PDA

View Full Version : Group Rules



Musashi2
2011-05-22, 03:33 AM
Long time lurker and admirer of the advice you guys generally give, I'd like to ask for your help with improving my group's interactions/dynamic, and to help avoid trouble like what happened tonight, which is below.

I've been gaming with my group for a couple years or so now, and we usually don't have any serious issues that we can't settle. But tonight we had our first serious problem with inter-group dynamics, (which tend to be fairly lax and informal, very friendly you might say (we're all friends from high school, which helps)). We're currently playing a GURPS Supers game, and one of our members (Player A) couldn't make it to the previous meet, where a henchman of the main villain(s) offered the group a chance to switch sides or go double agent. The group took the offer to be double agents, and that's pretty much where we ended.

Today we picked up where we left off, and the person who was missing was able to make it, and when he asks for a recap of what happened, we give him the short of it, but don't inform him about the team going double agent, in an attempt to make it a more realistic experience. I start by passing a note to the other players (because the villains gave them a PDA like device
to communicate their nefariousness (and I realize this may have been a bad idea, but we've never had problems with note passing before)). Player A is instantly suspicious, which is normal. But a little later on, after going through with their main mission, and beginning their spy duties, player B passes me a note asking a question, and player A, after I write my response, grabs the note, and a ridiculous game of keep away ensues, where player A is trying to get somewhere where he can read the note. He gets somewhere he can read it, and comes back a little upset, but willing to continue playing.

An hour or so later, another player gets off of work and shows up to start playing, and after having been informed that Player A took the note and caught on to what was going on, said she was mad at me for having them figure it out, and I said it was just as much Player A's fault that it happened, since he stole the note and etc. This sparks off a 2 hour long argument, where Player A keeps getting madder and madder about the situation, as he feels he's being left out/punished for not being present the last game (and, reference, arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall,and we try to avoid doing so, for various reasons, including it detracting from the game), while we keep giving him our reasons for doing what we did (for example, since all of our group has the problem separating player knowledge from character knowledge, I felt it best to not mention it/let the group go with it, so that Player A would be playing his character in the dark, since he was in the dark. Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.)

Now I think I have a handle on what both sides of the argument did wrong in this instance, but to help avoid future messes (like the aforementioned or otherwise), I was wondering if you guys wouldn't mind suggesting some rules/standard operating procedures you use for your games, or even better, tell a little about how your games are usually run, so that we might be able to get some ideas on how to improve our game(s)/ourselves. For example, how do you handle backgrounds and secrets? Do you show the group your background/inform them of anything secretive and just play the game from there; or do you keep it between you and the GM/anyone involved, and give everyone else a synopsis (of your background) if anything? Do you have a set time limit for players to plan/allow them to communicate in battle, and if so, how long do you give them/how well does it work out for you? What might you have done differently in the above situation to make it go a little
smoother while still maintaining the element of realism? Is it simply, and as I said I know it's somewhat large problem with our group, that we need to really work on separating player/character knowledge? If you think that would solve most of our problems from the get go (and it may well) do you have any tips on how to promote said separation?

And as an aside,I did try searching the forums for some threads on the subject, but couldn't get anything to come up for some strange reason, I'll keep trying though.

Thank you for any help you're able to give, and if you need to ask any questions for me about the game/our group, please feel free too.

Godskook
2011-05-22, 04:31 AM
1.The only thing you *MIGHT'VE* done wrong is fail to establish clearly what flavor of pvp/pve game you were running. If this was made clear in advance, fine, but if not, he has every right to be upset that the game-type wasn't made clear(he was still wrong for grabbing the note)

2.He sounds hyper immature, and not just cause of this incident, but cause of your 'caution' when dealing with him in general. You might consider letting him know the hard way that acting like that can get one kicked out, by kicking him out of your group, at least temporarily.

3.I play in 2 LARPs and run a D&D game. In the LARPs, private plans run rampant and are probably encouraged by the ST staff. In my D&D game, I made it generally clear that it was a pve game, not a pvp one.

Enix18
2011-05-22, 09:05 AM
I have to agree with Godskook's second point: it looks like the problem isn't so much the rules of your group as it is the maturity level of one of your players. I would suggest trying to talk to him about this, but I know you've already said that he tends not to respond well to diplomacy.

Concerning another topic, the dissemination of information, I think you were totally right to handle it as you did. In my games, I try to restrict player knowledge to only what their characters would know (although I trust some of them to be able to roleplay ignorance, its much easier if they actually aren't aware of what's going on). For example, character backgrounds are never shared with the group—it is up to the individual character to reveal these details if, in the course of roleplaying, they come up. I don't even tell the group what each others' names are, unless it's something they would logically know already.

I think that keeping player and character knowledge roughly the same is a good way to run things, particularly if you don't have a group of mature, skilled roleplayers. While passing notes will likely continue to draw suspicion, if everyone's aware that it's going to be a part of the game than I would say to keep doing what you're doing.

Jay R
2011-05-22, 11:02 AM
In this gaming group, has anyone ever grabbed a note to read it before?

If note-grabbing occurs in this game, Player A is following the standard procedure for your game. And the culture of your game is one of distrust and suspicion and using out-of-game actions to affect the simulated world, so how did you expect somebody you were hiding things from to behave?

If not, the moment he grabbed it, there should have been no game of keep-away, but a quiet but firm statement from the GM that if he reads that note, he is out of the game.

Unfortunately, the game of keep-away implies that if he wins it, he can read the note.

As soon as he read it, the Supers game was over. An out-of game action gave info to a player that his in-game character couldn't know, and you are no longer simulating anything. What you have left is a game of dominance and argument that can never be resolved. Player A knows that he's been mistreated, and will never understand that the game was destroyed by his act of cheating. There are things going on in a simulated environment that certain players don't know. Stealing the note is a player trying to learn what his character can't know by out-of-game actions - no different from stealing the GM's notes. It signals the end of trying to simulate a different world.

Player A believes that characters B-F betrayed character A within the game, and thinks that this is the same thing as players B-F mistreating player A. Because of this, he will never understand that he broke the rules and purpose of a simulation game, by grabbing information that character A does not have.

This gaming group must now drop all discussion of what happened before, and decide what kinds of player interaction will be allowed. The two most obvious questions in front of you are:
A. Will the characters always share all goals in common?
B. Will we agree not to try out-of-game actions to change the in-game situation?

Until you have firm agreement on these issues, don't play with this group. The chances of fun are greatly outweighed by the chances of more heart-ache.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-22, 01:14 PM
Today we picked up where we left off, and the person who was missing was able to make it, and when he asks for a recap of what happened, we give him the short of it, but don't inform him about the team going double agent, in an attempt to make it a more realistic experience.

I guess I don't get what happened. The group, except for A who was not there, decided to go double agent. So when A comes over everyone makes a big deal about lying to him and not letting A know they are double agents. Why? What was the point of keeping this a secret? Why not just tell A, who is a member of the group(right), what happened?

Really the only thing this secret could have done was make player A upset and angry. It's a very bad feeling to sit there while everyone else has fun playing some secret game, and your stuck there on the outside. Did you really think it would be fun to have player A vs the group?




tell a little about how your games are usually run, so that we might be able to get some ideas on how to improve our game(s)/ourselves. For example, how do you handle backgrounds and secrets? Do you show the group your background/inform them of anything secretive and just play the game from there; or do you keep it between you and the GM/anyone involved, and give everyone else a synopsis (of your background) if anything? Do you have a set time limit for players to plan/allow them to communicate in battle, and if so, how long do you give them/how well does it work out for you? What might you have done differently in the above situation to make it go a little
smoother while still maintaining the element of realism? Is it simply, and as I said I know it's somewhat large problem with our group, that we need to really work on separating player/character knowledge? If you think that would solve most of our problems from the get go (and it may well) do you have any tips on how to promote said separation?


1.All characters have player made backgrounds, subject to DM approval. This is often done by a simple e-mail or two well before the first game.

2.Everything about every character is secret. Only what a player wishes to share is shared. Most players will do the introduction story when they first meet for the first game, but not all do. And some players just like to let out their background a little at a time in the game play. And some never tell(but not too much, as it's pointless to have a background and such and not share).

3.It depends a little on the experience of the group. My good groups only get about 6 seconds, then 20 for the ones after that, and 30 for the newbees. It works out great and keeps everything flowing to have fast actions.

4.I don't see why it even happened. Lets make player A feel bad as he missed the last game and mess around with him and make him uncomfortable and unhappy sounds like a very bad idea.

5.Keep everything secret from the players as well as the characters. This is 100% guaranteed to work vs players having characters that know too much. Once the game starts, the players only know what their characters know. and even out of the game the DM does not spill the beans about things.

If you somehow feel that you 'must' tell the players every game detail, and yet your still bummed that they 'use it' against you....then a simple thing to do is change whatever you told them. The best way is with a half truth or a interpretation of the truth. So if you tell them Tok and Dok are brothers, you can easily have them be half brothers or if the treasure chest has a fire trap spell it could also have another spell or the trap might have been changed.

It also works good for a DM to keep as many things 'open' as possible. You want a vague idea of how things fit together, not a stone slab. So the players can't 'know things', that don't exist.

Lyra Reynolds
2011-05-23, 07:14 AM
I guess I don't get what happened. The group, except for A who was not there, decided to go double agent. So when A comes over everyone makes a big deal about lying to him and not letting A know they are double agents. Why? What was the point of keeping this a secret? Why not just tell A, who is a member of the group(right), what happened?

Really the only thing this secret could have done was make player A upset and angry. It's a very bad feeling to sit there while everyone else has fun playing some secret game, and your stuck there on the outside. Did you really think it would be fun to have player A vs the group?

This. You're pretty much punishing him for not being able to make it to the previous session. UNLESS Player A was being an ass and just didn't show up, or UNLESS Player A knew beforehand that his character wasn't also at the meeting in the previous session and thus missed out on shared knowledge, leaving him in ignorance is just... mean. No wonder he was pissed, I'd be too.

Jay R
2011-05-24, 08:59 AM
This. You're pretty much punishing him for not being able to make it to the previous session.

Not at all. It's punishing him for stealing a note. Stealing a player's note is not significantly different from stealing the DM's notes. It's a straightforward refusal to play them game honestly, by grabbing player knowledge that the character doesn't have.

Boci
2011-05-24, 09:04 AM
Not at all. It's punishing him for stealing a note.

But why were they passing notes in the first place? They say player A wasn't present, but wasn't his character being NPC-ed?

Gamer Girl
2011-05-24, 01:29 PM
Not at all. It's punishing him for stealing a note. Stealing a player's note is not significantly different from stealing the DM's notes. It's a straightforward refusal to play them game honestly, by grabbing player knowledge that the character doesn't have.

I'll agree that stealing the note was wrong, but I'll still stand by that in this example, there was no reason for the note to exist.

It's one thing for a player to have a secret or two about their character or for the DM to keep some story elements secret from the whole group.

But it's quite another thing when the whole group gets together and keeps a secret from a single player just to punish them as they missed a game and make the player feel left out and unwanted.

obliged_salmon
2011-05-24, 02:31 PM
If I were running the game you described, I would've told player A what happened and let everyone at the table say a few words up front about how they see character A and the other characters deal with the situation. Perhaps they'd like to see character A gradually put pieces together and confront them. Perhaps they'd like for character A to join in the double agency. I don't know, but I would've got a dialog going out of character, rather than trying to juggle secrets. That way you have a game that everyone's interested in playing.

Yukitsu
2011-05-24, 02:42 PM
Reinforcing an in character **** move with an OOC **** move isn't vindicated by the segregation of in and out of character knowledge. And trying to force a singled out player vs. everyone else without the player's knowledge or input is absolutely a **** move.

KillianHawkeye
2011-05-25, 07:30 AM
This incident would never have happened in my group, just because even when a player can't make it their character is still considered to be with the group. Too often there is no rational way to explain a character's absence, so we just assume that they don't do anything interesting to contribute or we let another player control the character (mostly just during combats). The next session, the absent player learns what has happened during our pre-game recap.

I agree that there was no reason to exclude Player A from the double agent gig, especially considering that it was basically the last thing that happened in the session he missed.

Jay R
2011-05-25, 10:25 AM
But why were they passing notes in the first place? They say player A wasn't present, but wasn't his character being NPC-ed?

Evidently not, since they didn't tell him "in an attempt to make it a more realistic experience."

That character wasn't on that adventure, and didn't turn double agent, so the others are hiding their double agent status from him. Perfectly reasonable and legal behavior within the game, even if other players don't like it.

Stealing the note is a refusal to play the game. He's stealing information his character doesn't have.

Viszla
2011-05-25, 10:36 AM
As far as the confrontatation with Player A is concerned I have only a few things to say.

1, If he knew beforehand that he would not be able to make the game, I would suggest that in the future, players should let the GM know about this ASAP. This leads to the next part of this suggestion, which is if a player knows that they won't be able to make a session, they contact the GM and discuss with them where their character would be, and what they would be doing apart from the group. At the GM's discretion, they may be given information about the next session's plot to help them develop their in-character explanation of absence. This helps to solidify and direct their actions, viewpoints, and in-character knowledge when they play next.

2, If he did not know beforehand that he would miss the session, advise the player to have a explanation story ready, or if they cannot, inform them that the whereabouts and actions of their character during the time away from the rest of the party will be decided upon by the GM. This way, the player can't backpedal later and falsify a story about what they were doing while away from the party, in order to support ludicrous or party-hampering actions that would ordinarily be nearly impossible for their character to take. All of this is in order to prevent player rage and in-game disaster, and arguments between party members in-game and out of game, as well as dismiss the need to penalize players for missing games, or for their response to other character's actions in games they missed.


I was wondering if you guys wouldn't mind suggesting some rules/standard operating procedures you use for your games, or even better, tell a little about how your games are usually run, so that we might be able to get some ideas on how to improve our game(s)/ourselves. For example, how do you handle backgrounds and secrets? Do you show the group your background/inform them of anything secretive and just play the game from there; or do you keep it between you and the GM/anyone involved, and give everyone else a synopsis (of your background) if anything? Do you have a set time limit for players to plan/allow them to communicate in battle, and if so, how long do you give them/how well does it work out for you? What might you have done differently in the above situation to make it go a little
smoother while still maintaining the element of realism? Is it simply, and as I said I know it's somewhat large problem with our group, that we need to really work on separating player/character knowledge? If you think that would solve most of our problems from the get go (and it may well) do you have any tips on how to promote said separation?

And as an aside,I did try searching the forums for some threads on the subject, but couldn't get anything to come up for some strange reason, I'll keep trying though.

Thank you for any help you're able to give, and if you need to ask any questions for me about the game/our group, please feel free too.

I personally restrict the time for discussion in the middle of combat to thirty seconds (real time) of free-action discussion, then give them a ten second (real time) warning. If they have not decided upon a course of action and at least started to declare their actions by the end of that ten seconds (real time), their current turn in the initiative order is forfeit.

While character speech is a free action, it must be restricted in order to retain some of the challenge and realism of the encounter. Unfortunately, that owlbear, group of goblins, Sith Lord, or evil millionaire surrounded by elite guards armed with AK-47s isn't going to wait for your characters to have a war board in the middle of battle.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-25, 01:23 PM
That character wasn't on that adventure, and didn't turn double agent, so the others are hiding their double agent status from him. Perfectly reasonable and legal behavior within the game, even if other players don't like it.


I don't see it as reasonable(or legal?), it's just a bad move.

There is no reason to keep something like this from a player. If the character is a part of your group, why would you not tell them everything?

Take any situation with a group of friends. All five friends agree on thing A, then friends 1-4 get together when they know friend A can't be there and change it to thing B and don't tell friend A. Then 'so called friends' can laugh and say 'we know something you don't know' and taunt 'not really being treated as a friend' A.


Just take a type game in the set up provided in the OP:

The group fights some trolls and then when the guards show up, the group doing their 'double agent' thing gives all the loot treasure to the guards to 'show they are on their side'. Player Character A is confused as to why the group is taking this action(and not getting any treasure). So when PC A asks ''he guys why did you give away all our treasure?'' The PC's B-E are going to laugh, snicker, point and say ''Nah, nah, nah, you don't know why and we won't tell you! We rule! We know why! Your Dumb you don't know! "

Really? What would be the point?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-25, 01:47 PM
Player A taking the note was flat-out wrong. If your group normally tolerates that behavior, I'd suggest they stop. That's as much cheating as sneaking a peek at the DM's notes :smallannoyed:

On the other hand, why wasn't Player A offered the job by the henchman? I guess a lot depends on how you usually treat missing Players at a table. This should definitely be codified, if it hasn't already.

* * * *

In general, I only institute table rules when they are needed. As a basic course I institute rules for:

(1) Ordering Food
(2) Missing Players
(3) Cancelling Games

Things like secrets, backgrounds and so forth are only ruled on if they are or become important for the game. I don't usually run games where I need rules to keep IC and OOC knowledge separate but if I did, I would state them beforehand. If I reached a point where I needed to keep something super-secret (e.g. a PC is replaced with a Doppleganger) then I might publicly announce a rule for secret keeping - but not the reason for the rule.

* * * *

Moral of the Story: Player A is extremely wrong. Stealing notes should not be tolerated any more than cheating on dice rolls, illicitly altering your character sheet, or sneaking a peek at the DM's notes.

Boci
2011-05-25, 01:49 PM
Evidently not, since they didn't tell him "in an attempt to make it a more realistic experience."

Then the question becomes why not? If you returned to a game and was told "Something really cool happened last session, but your character wasn't NPC so we aren't telling", wouldn't you be annoyed?

Jude_H
2011-05-25, 01:54 PM
I could kind of see why he wouldn't be in the loop, for the whole "Some of he heroes are baddies now! The other heroes don't know it's a ruse! Conflict must ensue!" plotline thing.

It's not a great plotline and the player probably didn't have to be kept out of the loop, but I can see it: the plot was pretty common in Silver Age comics, and there's something to be said for keeping player and character knowledge/experience on the same page.

The problem, I think, was not making it clear what was going on with the notes. It doesn't sound like those are common in the OP's games, and they really might give the other player the impression that he's being left out and deliberately excluded - especially if it wasn't clear that the other players had "switched sides" or that the notes were strictly game-related materials.

It also sounds like the player was a bit immature, but the situation sounds pretty ugly; one of those "bad apple v. bad barrel" questions that might not need to be dealt with, provided that the rest of the group's behaviors are cleared up.

Overall, I agree with Jay about how this should have been handled. The notecard situation might not have needed to exist. If it did, the purpose should have been made very clear.




Regarding my group, we use notecards often. We also designate an item as the "Conch" that we pass around to indicate the player that the DM should be listening to. Together, they make the game a bit easier to manage. We've also dabbled with instant messaging, but that's a bit of a mixed bag.

DabblerWizard
2011-05-25, 02:28 PM
Musashi Quoted
Long time lurker and admirer of the advice you guys generally give, I'd like to ask for your help with improving my group's interactions/dynamic, and to help avoid trouble like what happened tonight, which is below.

I've been gaming with my group for a couple years or so now, and we usually don't have any serious issues that we can't settle. But tonight we had our first serious problem with inter-group dynamics, (which tend to be fairly lax and informal, very friendly you might say (we're all friends from high school, which helps)). We're currently playing a GURPS Supers game, and one of our members (Player A) couldn't make it to the previous meet, where a henchman of the main villain(s) offered the group a chance to switch sides or go double agent. The group took the offer to be double agents, and that's pretty much where we ended.

