the cruel treatment he and his mother received while growing up. (They ridiculed and harassed his family because he was an Orcish half-breed.) Upon return, I planned for him to encounter an Orcish chieftain, leading a band in pillage, with a brand on his shoulder, the same as one on his mother's leg. He was to learn that the chieftain's brother had marked him with a cattle brand of a human farmer he'd slain. His brother, aside from being cruel, also intended humiliation for the mark's association with Human culture. This connection identified the chieftain's brother as the PC's father (whose habit it was to brand his victims). Patricide was another PC goal.

So I had both: discovery during play and player awareness of the purpose of play. We worked together to provide a relevant opportunity.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Easy Abzu. I think he was responding to me. 8)

Even I'm all for GM reveals and interesting twists. But I also like to enlist my players' help to pull certain things off. And unlike Abzu, I'm typically against players having secrets from EACH OTHER. Their characters can have secrets, but I HATE HATE HATE the whole "let's go chat in the kitchen while the rest of the players twiddle their thumbs" deal.

It works in specific circumstances, like Luke's PvP con games, because the players don't require the GM to bounce off of.

[TimP]

I AM NOT advocating complete revelations of all secrets. Jeebus, what do you think this is, a hippie commune?
-L


Yes, I thought this had turned into some sort of narrativist storytelling tree-hugging mushroom picking building shacks in the woods hippie commune. :wink:


When I GM, I like to get the players together for a 'What is this campaign going to be about?' session. So far I've found that that, along with observing and listening to their little wants and needs during play, generates enough player complicity for me.

Nor did I dictate the actual course of action. I relayed the manipulation intent and left it at that. It was up to the player to take it. It was also up to the player to discover what the hell was really going on.

That's an excellent way to handle that sort of situation. It's just rude to take control of a player's character, and most players fairly leap at the chance to play their character against type or in GM-sanctioned intraparty conflict.


Their characters can have secrets, but I HATE HATE HATE the whole "let's go chat in the kitchen while the rest of the players twiddle their thumbs" deal.


Retiring to another room to discuss deep dark secrets does disrupt the flow of the game horribly. I've done it though.

I think you have to make a decision: Is it more fun for the group if everyone knows this plot twist/secret, or will they enjoy the paranoia, suspicion, and surprise possible with hidden knowledge.

Tim

[Kaare Berg]

I'm firmly in Thor's camp here.

And I am gradually dragging my players kicking and screaming into it. And they are adapting to it. Take a scene from our last game:

While climbing up mountains of Skara Brae the light fingered Joshua pulled his favourite stunt, he "borrowed" Prince Yari the dwarf's pipe.

This was done in the open, and every player saw it.

Then Tengel, walking next to the smoking Joshua asked if he could have a puff on his pipe (no not like that) which Joshua was happy to oblige him. The sneaky fellow then snuck off to the side.

At this stage Yari's player chose to make Yari aware of his missing pipe and the following conversation took place:
Yari: I think you are smoking my pipe.
Tengel: Your pipe, sir I do not understand, why do you say this is your pipe?
Y: See the sigil on the side?
T: Yes.
Y: See the sigil on my helmet? Do you think that is a coincidence? Hmmrph.

Yari grabs pipe and walks of muttering.

But then there is the other part of my schizophrenic side which hands out half information filled with dire omnious hints. And the players latch on to them and spin their own evil fairytales in their little heads.

And then when they have squirmed themselves into a very uncomfortable corner, like the time everyone, including Christer the player of Liam, were convinced that the Shadow Poison had turned Liam into an Agent of Shadow, I usually spring a twist on them. Alternatly filling them with relief or utter horror.

But then I'm not really on the circle of elders here, so who am I to speak. :wink: