How should I just as planned?

[Lothar]

How do I (a character) plot against the DM to such a degree that I can with full confidence and not lying go "Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned." I want to have backup plans for my backup plans. I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware. What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

For the most fun I want to do it through powers, items, or grants he gives to me. That would be cool.

Playing a LG knight with this thing is a bit weird but that's what I want to do.

[Jeopardizer]

You should read your DM's notes, watch him for the perfect moment for the revel and play like you would play poker.

[Aidan305]

This is a case of playing the player, as much as the game. Know thy GM and be able to arrange things so that he'll set things up as you want them.

It's much easier from the GM's side than the players.

[Lothar]

You should read your DM's notes, watch him for the perfect moment for the revel

As much as I would probably enjoy doing that, he keeps his notes at home when he is not playing, and I wouldn't want to betray the trust of a friend. What my knight does IC on the other hand is something else entirely.

[Yukitsu]

It's pretty easy. You need to pay attention to the whole situation. (eg. if for example, you're supposed to kidnap the dread lord Bastard McEvilton's wife) you can't zero in on the fact that Bastard McEvilton's wife is in the capitol. You also need to consider that the intrepid and hero Dashing Goodson will also be in town and probably sweep her off her feet before you can kidnap her, doubly so if you are doing morally questionable things (like having a plan smarter than "apply sword to face"). This step often should start with recon, but you should try to make sure no one knows you're looking.

Next, you need to be the prime mover that sets everything into motion. It's easier to predict what will happen in a given scenario when you take a static setting and move it. For example, if I want to convict the son of a wealthy aristocrat of arson, I probably won't if I just sit there. I have to put a torch in his hand and then send the oil slicked rat swarm after him. Having someone else do any of these steps will probably result in more variables (for example, it'd be harder to ensure that he's by himself at the time, if I can't control when it happens, I can't make sure that I catch him "red handed").

Also, always assume there will be spanners in the works at play. Assume that there will be an interruption at each step. This is "knowing when to hold em, when to fold em" and the hardest part of any evil scheme. I mean scheme. I mean plan. Basically, as soon as any individual step becomes irrevocably screwed by some bungling idiot (Ie your own party) retreat, take what you've already gained, and start a new plan accounting for the new idiot that you know will be around (adventure hooks elsewhere and to your benefit with a pile of money in their direction works well.)

Next, have quick reactions. Know how to turn a situation in your favour at a moments notice. Even if you are deviating from the plan as a whole, you can often put the plan back on track when derailed. Know when you can do this, or when you have to resort to retreating.

Lastly, success is not the last step. Securing a victory is the last step. Once you win, someone is going to dislike you. Make sure they either don't know it was you, can't know it was you, can't act against you, or are sufficiently paid off by a secondary that they don't feel inclined to go against you.

A real in game example step by step:

Spoiler

Show

Our objective as a party was to steal a whole ton of obdurium from the dwarves to pad our pockets. I personally wanted to steal a ton of obdurium, steal the secret to refining it, and blackmail the dwarves into paying me, lest I tell all of their political enemies where to find the raw ore, how to refine it and the weak points of their defenses. I also wanted to screw over the party (NPC portion anyway) because they were all jerks, so I also needed to make a clean break from the party with all the money.

There's a quote of mine from a while back that I didn't explain. I'll repeat it here. "I need a block of sugar, a file, a thin foil of lead, a map of tactics and some friendly ants." This was used as my method of scouting. Why? No detection spell can find it (due to the lead) letting me scout a location. What was I looking for? An orbital refinery that was turning raw material into Obdurium. The sugary ant box wrapped in lead was put in a chunk of raw ore at a mine where the dwarves allowed random visitors who were selling them supplies. The lead was breached by the ants that were eating the sugar, letting us divine them as allies with our map of tactics, letting us track that specific ore back to the refinery.