Today we picked up where we left off, and the person who was missing was able to make it, and when he asks for a recap of what happened, we give him the short of it, but don't inform him about the team going double agent, in an attempt to make it a more realistic experience. I start by passing a note to the other players (because the villains gave them a PDA like device
to communicate their nefariousness (and I realize this may have been a bad idea, but we've never had problems with note passing before)). Player A is instantly suspicious, which is normal. But a little later on, after going through with their main mission, and beginning their spy duties, player B passes me a note asking a question, and player A, after I write my response, grabs the note, and a ridiculous game of keep away ensues, where player A is trying to get somewhere where he can read the note. He gets somewhere he can read it, and comes back a little upset, but willing to continue playing.

An hour or so later, another player gets off of work and shows up to start playing, and after having been informed that Player A took the note and caught on to what was going on, said she was mad at me for having them figure it out, and I said it was just as much Player A's fault that it happened, since he stole the note and etc. This sparks off a 2 hour long argument, where Player A keeps getting madder and madder about the situation, as he feels he's being left out/punished for not being present the last game (and, reference, arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall,and we try to avoid doing so, for various reasons, including it detracting from the game), while we keep giving him our reasons for doing what we did (for example, since all of our group has the problem separating player knowledge from character knowledge, I felt it best to not mention it/let the group go with it, so that Player A would be playing his character in the dark, since he was in the dark. Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.)

Now I think I have a handle on what both sides of the argument did wrong in this instance, but to help avoid future messes (like the aforementioned or otherwise), I was wondering if you guys wouldn't mind suggesting some rules/standard operating procedures you use for your games, or even better, tell a little about how your games are usually run, so that we might be able to get some ideas on how to improve our game(s)/ourselves. For example, how do you handle backgrounds and secrets? Do you show the group your background/inform them of anything secretive and just play the game from there; or do you keep it between you and the GM/anyone involved, and give everyone else a synopsis (of your background) if anything? Do you have a set time limit for players to plan/allow them to communicate in battle, and if so, how long do you give them/how well does it work out for you? What might you have done differently in the above situation to make it go a little
smoother while still maintaining the element of realism? Is it simply, and as I said I know it's somewhat large problem with our group, that we need to really work on separating player/character knowledge? If you think that would solve most of our problems from the get go (and it may well) do you have any tips on how to promote said separation?

And as an aside,I did try searching the forums for some threads on the subject, but couldn't get anything to come up for some strange reason, I'll keep trying though.

Thank you for any help you're able to give, and if you need to ask any questions for me about the game/our group, please feel free too.

As a DM, given a situation where a player misses a session and thus misses a major turning point in the game, the next time they're around, I would make sure to bring them up to date.

I would do that for two reasons.

(1) The player is being kept out of the loop of a huge turning point. I know I'd feel really bad if that was done to me, and so I avoid doing it to others when I DM.

In general, either all players are left out of the loop about a piece of information, or no one is.

(2) I trust my players' ability to work out the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. If they slip up, which has happened, I just let them know it's happening, and generally they change their plan, etc. If they continue to have their character act on knowledge only the player knows, then I would tell them outright, that they cannot perform the action that is based on the player's knowledge.

Keeping characters out of the loop is primarily the player's job. If they start to act in a way that gives them an unfair advantage over the other players, then I step in.

I make minor exception to the above behavior. If PCs want to take on actions against other PCs, and I can tell that the secrecy will be held for a short period of time (a few minutes within session at most), then I allow it. Otherwise, because I really encourage openness I'd tell them to share with the group.

One fun example of player reveal, character unaware, comes from my last campaign. A Rogue, Deva, and Lying about a Treasure:
Playing 4e d&d, my rogue reached the back of a trapped room, where a treasure chest sat on a pedestal. She reads the note inside, which promises a ton of money to whoever hands it in, and decides to lie to the other characters about what is written.

I have the rogue's player roll bluff checks against each other character that distrusts the rogue. All of the other characters distrusted the rogue, so each other player rolled an opposing insight check.

At this point, all the players know what the note says. They're excited and hopeful to see whether their characters figure out that the rogue is lying.

They each roll one by one. Out in the open rolling is our standard. Three of the opposing insight checks fail against the rogue's bluff check. Finally, and serendipitously, the naive and loving Deva figures out that the rogue is lying, and decides to say nothing about it.

When the Deva's character rolled high enough, the whole group erupted in cheers. This never could have happened if I hadn't given my players the benefit of the doubt, trusting that they could keep player knowledge separate from character knowledge.

Jay R
2011-05-25, 03:50 PM
I don't see it as reasonable(or legal?), it's just a bad move.

There is no reason to keep something like this from a player. If the character is a part of your group, why would you not tell them everything?

Is this a serious question? If you switch sides, do you tell people on the other side that you're now planning to betray them? Wormtongue didn't tell Theoden that he was really working for Saruman.

They are double agents. They are pretending to be on the same side as Character A, so that they can betray that side.

I don't like Player vs. Player games, but when I'm in one, I don't tell the players on the other side what my plan for defeating them is.

You said "If the character is a part of your group". I think you are making the assumption that a player group is always and automatically in complete agreement on all their goals. It's not true. My current thief character is deliberately hiding some of his actions from the paladin, for instance. They agreed to an action that Character A would want to stop. So they didn't tell Player A, for the same reason crooks don't tell the police in advance when they are planning to rob a bank.


Take any situation with a group of friends. All five friends agree on thing A, then friends 1-4 get together when they know friend A can't be there and change it to thing B and don't tell friend A. Then 'so called friends' can laugh and say 'we know something you don't know' and taunt 'not really being treated as a friend' A.

Just take a type game in the set up provided in the OP:

The group fights some trolls and then when the guards show up, the group doing their 'double agent' thing gives all the loot treasure to the guards to 'show they are on their side'. Player Character A is confused as to why the group is taking this action(and not getting any treasure). So when PC A asks ''he guys why did you give away all our treasure?'' The PC's B-E are going to laugh, snicker, point and say ''Nah, nah, nah, you don't know why and we won't tell you! We rule! We know why! Your Dumb you don't know! "
Yes, they could theoretically have done this stupid taunting thing you just made up. But they didn't. That would have been nasty. But they didn't do it. All they did was try to keep their plan from somebody who was out to prevent them from doing it.


Really? What would be the point?
What an extraordinary question. The point of not telling people you're on a secret mission against them is so they won't know you're on a secret mission against them.

The question you should be asking is why they didn't try to convince Character A to join them on the new side. The simple answer is that I don't know. And we'd need in-game information to have an answer. But when they've agreed to betray Character A's side, they won't tell Character A in advance.

Raum
2011-05-25, 04:37 PM
Now I think I have a handle on what both sides of the argument did wrong in this instance, but to help avoid future messes (like the aforementioned or otherwise), I was wondering if you guys wouldn't mind suggesting some rules/standard operating procedures you use for your games, or even better, tell a little about how your games are usually run, so that we might be able to get some ideas on how to improve our game(s)/ourselves. First and possibly most important, always remember the difference between players and characters - between metagame and game. A secret kept from a character doesn't need to be kept from the player...and shouldn't be when it has metagame impact.


For example, how do you handle backgrounds and secrets? Do you show the group your background/inform them of anything secretive and just play the game from there; or do you keep it between you and the GM/anyone involved, and give everyone else a synopsis (of your background) if anything? In general, in-game "secrets" should be intended to become public information. After all, if it's always a secret it probably doesn't have much affect on game play...in which case it didn't need to exist.


Do you have a set time limit for players to plan/allow them to communicate in battle, and if so, how long do you give them/how well does it work out for you? This is really system and setting dependent. That said, there's a lot of background communication which occurs in everyday life that won't make it into a game or story. So I prefer to err on the side of allowing communication to occur.


What might you have done differently in the above situation to make it go a little smoother while still maintaining the element of realism? Is it simply, and as I said I know it's somewhat large problem with our group, that we need to really work on separating player/character knowledge? Yep, that appears to be a big issue from your description. I may be reading too much into it, but it appears the group may have some non-game interpersonal issues as well. While I see leaving the character out of such a change as a possibility* why was it extended to leaving the player out in the cold?


If you think that would solve most of our problems from the get go (and it may well) do you have any tips on how to promote said separation?Just be open about it. Get in the habit of asking each other how X is in-character knowledge in borderline cases. Have them do the same to you. It may slow the game down for a few sessions, but once the question becomes anticipated it won't be needed as often.

*Leaving one character out is possible but unlikely given the meta-game goal of adventuring together. Unless of course your group expects PC vs PC conflict to occur.

Katana_Geldar
2011-05-25, 05:45 PM
I'd ask the player if they mind being kept out of the loop for plot reasons, and if they said they did mind then I would inform them. Most of my players would agree with this, though, and we do seperate player knowledge from character knowledge...except when we play Paranoia. :smallbiggrin:

DabblerWizard
2011-05-25, 06:01 PM
Jay R's Quote
In this gaming group, has anyone ever grabbed a note to read it before?

If note-grabbing occurs in this game, Player A is following the standard procedure for your game. And the culture of your game is one of distrust and suspicion and using out-of-game actions to affect the simulated world, so how did you expect somebody you were hiding things from to behave?

If not, the moment he grabbed it, there should have been no game of keep-away, but a quiet but firm statement from the GM that if he reads that note, he is out of the game.

Unfortunately, the game of keep-away implies that if he wins it, he can read the note.

As soon as he read it, the Supers game was over. An out-of game action gave info to a player that his in-game character couldn't know, and you are no longer simulating anything. What you have left is a game of dominance and argument that can never be resolved. Player A knows that he's been mistreated, and will never understand that the game was destroyed by his act of cheating. There are things going on in a simulated environment that certain players don't know. Stealing the note is a player trying to learn what his character can't know by out-of-game actions - no different from stealing the GM's notes. It signals the end of trying to simulate a different world.

Player A believes that characters B-F betrayed character A within the game, and thinks that this is the same thing as players B-F mistreating player A. Because of this, he will never understand that he broke the rules and purpose of a simulation game, by grabbing information that character A does not have.

