Group Rules

[Musashi2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Musashi Quoted

Spoiler

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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.

[DabblerWizard]

Jay R's Quote

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

Right, but your example don't apply to a group in a game like D&D.

The OP isn't playing D&D.

[Knaight]

The OP isn't playing D&D.

A game like D&D clearly means an RPG.

[Boci]

A game like D&D clearly means an RPG.

Sarcasm???

[Knaight]

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]

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]

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.