We knew the dwarves had virtually no air defense (as an earlier event saw us destroy 90% of their war capable air ships), but untouched ground forces. We therefore knew an air raid would be highly effective, but as they were a fortified, I had considered a false flag operation timed to coincide with an outbound shipment of heavily fortified cargo ships sending out the finished product where ground forces at their loading docks would force a premature departure, letting our air forces capture their hopefully disorganized cargo ship. Instead, some party members decided to steal the ore ship.

OK, so at this point, my overall plan is derailed, as now the dwarves are under alert, they know they are being pirated, and they can sort of guess what we're after. I back off, as I know that A) they aint refining any of that ore that we just stole, B) they know we're around pirating and C) we can't use our ships in the sector without them immediately classifying us as enemies. I decide to fold the hand I'm dealt and start afresh.

Assessing the situation, we came out of this whole mess knowing where to hit, a cargo ship filled with heavy ores and we know the dwarves will be on high alert around their ships and any points of entry. This time, I considered a smash and grab, with the main group of us a distraction while I and one other infiltrate them deeper in to prevent any organization against us, and to steal a master smith.

So using the information learned from the last raid, I organized half the party into the "smash" team, them being the ones that could derail my plans best. They sending an FTL ship (the cargo ship we captured earlier) into the middle of the enemy fortifications, and then draw as much aggro as possible. All the more reliable party members and the NPCs under my direct control were sent to steal as much as possible under the cover of chaos. I on the other hand, was trying to kidnap a master smith.

Now, this had 3 seperate sections, where success or failure in each would have no particular detriment to my goals overall. If the first group succeeded, I would automatically succeed in my other 2 goals, as all the guards would be dead. If they failed, the NPCs and PCs that I didn't like would be dead, which gets rid of the guys I wanted to ditch anyway. Regardless, they'd have given my mooks plenty of time to load up on valuables and run.

The second, the blatant theft was only necessary because it gave group smash motivation to fight. Any money they acquired would be bonus. Also, since we were scattering in various ships (including a stolen one), it gave me an excuse to fully load mine at the expense of carrying any party members, letting me make a clean break from the party even if they survive. If they failed to steal anything valuable, it's no real loss. The only reason that could occur realistically, is if the smash group all died trying to protect them, which means their existence would cease to matter.

The last portion was the only one with any viable failure state. In the event that I couldn't find any master smiths or others who could refine the obdurium, I wouldn't be able to accomplish that particular goal. However, failing to find and capture one wouldn't prevent me from getting the bonus money or get rid of the party members who I didn't like.

Now, this all played out fairly well. Very few party members died during the smash portion, which meant the ships were loaded to the gills with treasure. I managed to find a dead master smith in the wreckage of a forge, which let me use speak with dead on him later. I made it back to my ship with a corpse in a bag of holding, and managed to jump away from the party without them catching me.

Lastly, I managed to convince the dwarves not to come after me via blackmail. If I was ever killed, a safety deposit box in the hands of every enemy nation would be handed over to the respective governments who would learn where the dwarven colonies with the most raw ore were, and how to refine it, ruining their monopoly and also putting all of their mining sites under threat. The party was paid off when I handed the PC members that I liked ships and treasure, so I managed to get away from half on good terms, the remaining half that hated my guts couldn't convince the remainder to risk their lives in trying to kill me.

So in sum, I got a huge revenue source over as long as I lived, I got a huge bonus sum of money, and was able to make a clean break from the people I didn't like without anyone in pursuit. Just as planned.

[Katana_Geldar]

If you were one of my players are were trying to play me deliberately, then I wouldn't want to run a game for you.

Sorry.

But I've no patience with people who try to play me. I am always willing to work with players and I will plot with you if you want to keep secrets from players.

But I've had players like this who make moves like this in a game, and it was scary as it went against what everyone else at the table wanted to do. I had to stop and ask what was going on.

And I didn't have to stop said player from ruining the game. The players did. In character too.