This gaming group must now drop all discussion of what happened before, and decide what kinds of player interaction will be allowed. The two most obvious questions in front of you are:
A. Will the characters always share all goals in common?
B. Will we agree not to try out-of-game actions to change the in-game situation?

Until you have firm agreement on these issues, don't play with this group. The chances of fun are greatly outweighed by the chances of more heart-ache.

Jay R, I agree with pretty much everything you say here, but I differ on a few points I decided to spell out for the OP.

Noting that note-grabbing isn't an accepted habit in my gaming group, if my players decided to sink to that level, I would (1) first be slightly shocked, (2) then probably semi-yell for people to stop, and (3) wait until everyone calms down. Once that happens I would (4) state firmly that that behavior isn't okay in the group, while also (5) trying to figure out what happened, in case it's not obvious, or people had ongoing grievances.

I wouldn't advocate simply booting a player for something like that. It's definitely anxiety provoking, and annoying, and disruptive, but I make room to understand one time uncharacteristic behaviors.

It seems to me that players B through F did mistreat both Player A and Player A's character. The latter is obvious, and has been discussed.

Player A was disrespected when the others went behind his/her back, and didn't reveal the major past events in the last session. While it could be said that the B through F were just going along with the DM's decision not to reveal, it's bad game play convention (in my mind) that no one spoke up, and informed the player. Withholding that info from a character is another matter.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-25, 10:20 PM
Is this a serious question? If you switch sides, do you tell people on the other side that you're now planning to betray them? Wormtongue didn't tell Theoden that he was really working for Saruman.

They are double agents. They are pretending to be on the same side as Character A, so that they can betray that side.

I don't like Player vs. Player games, but when I'm in one, I don't tell the players on the other side what my plan for defeating them is.

You said "If the character is a part of your group". I think you are making the assumption that a player group is always and automatically in complete agreement on all their goals. It's not true. My current thief character is deliberately hiding some of his actions from the paladin, for instance. They agreed to an action that Character A would want to stop. So they didn't tell Player A, for the same reason crooks don't tell the police in advance when they are planning to rob a bank.

Right, but your example don't apply to a group in a game like D&D. You have a group of six people, and five of them decide to go double agent and keep it secret from number six. That is not player vs player, they are just unfairly excluding a player.

A group of players may not always agree, but plotting in secret and making a single player feel left out and alone is pointless. It's like if your just going to keep a player in the dark and use them as a joke to make you feel better, why not just kick them out of the game? How much fun will it be for player A to sit there while the rest of the group plays and does their 'secret stuff'. Player A won't like just sitting there as the rest of the group plays their secret game.


Ok, crooks don't tell cops...but that is a bad example. We are talking about a group of heroes, so lets say they are all cops. Now do cops 1-5 of the group keep secrets from cop 6 for no reason? No. They all work together as a group.

Boci
2011-05-25, 10:39 PM
Right, but your example don't apply to a group in a game like D&D.

The OP isn't playing D&D.

Knaight
2011-05-25, 10:52 PM
The OP isn't playing D&D.

A game like D&D clearly means an RPG.

Boci
2011-05-25, 10:55 PM
A game like D&D clearly means an RPG.

Sarcasm???

Knaight
2011-05-25, 11:20 PM
Sarcasm???

Missed quotes actually. It should have been "'A game like D&D' clearly means an RPG", in regards to parsing GamerGirl's post.

Boci
2011-05-25, 11:24 PM
Missed quotes actually. It should have been "'A game like D&D' clearly means an RPG", in regards to parsing GamerGirl's post.

I dunno. To me "I game like D&D" means "An RPG which focuses on team work between a group of 3-5 heroes, but can accomodate other gaming styles".

Knaight
2011-05-25, 11:27 PM
I dunno. To me "I game like D&D" means "An RPG which focuses on team work between a group of 3-5 heroes, but can accomodate other gaming styles".

There's a reason it was in the context of parsing Gamer Girl's post. To me "A game like D&D" means a vestige of the early 80's utterly lacking in sophistication, clunky and borderline unusable, but that clearly wasn't what was being conveyed.

Boci
2011-05-25, 11:31 PM
There's a reason it was in the context of parsing Gamer Girl's post. To me "A game like D&D" means a vestige of the early 80's utterly lacking in sophistication, clunky and borderline unusable, but that clearly wasn't what was being conveyed.

D&D is by far my favorite roleplaying game, and the system I have used for 95% of my campaigns, but I take issue with the D&D = all RPGs, so IMO either way it was wrong.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-25, 11:55 PM
The OP isn't playing D&D.


Oops sorry my bad.

Lets just say then that the OP is playing A social game where several people get together and play as a group towards a common goal. As that is the point I'm making anyway.

Knaight
2011-05-25, 11:58 PM
Lets just say then that the OP is playing A social game where several people get together and play as a group towards a common goal. As that is the point I'm making anyway.

They aren't doing that either, outside of the common goals along the lines of "have fun", "enjoy the game", and "socialize with friends".

KillianHawkeye
2011-05-26, 06:33 AM
Ok, crooks don't tell cops...but that is a bad example. We are talking about a group of heroes, so lets say they are all cops. Now do cops 1-5 of the group keep secrets from cop 6 for no reason? No. They all work together as a group.

But if cops 1-5 were dirty cops and cop 6 was clean, they sure as hell would not tell him about their dirty dealings.

DabblerWizard
2011-05-26, 08:29 AM
They aren't doing that either, outside of the common goals along the lines of "have fun", "enjoy the game", and "socialize with friends".

"A social gathering where players work towards a, or many, common goals"

Using the above parameters seems reasonable to me. They're suitably vague and general for these purposes, though I admit a great deal of overlap with other activities fits within the sentence. e.g.: playing chess, eating out...

Knaight, I would be curious to hear what you think the group IS doing.

Jay R
2011-05-26, 09:27 AM
Oops sorry my bad.

Lets just say then that the OP is playing A social game where several people get together and play as a group towards a common goal. As that is the point I'm making anyway.

But that point is simply false. They are playing a role-playing game. Often that means that they all have a common goal, but not always.

In my current game, the paladin's goal is to always obey the law and to save people. The ranger's goal is to save the animals and the forest. My thief's goal is to get some excitement and as much treasure as possible. That allows many shared goals (stop the conspiracy of Lolth priests), but there's a lot my thief is doing that the paladin will never hear about.

You are assuming that the rest of the party is sharing a goal with Character A, and so should tell Player A what they're doing. But that just isn't so. They have a new goal that Character A doesn't agree with, and so they are hiding it from him. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in a role-playing game, in which different characters might have different goals.

Jay R
2011-05-26, 09:57 AM
Right, but your example don't apply to a group in a game like D&D. You have a group of six people, and five of them decide to go double agent and keep it secret from number six. That is not player vs player, they are just unfairly excluding a player.

That is player vs. player, or at least these players against Character A's side. They just switched sides. Player A is now part of the group they are secretly fighting against.


Ok, crooks don't tell cops...but that is a bad example. We are talking about a group of heroes, so lets say they are all cops. Now do cops 1-5 of the group keep secrets from cop 6 for no reason? No. They all work together as a group.

No it's the correct example. If they were on the side of the cops, with Character A, then they are now on the side of the crooks, against Character A.

It's clear that we disagree, not in how to evaluate player actions, but in what the player actions actually were.

I think that the members of the party who were there when player A wasn't were given a chance to switch sides - either to walk away from their old side or to stay there as double agents ("a henchman of the main villain(s) offered the group a chance to switch sides or go double agent").

They agreed and became double agents. That means they are now on the other side, but pretending to be on the same side that Character A is on.

Character A (and hence Player A) is still on the old side. These aren't cops doing undercover cop duty and hiding the fact from another cop. These are dirty cops who switched sides, doing undercover duty for the crooks They won't tell the clean cop what they are doing.

They are now on the opposite side from Player A. Yes, there really is an element of player vs. player involved, and until it's time for them to spring their trap, they aren't going to tell the people they are trying to swindle.

Maybe I'm wrong and you're right about what the players did. If so, you're conclusions are right and mine are wrong. But you keep inventing motivations for their actions ("just to punish them ... and make the player feel left out and unwanted", "can laugh and say 'we know something you don't know' and taunt", "going to laugh, snicker, point and say ''Nah, nah, nah, you don't know why and we won't tell you!'", "just going to keep a player in the dark and use them as a joke to make you feel better") that are not supported by the story we told, and ignoring the motivation that is given (they switched sides).

If I'm right, then I suspect you will still disapprove of what they've done. Frankly, I don't particularly like it either. But you will start disapproving of what they actually did (switch sides against player A) rather than against something that they didn't do (hide their plans from player A so they can punish and laugh and taunt and all those other things you made up).

Shadowknight12
2011-05-26, 11:07 AM
I won't touch the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the actions discussed here with a standard-issue ten-foot pole.

I will comment, however, that this is something that should be talked about in private between the GM and the player in question, away from the others. The GM should ask the player why he did what he did, what he felt, and try to ascertain where his plans as a GM went wrong (because I'm assuming that this came as a surprise to the GM, else he would have planned for this contingency). The player should be encouraged to talk about anything on his mind, especially what failed in the session, and his thoughts on how to improve it in the future. Then the GM should take all that information, ponder it, and have a talk with the entirety of the group, to see if they can make some ground rules for the future.

If Player A felt personally betrayed (as a player, not as a character), then pacts should be made to prevent that from happening again. In short, this should be taken as an opportunity to learn and evolve as a group, and hopefully use this experience for similar cases that might come.

Knaight
2011-05-26, 11:40 AM
"A social gathering where players work towards a, or many, common goals"

Using the above parameters seems reasonable to me. They're suitably vague and general for these purposes, though I admit a great deal of overlap with other activities fits within the sentence. e.g.: playing chess, eating out...

Knaight, I would be curious to hear what you think the group IS doing.

I'd agree that that much is true, however it also overlooks the fact that there is a competitive element in play, which holds true with playing chess, and not with eating out*.

*Unless people get into very long and drawn out arguments about why they should pay for everyone.

Severus
2011-05-26, 11:53 AM
I think if I were player A, I'd be pissed to.

I can't make a game, and come back to find that the game has been changed out from under me without any discussion.

I think if you're going to change the game in this fashion, all the players ought to get a voice (maybe not a vote).

There is backstabby in the game, and then backstabby in RL. This is more the latter.

Granted, it wasn't handled well, but I don't think that changes the underlying issue.

DabblerWizard
2011-05-26, 03:12 PM
I'd agree that that much is true, however it also overlooks the fact that there is a competitive element in play, which holds true with playing chess, and not with eating out*.

*Unless people get into very long and drawn out arguments about why they should pay for everyone.

I can conceive of four different kinds of competition in tabletop gaming.

- player vs. player ... e.g. chess, where players compete against each other intentionally.

- character vs. character ... e.g. d&d and others?, where players take on the role of characters and try to compete against each other intentionally, within a fictitious setting... ** This is often what people refer to when they say "p vs. p ".

- player vs. DM ... e.g. a disaster ... (1) when a storyteller creates an artificial system, but players intend to undermine, or negatively impact a DM's story or gameplay... (2) alternately, when a DM intends to undermine the gaming experience of the players... someone on a "power trip"

- character vs. system ... e.g. Paranoia, D&D ... (1) where player-made characters intend to contend with the scenario presented to them by a storyteller, otherwise known as "p vs. e" ... (2) or when characters come to life in a DM's nightmare (kidding)

Tabletop systems can, of course, provide for multiple types of competition at once.

Of these four types, I only encourage character vs. system competition. I know I prefer games where I don't have to sweat it out against another real person (darn you Monopoly!). Putting my mind against a fictitious character is another matter.

Knaight
2011-05-26, 03:24 PM
I can conceive of four different kinds of competition in tabletop gaming.

- player vs. player ... e.g. chess, where players compete against each other intentionally.

- character vs. character ... e.g. d&d and others?, where players take on the role of characters and try to compete against each other intentionally, within a fictitious setting... ** This is often what people refer to when they say "p vs. p ".

- player vs. DM ... e.g. a disaster ... (1) when a storyteller creates an artificial system, but players intend to undermine, or negatively impact a DM's story or gameplay... (2) alternately, when a DM intends to undermine the gaming experience of the players... someone on a "power trip"

- character vs. system ... e.g. Paranoia, D&D ... (1) where player-made characters intend to contend with the scenario presented to them by a storyteller, otherwise known as "p vs. e" ... (2) or when characters come to life in a DM's nightmare (kidding)

I'd call the last one character vs. scenario, but otherwise this is spot on. Within the context of RPGs I personally consider player vs. GM a problem waiting to happen, player vs. player an edge case that can work only in certain situations (Everyone is John for instance), and character vs. character and character vs. system both parts of most any good game, though character vs. character should only rarely be major and emphasized, instead being little conflicts where both characters don't intend to cause lasting, drastic harm to each other in most cases.

Kylarra
2011-05-26, 03:33 PM
I think that a situation where it becomes everyone else against one player due to them not making a session is a poor situation to be in, but trying to be secretive about it in the name of keeping information separate aggravated the situation.

Jay R
2011-05-27, 10:56 AM
I think that a situation where it becomes everyone else against one player due to them not making a session is a poor situation to be in, but trying to be secretive about it in the name of keeping information separate aggravated the situation.

I agree that switching sides is usually a dumb thing to do, but undercover agents never tell the people they're spying on that they are spying on them. A double agent is somebody pretending to be on the other side.

Wormtongue did not tell Theoden, "Hey, I'm pretending to be your advisor, but I'm really a double agent for Saruman."

When you sneak into the castle disguised as a priest, you don't tell the castle guards, "Hi! I'm a thief disguised as a priest, trying to sneak in to steal your treasure."

Milady didn't tell Buckingham, "I'm not interested in you; I'm pretending to be interested so I can steal two of the Queen's diamond studs."

Again, I don't like switching sides and setting up that kind of situation, but if you're going to switch sides and become a double agent, you don't tell the people you're spying on that you've done it.

Boci
2011-05-27, 11:02 AM
I agree that switching sides is usually a dumb thing to do, but undercover agents never tell the people they're spying on that they are spying on them. A double agent is somebody pretending to be on the other side.

Wormtongue did not tell Theoden, "Hey, I'm pretending to be your advisor, but I'm really a double agent for Saruman."

When you sneak into the castle disguised as a priest, you don't tell the castle guards, "Hi! I'm a thief disguised as a priest, trying to sneak in to steal your treasure."

Milady didn't tell Buckingham, "I'm not interested in you; I'm pretending to be interested so I can steal two of the Queen's diamond studs."

Again, I don't like switching sides and setting up that kind of situation, but if you're going to switch sides and become a double agent, you don't tell the people you're spying on that you've done it.

No one is debating why the character's didn't share their secret, more why the players and the DM collectivly decided nto leave Player A out of this development, thus minimizing his ability to contribute to the party's goals.

Gravitron5000
2011-05-27, 11:27 AM
In general, in-game "secrets" should be intended to become public information. After all, if it's always a secret it probably doesn't have much affect on game play...in which case it didn't need to exist.


Although this is true, the reveal of the secret can be used to create a certain dramatic effect. If you let the secret out too early, you ruin the impact of the surprise, and the whole purpose of the secret. Think of it like a surprise party. Is the person you are surprising going to react the same way if you let them in on the secret before you surprise them? [/rhetoric question]

In short, you can choose when to reveal secrets to maximize the dramatic effect.

Jude_H
2011-05-27, 11:41 AM
No one is debating why the character's didn't share their secret, more why the players and the DM collectivly decided nto leave Player A out of this development, thus minimizing his ability to contribute to the party's goals.
"Party goals" still haven't been established. In many of the more RP-focused supers systems, the point is to incite conflicts. The OP gives no indication that it would be against the spirit of the game.

Boci
2011-05-27, 11:43 AM
"Party goals" still haven't been established. In many of the more RP-focused supers systems, the point is to incite conflicts. The OP gives no indication that it would be against the spirit of the game.

Except player A's reaction.

BluesEclipse
2011-05-27, 01:08 PM
In my opinion, the issue here isn't one of "Was it justified for Player A to be excluded from the knowledge that the rest of the group had". It's "Was it justified for Player A to steal a note passed from the GM to another player". And the answer to that question is an emphatic no. Regardless of the circumstances, if a note is passed from the GM to any player, it's because it's knowledge that the character has that the other players aren't immediately privy to - this could be as simple as the result of a Spot/Perception check, or it could be as complex as a message recieved from the BBEG about his secret orders to double-cross the party and steal the MacGuffin. This fact is getting somewhat lost in the discussion of whether player A should have been left out or not, and I honestly feel that Player A would be more harmful to the group than I, at least, would be willing to accept, if he's willing to steal other player's notes based on his own suspicions. Both because such behavior is immature at best, and because it shows that he can't actually maintain separation between player and character - he feels entitled to know what other characters know, whether or not the other players know that.

As far as the situation that led to this - it's a matter of what Player A's character was assumed to be doing during the session. If he was considered present, but a silent participant, he should have been privy to it. If his character would have disagreed with the decision to become double-agents, he could've spoken in private with the GM and acted as a triple-agent, working to get into a position where he could take down the BBEG. If the character wasn't considered present, but was viewed as on a separate mission or something, then he shouldn't have had the knowledge - unless one of the other players decided to bring him in on the conspiracy. If it was obvious that he wouldn't have taken the offer, it might've been that the henchman that approached the other PCs specifically waited until he wasn't present to make the offer, in order to ensure that the new double-agents weren't compromised.

DabblerWizard
2011-05-27, 01:37 PM
BluesEclipse's Quote
In my opinion, the issue here isn't one of "Was it justified for Player A to be excluded from the knowledge that the rest of the group had". It's "Was it justified for Player A to steal a note passed from the GM to another player". And the answer to that question is an emphatic no. Regardless of the circumstances, if a note is passed from the GM to any player, it's because it's knowledge that the character has that the other players aren't immediately privy to - this could be as simple as the result of a Spot/Perception check, or it could be as complex as a message recieved from the BBEG about his secret orders to double-cross the party and steal the MacGuffin. This fact is getting somewhat lost in the discussion of whether player A should have been left out or not, and I honestly feel that Player A would be more harmful to the group than I, at least, would be willing to accept, if he's willing to steal other player's notes based on his own suspicions. Both because such behavior is immature at best, and because it shows that he can't actually maintain separation between player and character - he feels entitled to know what other characters know, whether or not the other players know that.

As far as the situation that led to this - it's a matter of what Player A's character was assumed to be doing during the session. If he was considered present, but a silent participant, he should have been privy to it. If his character would have disagreed with the decision to become double-agents, he could've spoken in private with the GM and acted as a triple-agent, working to get into a position where he could take down the BBEG. If the character wasn't considered present, but was viewed as on a separate mission or something, then he shouldn't have had the knowledge - unless one of the other players decided to bring him in on the conspiracy. If it was obvious that he wouldn't have taken the offer, it might've been that the henchman that approached the other PCs specifically waited until he wasn't present to make the offer, in order to ensure that the new double-agents weren't compromised.

I contend that both issues are important to consider. In fact, I suggest that keeping Player A out of the loop [is a feasible] catalyst for Player A's later note stealing.

I don't consider note stealing appropriate, and giving a reasoning for the action doesn't mean I forgive it or think it was justified... but when a cause can be established, it's worth looking into, as much as its reasonable to look into the effect (or outcome).

It's further worth mentioning that it's unclear how erratic Player A is, in general. Perhaps A was experiencing "the last straw" and acted impulsively, in a rush of emotion, as opposed to (1) a calculated risk intending to be malevolent or selfish, or (2) an example of habitually inappropriate social behavior.