[Yukitsu]

That's another thing. You need to play against the NPCs, not the DM. Yeah, you have to get into the DM's head a bit, because he's the NPCs, but you're not trying to break the game, you're trying to break the NPCs, which, if your DM isn't too railroady, are completely distinct. If your DM is bothered by you outwitting the NPCs, and takes this as somehow outwitting him, well, I'd probably find a DM that was less invested in his own NPCs well being.

[Katana_Geldar]

The DM has a much more long-term view of the game than any of the players, so they can see how actions will affect things latter in the game. Talking to the DM may be the best thing you can do when you want to be contrary, it shows the DM you want to be part of the story and make the game better for everyone.

And yes, I have had players plotting with me. It has always gone very well, even with other players as they see I am ok with it provided it's not disruptive or malicious.

[newBlazingAngel]

Yukitsu is right. I would suggest that whatever these plans of your lead to, that all it ends with is a super creative way to reach the end goal. If you end up screwing half the people for no reason besides "for lols" you're going to get a repuation.

If you must, I would suggest backup people. If part of a plan relys on one person doing something, and that person is gone for one reason or another you need at least one other person who can do their job nearly as well.

[newBlazingAngel]

Please ignore, system mess up.

[Yukitsu]

The DM has a much more long-term view of the game than any of the players, so they can see how actions will affect things latter in the game. Talking to the DM may be the best thing you can do when you want to be contrary, it shows the DM you want to be part of the story and make the game better for everyone.

And yes, I have had players plotting with me. It has always gone very well, even with other players as they see I am ok with it provided it's not disruptive or malicious.

I believe that roleplaying is for emergent story telling, so in my view, a set, strict story line that requires XY and Z is just not for me. I like completely shaking things up, changing the world and seeing where it takes me. Talking through it with the DM kills the surprise of the consequences of my actions for me. Similarly, when I DM, I want the players to write their version of the story. It's not really sandbox, as there are things going on in the world, but how that all unfolds? That's up to the players. Nothing makes me happier as a DM than a good twist from the players.

[Friv]

I believe that roleplaying is for emergent story telling, so in my view, a set, strict story line that requires XY and Z is just not for me. I like completely shaking things up, changing the world and seeing where it takes me. Talking through it with the DM kills the surprise of the consequences of my actions for me. Similarly, when I DM, I want the players to write their version of the story. It's not really sandbox, as there are things going on in the world, but how that all unfolds? That's up to the players. Nothing makes me happier as a DM than a good twist from the players.

That's all well and good, but it's also useless in this situation.

As a player, you do not have full knowledge of the setting's current events. You do not have full ability to investigate clues without asking your DM what those clues are. You do not have the ability to learn facts that the DM hasn't realized you are trying to figure out, and if you don't tell the DM that you are trying to figure those facts out he will not reveal them.

If you decide to play a psychological game with the DM, rather than with the facts that he is developing, you are at best metagaming and at worst actively being antagonistic.

This is very different from taking the game in an unexpected direction or making choices that are not simply following the DM's lead. You can have your actions lead to an emergent story, but if you don't give your DM a chance to adapt to or react to that story, you are trying to railroad or defeat him and that is just as bad on your side as on his.

To the OP - assuming that you have trust with your DM, you have to at the very least let him know that you're planning to put together a "just as planned", and find out if certain elements are going to conflict with it. You are going to need to lay groundwork and generally cooperate with him, even if you want to hold the exact results from him until the moment that you reveal your amazing twist.

[Katana_Geldar]

I believe that roleplaying is for emergent story telling, so in my view, a set, strict story line that requires XY and Z is just not for me. I like completely shaking things up, changing the world and seeing where it takes me. Talking through it with the DM kills the surprise of the consequences of my actions for me. Similarly, when I DM, I want the players to write their version of the story. It's not really sandbox, as there are things going on in the world, but how that all unfolds? That's up to the players. Nothing makes me happier as a DM than a good twist from the players.