Letting player A know about the switch-up should have nothing to do with his character's actions. I think that line of reasoning ironically fails to appropriately separate character vs. player. What happens to one, shouldn't have to happen to the other. It also fails to take into consideration Player A's reactions to withheld information. I know all of my players would be bothered by this, and would rightfully chew me out for not filling them in.

As I mentioned in a previous post above, either ALL players are left in the dark about something, none are left in the dark, or temporary secrets are kept for short periods of time, within session only.

BluesEclipse
2011-05-27, 02:32 PM
Regarding the separation of character and player knowledge, it might just be the way I've always played. But my group has always used private notes to provide information on anything that wouldn't be known to at least a majority of the party - and I've used them just as often when communicating with other players, when I didn't want the entire party to hear. And as the OP has stated that their group does, as a whole, have difficulty separating player and character knowledge, and suggests that note-passing has been used before, it certainly doesn't seem to be an unreasonable idea here.

The suggestion though that the note passing was the catalyst for Player A's actions, however, does seem to contradict the OP saying that "we've never had problems with note passing before". The OP has also stated that they try to avoid arguing with Player A for several reasons, including that it detracts from gameplay.

As far as not taking into account Player A's suggestion to withheld information... the GM had no obligation to share the information with the player, by any means - the player doesn't get plot points just because they'll throw a temper tantrum if they have to actually work for them. The other players could have brought it up in-character, having one of them extend the offer to Player A's character - but at the same time, different members of a party may have wildly differing motivations, and aren't obligated to share details of their actions towards those goals with those who would be against them. I've played on both sides of it - being part of the conspiracy, and being someone outside of the conspiracy. Player A would've learned about this in 2-3 sessions, tops, unless the other players and the GM kept all of their discussions out-of-game and made no references to it in-game, in which case the entire situation is moot. If it has a relevance to the game's plot, the players not part of it WILL learn of it, and will be able to take steps to handle it as they see fit. But simply grabbing the notes intended for other players because you think it's "unfair" that you're being left out isn't acceptable. Ever.

DabblerWizard
2011-05-27, 02:53 PM
BluesEclipse
Regarding the separation of character and player knowledge, it might just be the way I've always played. But my group has always used private notes to provide information on anything that wouldn't be known to at least a majority of the party - and I've used them just as often when communicating with other players, when I didn't want the entire party to hear. And as the OP has stated that their group does, as a whole, have difficulty separating player and character knowledge, and suggests that note-passing has been used before, it certainly doesn't seem to be an unreasonable idea here.

The suggestion though that the note passing was the catalyst for Player A's actions, however, does seem to contradict the OP saying that "we've never had problems with note passing before". The OP has also stated that they try to avoid arguing with Player A for several reasons, including that it detracts from gameplay.

As far as not taking into account Player A's suggestion to withheld information... the GM had no obligation to share the information with the player, by any means - the player doesn't get plot points just because they'll throw a temper tantrum if they have to actually work for them. The other players could have brought it up in-character, having one of them extend the offer to Player A's character - but at the same time, different members of a party may have wildly differing motivations, and aren't obligated to share details of their actions towards those goals with those who would be against them. I've played on both sides of it - being part of the conspiracy, and being someone outside of the conspiracy. Player A would've learned about this in 2-3 sessions, tops, unless the other players and the GM kept all of their discussions out-of-game and made no references to it in-game, in which case the entire situation is moot. If it has a relevance to the game's plot, the players not part of it WILL learn of it, and will be able to take steps to handle it as they see fit. But simply grabbing the notes intended for other players because you think it's "unfair" that you're being left out isn't acceptable. Ever.

It might help if I parsed my point more concretely.

"Information" within a gaming group can be broken up into many types.

For instance, a great deal of information can be DM only knowledge (whether temporarily or permanently): NPC actions, BBEG goals, which monster is around that next corner...

Another kind of information in the group might be the personal story of a particular PC.

I wasn't referring to either of these types of information in my above posts. Both examples refer to knowledge that hasn't been shared with others.

As soon as a player or DM shares information with another player, I think that information changes into something new. To maintain an egalitarian, harmonious group, information shared with the group should be kept out in the open.

Note passing is acceptable within my framework, assuming that the information becomes common knowledge after a short time.

There have been times when I've shared snippets of info with specific players that wasn't relevant to the others. They were still allowed to hear it, and we all did our best to make sure that player knowledge didn't cross over into character knowledge.

Savannah
2011-05-29, 02:44 AM
So, here's my question:

If he wasn't present for the turning traitor and wasn't told about it, why was he given a session recap? It seems to me that this should have gone one of two ways:

1) A: Hey, guys, what did I miss?
Group: Well, your character wasn't there, so you don't know. You did get a phone call saying we're all meeting up at [location], though, so that's where we're starting up this session.

Or

2) A: Hey, guys, what did I miss?
Group: We did x, y, and z, and also accepted an offer to turn traitor. Remember that your character wasn't there, though, so you don't know that.

By mixing the two, you created the assumption for player A that he'd been told everything, while really leaving out part, which is rather unfair. Also, the reaction of the player who arrived late suggests that you had prearranged to keep him in the dark on that, and only that, point. I can see him being annoyed that you gave him the impression that you told him everything, while secretly plotting amongst yourselves to keep critical information away from him.

That being said, grabbing the note was totally out of line.

Jay R
2011-05-30, 05:42 PM
So, here's my question:

If he wasn't present for the turning traitor and wasn't told about it, why was he given a session recap?

Because they had just switched sides and were trying to convince one of their new enemies that there was nothing amiss, of course. Would you expect a traitor to say, "OK, while you were gone, we decided to switch sides, and we are now waiting for the best time to backstab you and your allies"?

Lord of the Rings and Narnia spoilers:
Boromir didn't tell the Fellowship, "Hey guys, the next time I get Frodo alone, I'm going to try to take the Ring from him by force."

Gollum didn't tell Frodo and Sam, "Smeagol will take the nice hobbitses on a secret path so they can be eaten by a giant spider, hmmmm, yes, precious."

Edmund didn't tell Peter, Susan and Lucy, "I'm working for the White Witch now, and I'm supposed to lead you to her castle."
That's not what a double agent does.

hewhosaysfish
2011-05-30, 05:58 PM
Because they had just switched sides and were trying to convince one of their new enemies that there was nothing amiss, of course. Would you expect a traitor to say, "OK, while you were gone, we decided to switch sides, and we are now waiting for the best time to backstab you and your allies"?

That's not what a double agent does.

If the traitorous CHARACTERS were giving a recap to his CHARACTER then you are correct, they would leave out the incriminating details.
However, I think the point that Savannah is making is that if the PLAYERS are giving a recap to a fellow PLAYER then it should be either:

Completely in-character

1) A: Hey, guys, what did I miss?
Group: Well, your character wasn't there, so you don't know. You did get a phone call saying we're all meeting up at [location], though, so that's where we're starting up this session.

or completely out-of-character

2) A: Hey, guys, what did I miss?
Group: We did x, y, and z, and also accepted an offer to turn traitor. Remember that your character wasn't there, though, so you don't know that.

Savannah
2011-05-30, 07:27 PM
Because they had just switched sides and were trying to convince one of their new enemies that there was nothing amiss, of course. Would you expect a traitor to say, "OK, while you were gone, we decided to switch sides, and we are now waiting for the best time to backstab you and your allies"?

As hewhosaysfish said, my point is that "session recap" tends to be OOC, and therefore should include everything. If it were entirely in character, their actions would have been very reasonable, but I get the feeling that it was supposed to be out of character. In that case, player A has a point. (His reaction was inappropriate, but he was treated unfairly if he was lead to believe that his fellow players were telling the truth and they were not.)

Conners
2011-05-31, 08:57 AM
People are making good points about how it "MIGHT" have been a terrible thing for the OP to have done... And good points how it "might" have been a terrible thing for what the player did.

I feel there's a bit much conclusion jumping here.


If it is one way, where there isn't much reason for the other player to be kept out of the action, you could have him told IC by his friends what's going on (like if you don't want PvP).

If you are running a simulator type game, where players are free to work against the environment or kill each other, and the double-agents were against the other player for some reason, then it makes sense to keep it secret from them.
EXCEPT: You need to note that if all your double-agent players are teamed up against the lone guy, because he didn't reach a session... that's pretty harsh. To balance it in such a case, you should give him a quick solo adventure which took place at the same time as the PCs going double-agent, where he isn't made totally defenceless for missing a single session IRL... Shouldn't punish players for missing sessions, after all.

Couple more problems:

Player A did a poor job of things INDEED, starting a big argument. Unless the rest of the group is very sensitive and gets into a fight easily, he sounds immature from this: Stealing the note and starting the fight.

I don't think it's a bad idea to keep secrets from your players. You should have them understand that what is known IC shouldn't be known OOC, if you can help it, for greater immersion.

The Player B complaining that you let Player A know... that sounds VERY, very annoying.... Hopefully they're less annoying than they sound.

However, if the game wasn't originally PvP... it does very much sound as though it would become PvP, wit everyone ganging up on Player A because he missed one session.
---
If Player A sees it like that, it makes sense for him to get into a rage (though he still shouldn't, nor should he have taken the note), and he sees it as unfair since it's as though the session in being held against him.
Of course, that's not to say the rest of you are black-hearted because of it. Easy to not think of such at the time--I didn't think of it at first.

This is theory, I don't know the details well enough to say. Just need to consider some of the possibilities, and judge it from the actual situation.

Kalirren
2011-05-31, 11:20 AM
I can't think of this as a group issue because failure to separate OOC information from IC information is clearly a lack of good gaming technique which each of your players apparently lacks, and that's their own fault. Arguably, a habitual lack by all parties of OOC-IC separation in your game is also principally your fault as the chief moderator of your gaming group.

Were I playing in this group, it would be worrisome to me that there's not an element of trust between the players (and not their characters, but the players themselves) that says to each person before they do anything like trying to steal a note, "I respect the right for each player to choose to communicate information to the GM in a covert manner, and I will not exploit my physical position at the table to interfere (and yes, that's exactly what's happening.)"