My story. has always been fluent to the needs of players, as long as I can keep a firm hand on the tiller so the story has some direction. Doesn't matter how we get there, we just need to get there.

But I do like to know in advance.

[TheThan]

Meta-gaming plots and trying to screw up whatever adventure you characters are on (which is exactly what you’re doing) is disruptive and ruins the fun for all the other players and the Dm (that’s right, the Dm’s allowed to have fun too).

Now, wanting to do things that have (campaign) world spanning effects is just fine. But you NEED to communicate with your Dm and allow him to figure out what happens when your plans comes to fruition. See the DM is in charge of what happens outside of the PC’s direct influence. Talking with your Dm and letting him know what you’re planning allows for him to develop and plan for the consequences and effects of your actions. By trying to preempt this, you are in effect trying to disrupt the game by derailing whatever events are taking place and forcing the Dm to make sudden and drastic changes so the campaign doesn’t stall.

It’s my opinion that the Dm’s role as world builder is NESSASARY for the game to actually function at all. Otherwise it’s just a series of bland dungeons and random encounters (at which point, go play a video game). The players are the ones that should be surprised by a quirky turn of events, not the Dm (he gets to be surprised by the actions of the players instead.). Now the players do not always need to know the long lasting consequences of their characters actions; that leads to the surprise down the road. The Dm does, because he's the one in charge of the whole show.

Trying to play the game the way the OP envisions it simply leads to an antagonistic and disruptive play style. Instead players should be working with their DMs, and Dms should be working with their players to make their role-playing experiences that much better. By working together players and Dm build trust, and respect; this will lead to a more natural feeling and generally more fun game.When the players and Dm start to work together, players can actually end up investing themselves to the point where they are writing the actual plot for the campaign (without even realizing it). That in my opinion is the mark of great game. One where the players are involved to that great of an extent. It stops being "the Dm's game", and starts becoming "our game".

[Yukitsu]

I don't really understand why so many people are automatically assuming you have to be completely antagonistic against the DM for this kind of thing. Yes, ultimately you're playing this plan against him, but really, when are you actually doing anything against the NPCs? An NPC is just a piece on the board for the DM, it's not something you can second guess, you can only second guess the hand controlling the piece. It's not possible to keep this in character, because everything that's happening, is happening due to something completely out of character.

And honestly, a plan where you collaborate with the DM is boring. He looks it over and depending entirely on the DM's view of things, he'll basically "yes/no" it. That takes the joy out of it, when you know that it will either come together or not based on whether the DM lets it, not based on whether or not you had fully considered all of the angles of the problem. Yeah, to a certain degree if the DM is railroady enough, he can just "rocks fall you fail" no matter what you're doing though honestly the DMs that are railroady enough that they'd do that aren't really worth playing with.

Sure, a DM should probably have an idea what your actual goal is, but how you get to there? Enough of my players seat of the pants it that it's unrealistic that I would ever know what they're up to. Not knowing how my players intend to get something is more natural than me knowing what the players are going to do in advanced, I don't think it makes any sense to begrudge them actually doing things intelligently and better organized than normal.

[Jan Mattys]

I don't really understand why so many people are automatically assuming you have to be completely antagonistic against the DM for this kind of thing. Yes, ultimately you're playing this plan against him, but really, when are you actually doing anything against the NPCs? An NPC is just a piece on the board for the DM, it's not something you can second guess, you can only second guess the hand controlling the piece. It's not possible to keep this in character, because everything that's happening, is happening due to something completely out of character.

And honestly, a plan where you collaborate with the DM is boring. He looks it over and depending entirely on the DM's view of things, he'll basically "yes/no" it. That takes the joy out of it, when you know that it will either come together or not based on whether the DM lets it, not based on whether or not you had fully considered all of the angles of the problem. Yeah, to a certain degree if the DM is railroady enough, he can just "rocks fall you fail" no matter what you're doing though honestly the DMs that are railroady enough that they'd do that aren't really worth playing with.