If I were GM'ing your group and I had known that this occured last session, I would at the beginning of the very next session:

1) recognize that the previous norms regarding IC-OOC separation in the group were generally and unacceptably lax;

2) assert that they will not continue, and withhold approval from any OOC-motivated IC activity;

3) Clarify that covert messages are generally passed covertly for the -benefit- of the people who don't read them. It's inherently difficult to keep track of what you know OOC but don't know IC.
3a) OOC-IC muddling is bad. Dramatic irony, on the other hand, is good. Clarify in particular that if a player chooses to read a communication to which they are not privileged, that's fine, but they will still be held responsible for declaring appropriately ignorant IC action by their character. (This creates a hidden incentive not to read covert messages: if you hadn't read the relevant message, no one will question you at the table if your character does something that exposes the treachery IC.)

4) assert the GM's authority and duty to monitor all covert PC-PC communications unhindered.

IMO this is the most mature and sensible way forward.

Jay R
2011-06-01, 10:28 AM
A lot of people are making suggestions that convince me that either they or I completely misunderstand what's going on.

Characters B-F switched sides. They are now on the opposite side from Character A. There's no point in talking about "the party's goals" or "play as a group towards a common goal". There is no common party goal. Party members now have conflicting goals. It's also irrelevant to talk about "an egalitarian, harmonious group" when they are on opposite sides.

Finally, there's no point talking about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. A player who will cheat by stealing a note is actively trying to gain player knowledge for his character to use. And he was already a known problem player (... "arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall, and we try to avoid doing so"..."Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.").

So the group B-F switched sides and are now working for the villain. You can legitimately argue that this is a bad thing to do. (I don't much like it myself.) But it occurs legally within the rules of the game. And if they do it, they must hide that fact from player A. Hiding the fact isn't hurting "the common goal" or the party's goal"; turning traitor did that. They behaved the only way it is possible to behave given what we know about player A.

By contrast, player A cheated. Stealing information that your character never found within the game is not significantly different from adding a +3 sword to your character sheet that your character never found within the game.

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 11:09 AM
A lot of people are making suggestions that convince me that either they or I completely misunderstand what's going on.

Characters B-F switched sides. They are now on the opposite side from Character A. There's no point in talking about "the party's goals" or "play as a group towards a common goal". There is no common party goal. Party members now have conflicting goals. It's also irrelevant to talk about "an egalitarian, harmonious group" when they are on opposite sides.

Finally, there's no point talking about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. A player who will cheat by stealing a note is actively trying to gain player knowledge for his character to use. And he was already a known problem player (... "arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall, and we try to avoid doing so"..."Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.").

So the group B-F switched sides and are now working for the villain. You can legitimately argue that this is a bad thing to do. (I don't much like it myself.) But it occurs legally within the rules of the game. And if they do it, they must hide that fact from player A. Hiding the fact isn't hurting "the common goal" or the party's goal"; turning traitor did that. They behaved the only way it is possible to behave given what we know about player A.

By contrast, player A cheated. Stealing information that your character never found within the game is not significantly different from adding a +3 sword to your character sheet that your character never found within the game.

I think what you're missing is "What is this group's established procedure for when a player misses a session?"

If the character is auto-piloted, then the group was wrong to not provide Player A will all the details, double cross included. The character was there, he knows what happened, and Player A is now railroaded into switching sides (that's the price for missing the session).

If the character goes back to the hotel/tavern/secretundergroundbase and does not go with the group, then the group was justified in not telling Player A about the switch, but they were wrong to give Player A any details at all.

This goes back to what hewhosaysfish and Savannah were saying about how the recap was handled. Either the character was there or not, tell Player A accordingly. This "tell you half of what happened" was stupid. And if which way it's handled was not established at the very beginning of the campaign by the DM (GM, whatever), then that's the DM's fault.

No matter what, Player A's reaction was 3rd grade schoolyard nonsense and way out of line.

CalamaroJoe
2011-06-01, 11:49 AM
A lot of people are making suggestions that convince me that either they or I completely misunderstand what's going on.

Maybe. Or, more precisely, you can't understand how it's a problem when all the players play against one. It's not a fault, it's just how you like your game.



Characters B-F switched sides. They are now on the opposite side from Character A. There's no point in talking about "the party's goals" or "play as a group towards a common goal". There is no common party goal. Party members now have conflicting goals. It's also irrelevant to talk about "an egalitarian, harmonious group" when they are on opposite sides.

Yes, after B-F betrayed A there is no common goal. But was there before? I (and several others) guess from the reactions that there was at least a slight harmony.





Finally, there's no point talking about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. A player who will cheat by stealing a note is actively trying to gain player knowledge for his character to use. And he was already a known problem player (... "arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall, and we try to avoid doing so"..."Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.").
...


emphasis mine

Are you sure? Maybe the player was just curious.
Musashi2 explained us that they didn't tell player A beacuse he/she cannot separate player's knowledge and character's knowledge. But is was the player that was pissed off and stole the note, not the character.

I agree with Savannah and the others (EDIT: and subscribe Archwizard's post!) on the importance of what was said in the recap and how it was handled.

DabblerWizard
2011-06-01, 12:13 PM
Jay R Quoted
A lot of people are making suggestions that convince me that either they or I completely misunderstand what's going on.

Characters B-F switched sides. They are now on the opposite side from Character A. There's no point in talking about "the party's goals" or "play as a group towards a common goal". There is no common party goal. Party members now have conflicting goals. It's also irrelevant to talk about "an egalitarian, harmonious group" when they are on opposite sides.

Finally, there's no point talking about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. A player who will cheat by stealing a note is actively trying to gain player knowledge for his character to use. And he was already a known problem player (... "arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall, and we try to avoid doing so"..."Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.").

So the group B-F switched sides and are now working for the villain. You can legitimately argue that this is a bad thing to do. (I don't much like it myself.) But it occurs legally within the rules of the game. And if they do it, they must hide that fact from player A. Hiding the fact isn't hurting "the common goal" or the party's goal"; turning traitor did that. They behaved the only way it is possible to behave given what we know about player A.

By contrast, player A cheated. Stealing information that your character never found within the game is not significantly different from adding a +3 sword to your character sheet that your character never found within the game.

It's clear that characters B-F switched sides, joining the villain. However, it makes no sense to say that "they must hide that fact from player A".

Characters don't interact with players, except maybe in our dreams.

Players B-F did not join with any villain, only their characters did. It does make sense to assume that characters B-F want to protect their interests from character A.

However, players B-F should not have to protect their interests from character A (which makes no sense) OR player A. This kind of mindset just screams antagonism, and non-productive competition that I spelled out earlier in this thread.

Since openness is an important characteristic of my gaming groups, it would be necessary for my players to share such a big reveal with each other.

I think this is a bad practice, but unless it was clearly, and previously spelled out that "players who miss sessions are left completely in the dark about new in-game events", then otherwise, Player A should have learned about the events occurring to all the characters, from players B-F, or from the DM.

Jay R
2011-06-01, 04:11 PM
It's clear that characters B-F switched sides, joining the villain. However, it makes no sense to say that "they must hide that fact from player A".

Characters don't interact with players, except maybe in our dreams.
Characters only interact with each other through players, and only think their way through situations through player minds.


Players B-F did not join with any villain, only their characters did. It does make sense to assume that characters B-F want to protect their interests from character A.

However, players B-F should not have to protect their interests from character A (which makes no sense) OR player A. This kind of mindset just screams antagonism, and non-productive competition that I spelled out earlier in this thread.

Huh? This screams productive competition to me. Non-productive competition is telling player A info that character A must use to win, and cannot use honestly.

Further, it's required by the actual situation we were asked to discuss, as laid out in the words of the OP, "I felt it best to not mention it/let the group go with it, so that Player A would be playing his character in the dark, since he was in the dark. Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player."

We are told that player A will use the knowledge if he had it. We also see that he will even steal player knowledge.


Since openness is an important characteristic of my gaming groups, it would be necessary for my players to share such a big reveal with each other.

You tell people that somebody is covertly planning an ambush or double-cross? Why? Don't your players want to try to solve mysteries?

In my current game, my thief specifically does not tell the paladin about some of his activities. And when one of us is in a private meeting, we reveal as much or as little as we decide that character wants the others to know.


I think this is a bad practice, but unless it was clearly, and previously spelled out that "players who miss sessions are left completely in the dark about new in-game events", then otherwise, Player A should have learned about the events occurring to all the characters, from players B-F, or from the DM.

I consider it axiomatic that "players are left completely in the dark about information that their characters don't know, and which their most important task is to ferret out."

If player A does not know, he can eventually see that there's a secret, and have his character attempt within the game to discover it. This is the way a character in that situation would actually behave. Note that he was halfway there. He knew there was a secret, and he knew who was discussing it. His in-game move at that point is to pass a note to the GM saying "I will attempt to eavesdrop on the others, using <skill or power X>". That's honest, straightforward gaming -- trying to solve the situation your character is in.

But if player A does know that his character will soon be backstabbed or double-crossed if he does not "learn" the information, how can he honestly play the character? Any action taken is either letting himself be led to the slaughter, or using the player knowledge within the game.

Note that eavesdropping is a clever decision if he wasn't told the info, but cannot be clever, only an obvious use of player knowledge if he wasn't.

Suppose you are playing a game, and you are told by the DM, "By the way, if your character doesn't pull the green lever in the next two minutes, he will die. But your character doesn't know that, so don't use that information." There's no straightforward way to play the next two minutes.

This is no different from being told, "By the way, these characters in your HQ are really double agents for the villain, and if you don't stop them, they will presumably doubl-cross you and defeat your side. But your character doesn't know that, so don't use that information."

Jay R
2011-06-01, 04:25 PM
Maybe. Or, more precisely, you can't understand how it's a problem when all the players play against one. It's not a fault, it's just how you like your game.

You have that backwards. I specifically wrote "So the group B-F switched sides and are now working for the villain. You can legitimately argue that this is a bad thing to do. (I don't much like it myself.) But it occurs legally within the rules of the game. And if they do it, they must hide that fact from player A."