Sure, a DM should probably have an idea what your actual goal is, but how you get to there? Enough of my players seat of the pants it that it's unrealistic that I would ever know what they're up to. Not knowing how my players intend to get something is more natural than me knowing what the players are going to do in advanced, I don't think it makes any sense to begrudge them actually doing things intelligently and better organized than normal.

Either you've never DM'd a game in your life or you're seriously a genius who can improvise reliably and with quality on the spot.

When I DM, I need to prepare. I need some days to figure out how to shape my world if event y follws event x. If you try to impress me or play a gambit against me, I'm not upset because "you tricked me and you won and I lost". I am upset because you put me in a situation where I cannot reliably deliver my quality DMing due to unexpected consequences.

I do not DM against you. I DM for the good of the whole group. If you tell me something in secret, it stays a secret, and if it's good enough you will have a powerful ally (or a challenging enemy) by your side in order to create a better story for the group. But if you do your best to hide your intentions from me, you're not doing the gaming experience a service. You're gimping it.
And you're basically telling me that in order to be satisfied and proud of your character you don't want my assistance.

That's both a sad thing and, frankly, a bit insulting.

But that's just the way I see it.

The DM is (or should be) your friend and your best ally in the search for fun and accomplishment, not an obstacle to overcome.

[NichG]

As a DM, I would love for my players to pull this kind of stuff on me. In practice, I find player plans tend to default towards 'douse with gasonline and light a match' than cunning three-layer manipulations due to the incomplete knowledge problem.

I guess maybe its a style thing? If my players totally derail things thats fine, because every action has consequences, and an entire campaign can derive simply from the consequences of action. It means less prep that I need to do, which is an added bonus.

As a player, I can't really plan out five steps in advance like Yukitsu can. I tried a long game like that once or twice, but they got derailed by unknowns and the plot moved on too quickly for me to have time to eliminate the unknowns.

But I'm decent at reading out what other schemers are about to do and intercepting without much information. So sometimes I can make things go 'just as I planned' by reacting to the move after the next rather than the next move. Pulling off stuff like that is a lot of the fun of the game for me, and I try not to do it in an antagonistic way but rather in a helpful way. I'm not a big fan of plans that involve screwing over the people who are supposed to have your back. That said, I wouldn't want to pre-plan it with the DM. At that point, it just feels kind of hollow, like you really didn't accomplish anything, you were just allowed to look like you did. It'd sort of be like working out with the DM before a combat what your actions are going to be.

[Katana_Geldar]

No it's not, it's working with the DM to build a better game.

While NPCs are tools, people tend to forget that the "C" stands for "character". Characters have their own motivations, reactions and ambitions even if these are never seen. Knowing my characters is how I can better react to the antics of players, as well as plan with them to make their characters go where they want to go.

And anyway, if all the NPCs were just brainless idiots who kissed the arses of the PCs where would the fun in that be?

I've had players come up to me and plan to be gods, something that had to be worked out very, very carefully in secret between myself and the player. Though I did have to give him a few pointers in terms of character, as I explained to him that certain gods would not think that way.

I wasn't denying his right to become a god, just getting him to find a way to work within the world we had set up as a group.

[Blackknife]

I must be insane for telling you about this, but The Slayer's Guide to Games Masters is a great resource for this. While technically written and published as a really funny joke, several suggested tactics in their work. Out of fairness though, make sure you give your DM a copy of the book too, so he at least has a chance.

[Blackknife]

No it's not, it's working with the DM to build a better game.

Rest of the post is spot-on, but I wanted to call special attention to this bit. It is the most important part here for sure. :)

[Need_A_Life]

How do I (a character) plot against the DM

You ruin the game, frustrating the DM for having spent time preparing for a game with some friends and then being met with that kind of behaviour

"Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned."