What's the point of saying that's how I like it when I've said that it isn't?

My point is that their mistake, if there is one, isn't hiding their treason, but committing treason in the first place. If they are going to turn traitor, they won't tell the people they are betraying. "OK, turn around now so we can stab you in the back."


Yes, after B-F betrayed A there is no common goal. But was there before? I (and several others) guess from the reactions that there was at least a slight harmony.

Doesn't matter to my point. What I said was that the betrayal came at the betrayal, and that not telling him about the betrayal was simply a requirement of the decision to play double agent. A double agent is somebody from side 1 pretending to be on side 2.



Finally, there's no point talking about separating player knowledge from character knowledge. A player who will cheat by stealing a note is actively trying to gain player knowledge for his character to use. And he was already a known problem player (... "arguing with this person is like arguing with a wall, and we try to avoid doing so"..."Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player.").
emphasis mine

Are you sure? Maybe the player was just curious.

Or maybe we should read the original post: "Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player." You even quoted it above.

That's the problem we are asked to comment on.

Savannah
2011-06-01, 04:37 PM
Huh? This screams productive competition to me. Non-productive competition is telling player A info that character A must use to win, and cannot use honestly.

Not everyone wants competition in their games. Personally, I prefer my games to be cooperative, unless it's clearly stated otherwise at the beginning of the game. If that changes in the middle of the game without my knowing it's a possibility, I'm not going to be doing the investigating you're advocating because I'm going to be assuming that my group is cooperative and not lying to me.

Not to mention the fact that, if he's immature enough to grab notes that are being passed, I highly doubt he's mature enough to handle "productive" competition.


You tell people that somebody is covertly planning an ambush or double-cross? Why? Don't your players want to try to solve mysteries?

No, I don't. However, I make it very clear that everything I'm doing is IC not OOC and therefore I don't give "session recaps" that would lead the other players to conclude that I'm speaking OOC. (If that was not the case of this session recap, it would be great if the OP could clear that up. However, every time I've seen or heard the term "session recap" used, it was between players and therefore OOC, not IC. Since "session" is an OOC idea, an IC explanation wouldn't be called a "session recap".)


In my current game, my thief specifically does not tell the paladin about some of his activities. And when one of us is in a private meeting, we reveal as much or as little as we decide that character wants the others to know.

But you don't tell the paladin's player that you've told him everything, do you? You let him conclude for himself whether or not he should follow up on the truthfulness of the thief's statements. By giving player A a "session recap" the other players have implicitly told him that they've told him everything. When he finds out that they have lied to him by implying they've told him everything but holding back information, he has every right to be pissed. That's why I was asking about how the session recaps have been done. If it was done entirely in character, something you seem to be assuming but I am not assuming, then you have a point. If it was done out of character, as everything I've ever heard called a "session recap" has been, then your point is invalid as it is the players who are lying to player A, not the characters lying to the character of player A. And given the inability to differentiate between player and character in the group, it seems likely that player A is assuming that the information is coming from the other players. If that is not the case, he (and every other player) needs to have been reminded of it, or he will be rightfully pissed when he finds out his fellow players have lied to him.


Suppose you are playing a game, and you are told by the DM, "By the way, if your character doesn't pull the green lever in the next two minutes, he will die. But your character doesn't know that, so don't use that information." There's no straightforward way to play the next two minutes.

Except that's not necessarily the situation. If the session recap was player to player, as I suspect it was or was assumed to be, then it's as if the DM failed to mention that there even was a green lever in the room. I trust my fellow players. If my fellow players tell me what happened while I was gone, I trust them to not lie to me. If I found out they were lying to me, I'd be pissed. If it's clearly from my fellow characters, I'd trust them or not depending on how my character feels about them. But we already know that this group does not understand that sort of differentiation, so the most likely scenario is that they assume that information given is player-to-player.

Even if the information was left out by the other characters, the DM still must make sure that player A's character has a chance to learn it, or the game is unfair. Player [can't remember the letter]'s objecting to telling player A sounds like they didn't want player A to have a chance to learn the information, which is unfair and as much of a jerk move as stealing the note to read.

DabblerWizard
2011-06-02, 08:46 AM
Characters only interact with each other through players, and only think their way through situations through player minds.

This point is true, but I get the sense that some people use it (ironically) to justify confounding between (or inappropriately mixing) character and player knowledge. "What my character knows, is what I know as a player and more, so I have to act as though players ARE their characters, and CAN'T trust that they can separate player and character knowledge".



Huh? This screams productive competition to me. Non-productive competition is telling player A info that character A must use to win, and cannot use honestly.

Further, it's required by the actual situation we were asked to discuss, as laid out in the words of the OP, "I felt it best to not mention it/let the group go with it, so that Player A would be playing his character in the dark, since he was in the dark. Had he been told, he would have been overly suspicious, and all too willing to act with the knowledge that the group was playing for the other side, and do things that his character wouldn't, because he knows it as a player."

We are told that player A will use the knowledge if he had it. We also see that he will even steal player knowledge.


You're missing my point when I mention competition between players. I suggest looking back earlier in this thread where I spell out the types of competition in gaming.

I also never advocated forced action through information, and disagree that keeping players up to pace leads to "non-productive competition". Who are they competing against? Themselves? ... Separating character and player knowledge isn't necessarily easy, but I think you're referring to some kind of knowledge that I never advocated, as I never experienced a time when players were harmed by receiving information.

The fact that Player A misuses player knowledge doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve to receive it in the first place. You don't leave one player in the dark while allowing the other players free reign to a piece of information. Leaving characters in the dark is another matter.

The DM and the other players should hold each other accountable concerning player vs. character knowledge.



You tell people that somebody is covertly planning an ambush or double-cross? Why? Don't your players want to try to solve mysteries?

In my current game, my thief specifically does not tell the paladin about some of his activities. And when one of us is in a private meeting, we reveal as much or as little as we decide that character wants the others to know.


If that ambush or double-cross is player vs. player, as opposed to character vs. character, then I'd discourage it in the first place. Though I also don't particularly encourage character vs. character competition. This distinction is part of the types of competition I mentioned in an earlier posting in this thread.

I'd expect my players to be able to not misuse the character knowledge that other characters plan on double-crossing them.

I tell players that their character backgrounds are for them to share as they please. Information they share as players with the group during game play, eventually ends up being open player knowledge. The only time it is not automatically common knowledge among players would be in the case of short term character vs. character competition, where the player says, for instance, "I need to roll a bluff check against his insight" etc... which I've also mentioned previously. :smalltongue:

Your thief not sharing information with the paladin is in-game / character knowledge. In my group, I would expect you to either (1) not share your secrets with the other players, or (2) share your information with all players (as player knowledge), with the expectation and promise that those players would not use that information against you in-character (as character knowledge).

Your type of game play seems to encourage frequent whispering, and hiding, and covert behaviors among players, which I think makes for group dynamics that I'd consider non-productive, unfriendly, and woefully competitive in a way that doesn't enhance the gaming experience, and in fact just makes players feel bad.

Players are capable of being grown ups, and distinguishing between character and player knowledge. Withholding information from other players, because the characters wouldn't like it known, is a poor distinction between character and player knowledge.



I consider it axiomatic that "players are left completely in the dark about information that their characters don't know, and which their most important task is to ferret out."

If player A does not know, he can eventually see that there's a secret, and have his character attempt within the game to discover it. This is the way a character in that situation would actually behave. Note that he was halfway there. He knew there was a secret, and he knew who was discussing it. His in-game move at that point is to pass a note to the GM saying "I will attempt to eavesdrop on the others, using <skill or power X>". That's honest, straightforward gaming -- trying to solve the situation your character is in.

But if player A does know that his character will soon be backstabbed or double-crossed if he does not "learn" the information, how can he honestly play the character? Any action taken is either letting himself be led to the slaughter, or using the player knowledge within the game.

Note that eavesdropping is a clever decision if he wasn't told the info, but cannot be clever, only an obvious use of player knowledge if he wasn't.

Suppose you are playing a game, and you are told by the DM, "By the way, if your character doesn't pull the green lever in the next two minutes, he will die. But your character doesn't know that, so don't use that information." There's no straightforward way to play the next two minutes.

This is no different from being told, "By the way, these characters in your HQ are really double agents for the villain, and if you don't stop them, they will presumably doubl-cross you and defeat your side. But your character doesn't know that, so don't use that information."

Ultimately, we seem to disagree on this point: I believe that a common pool of player knowledge should exist for everyone in the group. This puts everyone on common ground, making people more secure that there are consistencies in the group, and in the game world.

Part of that pool of knowledge is filled with whatever information is put out to the group during game play, not just from me as a DM, but from players to other players. When common player knowledge is no longer common, and is instead fragmented by covert behaviors between players, I think the group suffers as a whole. Covert behaviors between characters is not the same thing.

We also disagree on the notion of whether character vs. character competition is acceptable game play. I don't think it is, and it seems that you DO think it is. When PCs don't have to worry about battling other PCs, the concerns you raise become much less realistic.

As a DM, I would never share something like the "green lever" or the "HQ double agents". There would be nothing helpful about those reveals. Notes I prepare for the campaign aren't common player knowledge, obviously, since we really wouldn't be playing a game, just listening to me read my "story". Character backgrounds are also not common player knowledge as I mentioned. Your second example, is also highly facetious sounding. :smalltongue:

I'm reposting some of my previous points to partially summarize.

"... players B-F should not have to protect their interests from character A (which makes no sense) OR player A".

"Since openness is an important characteristic of my gaming groups, it would be necessary for my players to share such a big reveal with each other".

gracypetro
2011-06-12, 11:59 PM
In my current game, the paladin's aim is to always obey the law and to save people. The ranger's aim is to save the animals and the forest. My thief's aim is to get some excitement and as much treasure as feasible. That allows lots of shared goals, but there is a lot my thief is doing that the paladin will never listen to about.