Invent a time machine. See events unfold, go back and adjust your plan accordingly.

I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware.

*Laughs*
That can be anywhere from "no redundancy" to "you won't be able to hold a full time job, unless planning for a roleplaying campaign counts."

What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

Your DMs notes.

---

With that out of my system, I'd suggest something: Plot against NPCs, rather than the DM. Inform your DM of your intentions and work with him to make an awesome story. Most DMs will relish having someone else do some of the heavy lifting and being guaranteed that their preparation won't be wasted.

If you want to play a tactically minded character, regardless of era or setting, reading The Art of War is brilliant reading. Heck, read it anyway, because it is one awesome text. The Prince is also good, though more for the insight it gives into the society for which it was written (it also makes a great DM resource for intrigue campaigns).

And, finally, trying to out-maneuver someone who literally controls the rest of the world can't really be done. I'm a kind of "soft" DM, regardless of system and PC deaths are a rarity in my games (unless the player asks me for it).
Still, my players also know that nothing will go exactly according to their plans. They'll have complications and struggle to succeed, but ultimately I want them to succeed.
Heck, considering the times I've shown up to continue running a campaign with half a post-it of preparation for all-nighter sessions, I'm not even sure anyone could pull off a 'perfect plan' in my campaigns (unless that plan was 'survive' or anything similarly undetailed), because the moves they want to counter may or may not exist at any given time, depending on my train of thought.

[Yukitsu]

Either you've never DM'd a game in your life or you're seriously a genius who can improvise reliably and with quality on the spot.

When I DM, I need to prepare. I need some days to figure out how to shape my world if event y follws event x. If you try to impress me or play a gambit against me, I'm not upset because "you tricked me and you won and I lost". I am upset because you put me in a situation where I cannot reliably deliver my quality DMing due to unexpected consequences.

That happens all the time however, be it from the group accidentally 1 shotting someone who was supposed to be plot important due to dice, the players seeing through a plot bad guy's bluff revealing him to be the big bad early or the players seeing a story line where there wasn't one. A plan is a means to an end, there's nothing about one that requires one to go off the rails any more than improvisation or brute force would. But even if it did, knowing how to improvise when things get away from you is necessary as a DM. The quality of it goes up with practice.

[NichG]

No it's not, it's working with the DM to build a better game.

While NPCs are tools, people tend to forget that the "C" stands for "character". Characters have their own motivations, reactions and ambitions even if these are never seen. Knowing my characters is how I can better react to the antics of players, as well as plan with them to make their characters go where they want to go.

And anyway, if all the NPCs were just brainless idiots who kissed the arses of the PCs where would the fun in that be?

I think there's a miscommunication here. How is 'player manages to pull of a scheme' equal to 'NPCs are brainless idiots'? The point isn't for it to be easy, in fact its the opposite - to pull off something that looks impossible without it being written in for you to automatically succeed because you worked it out with the DM ahead of time.

I've had players come up to me and plan to be gods, something that had to be worked out very, very carefully in secret between myself and the player. Though I did have to give him a few pointers in terms of character, as I explained to him that certain gods would not think that way.

I wasn't denying his right to become a god, just getting him to find a way to work within the world we had set up as a group.

I guess the difference here is, what's more important: getting what you want at the end of the day, or the path you travel to get there. I'd say when trying to play a 'just as planned' character, its all about the accomplishment of the path, and the end reward isn't really critical. Its not about the character's right to success, or apotheosis or whatever, its about overcoming a different sort of challenge than the traditional combat tactics minigame.

I guess I don't see why this damages the game at all (aside from the tongue-in-cheek read the DM's notes comments). To put it another way, the DM's job is often to trick and manipulate PCs, to attempt to have a just-as-planned moment. If the DM says 'okay guys, go along with this because its needed for the plot' then players who are good sports will do so, but it won't be as quality an experience as if the DM actually manages to trick the players. You lose that moment of revelation of 'so thats what they were after!'.

[TheThan]

When you “plan against the DM”, you are literally playing against the Dm. that builds a hostile environment. It’s no different the “Player VS Dm”, play style you hear people talk about. It’s like playing poker, when you sit down at the card table, your goal is to try to take the other people’s money, not to make friends. It’s actually a hostile environment.

Now there is nothing wrong with playing a manipulator, as long as the player has a firm grasp on what he’s supposed to be manipulating. For instance, a player decided he wants to usurp the throne of a certain country; in order to do this he has to get in with the nobility and build a power base, maybe even try to manipulate the royal family and the kings trusted viziers and officials.

He does not have to “play” the Dm in order to do this; he just has to start ROLEPLAYING his way into it. He should inform the Dm as to what his ultimate goal is, so the dm can set up appropriate obstacles and give the player in question short term goals something like “become governor of a small county” or “eliminate NPC rival”. But he should not be trying to “play” the Dm. that’s completely outside the confines of the game, and actually feels like it’s some sort of social issue that should be addressed.

[Yukitsu]

I think that you're too hyper focused on one rather trivial part of this, and completely ignoring what the OP actually wants. It doesn't really matter if someone views the game as "against the DM" so long as that's constrained to being against the DM's NPCs. The entire point of a grandiose scheme is that you want it to go off due to your own effort, not because of "collaborative story telling" (the DM telling you if it works or not.) If I wanted to basically free form it, and simply have someone tell me "yes/no" I probably wouldn't come up with anything more intelligent that "I hit it with a sword" because at least with that I have some sense of agency instead of handing it over to a board of directors that'll tell me whether or not my sword swinging is too disruptive. And really, an elaborate scheme is as much a tool to get to a goal as sword swinging is, the idea that I'm ruining the game because I'm doing something more intelligent to get from point A to point B than "I rolled some dice" is ludicrous.

[TheThan]

As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with “being against the NPCs” (that's partly what NPCs are there for), or being a manipulator style of character. But as I’ve said, in order for the player to actually be a manipulator character, he needs to make sure the Dm understands what his goals are, and how he’s trying to accomplish it.

How do I (a character) plot against the DM to such a degree that I can with full confidence and not lying go "Good, good, everything is going exactly as planned." I want to have backup plans for my backup plans. I want to have more redundancy systems then most military hardware. What should I read, watch, or play that makes me the best I can at doing this?

For the most fun I want to do it through powers, items, or grants he gives to me. That would be cool.

Playing a LG knight with this thing is a bit weird but that's what I want to do.

(Emphasizes added by me)
Now I have no choice but to assume the OP, mean exactly what he says here. If he pops in and makes a clarification, then I’m happy to withdraw or restate any comments I may have made if they are inappropriate for the conversation. But without knowing more of what the OP wants; I can only go by what he says, which strongly suggests that he wishes to be antagonistic and ruin the game by plotting against the Dm.

[NichG]

As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with “being against the NPCs” (that's partly what NPCs are there for), or being a manipulator style of character. But as I’ve said, in order for the player to actually be a manipulator character, he needs to make sure the Dm understands what his goals are, and how he’s trying to accomplish it.

I guess my objection to this is along the same line as Yukitsu's. I don't think its necessary to pre-inform the DM what your character's end goals are. I know its possible to play a manipulator without the DM specifically setting up people to be manipulated by you because one of my players did just that in the last campaign I ran, and not only were there no hard feelings but it made for an awesome character. I didn't set up NPCs specifically to be manipulated by him - I made NPCs that had personalities and reacted to things based on those personalities, and he was very good at quickly identifying those traits and figuring out the right things to say and do.

I guess I'd consider that 'manipulating the NPCs' rather than 'manipulating the DM', but the important point was that he didn't need the world to pre-agree to it for it to work and be fun.

[Jukebox Hero]

That's another thing. You need to play against the NPCs, not the DM. Yeah, you have to get into the DM's head a bit, because he's the NPCs, but you're not trying to break the game, you're trying to break the NPCs, which, if your DM isn't too railroady, are completely distinct. If your DM is bothered by you outwitting the NPCs, and takes this as somehow outwitting him, well, I'd probably find a DM that was less invested in his own NPCs well being.

Making OOC actions for a character's benefit is kinda...overdoing it. I feel like your character should only act on what he/she knows, and nothing else. And like Yukitsu said, you're playing against the NPCs. If you're looking at the NPCs as "pieces" controlled by a "hand," you're not really seeing it right. If your DM is good, the hand that controls the NPCs will be almost invisible. Now, my DMing style is pretty unorthodox (I don't prepare anything at all, and only have vague end-goals), so my plans are pretty much impossible to foil, seeing as how they are virtually nonexistent. A good DM will be able to improvise to mold his campaign to your actions. That is what a campaign's all about, it's a story about the players and their role in the world. You want to have backup plans for your backup plans? Then you just have to think hard enough, consider every option and have enough IC connections and resources to pull them off. Peeking at notes is DEFINITELY uncool.

[Yukitsu]

As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with “being against the NPCs” (that's partly what NPCs are there for), or being a manipulator style of character. But as I’ve said, in order for the player to actually be a manipulator character, he needs to make sure the Dm understands what his goals are, and how he’s trying to accomplish it.

Going to just ask this flat out, but why?

Now I have no choice but to assume the OP, mean exactly what he says here. If he pops in and makes a clarification, then I’m happy to withdraw or restate any comments I may have made if they are inappropriate for the conversation. But without knowing more of what the OP wants; I can only go by what he says, which strongly suggests that he wishes to be antagonistic and ruin the game by plotting against the Dm.

It's a gameplay style choice. He's not here asking you to debate whether or not it's good or bad, and I don't really see how your opinion on the matter is overly relevant to his question, nor do I think his play style is so terribly bad that you need to try and immediately quash any lingering feeling that the DM and the players are on different sides of the conflict.

[TheThan]

If the DM doesn’t know the player is looking to play a manipulator character, then how is the DM supposed to introduce NPCs that the player can manipulate. How can DM help to build a situation or environment that the player can gain control over?

Imagine trying to play a manipulator style character in a campaign where all the NPCs are immune to manipulation, coercion, bribery and threats. Or imagine if none of the NPCs the players meet posses any political or social power. Imagine if none of these NPCs have anything to do with anything outside of dropping the PCs a plot hook. These Npcs don’t have aspirations, ambitions or desires outside of the immediate PC related situation. In other words, they have nothing the manipulator character can manipulate. Now imagine if all this happens simply because the Dm didn’t realize the player wanted to play a manipulator character.

Face it, a lot of players treat NPCs as nothing more than an MMO style quest giver. They don’t care what happens to these NPCs after they’re through with them, they’re moving on to bigger and better things anyway. If players can’t get interested in the NPCs the DM puts in the world, then how can the DM get interested in it. Now suddenly the DM treats his NPCs the same way, and doesn’t bother writing out more than a few basic stats (and that’s just in case the pcs get board and start attacking). It’s unfortunate but it can happen.

By informing the Dm as to what you plan or goal is (in the general scheme of things at least), then the Dm can at least create characters that the manipulator can manipulate, as well as plan out social non combat encounters for the pcs to participate in. Without anything for a manipulator to manipulate, he won’t be able to really do anything at all.

Some Dms are magnificent at improvisation, and can create memorable characters on the fly. Others can’t, not all Dms are created equal. Maybe you’re fortunate enough to have one that’s fully capable of playing with a player with an agenda he has hidden from the DM. Maybe the Dm loves the idea and savors the idea of matching wits with his player. Maybe you’re not that fortunate, and your Dm has to create NPCs beforehand.

Now it’s always nice to have players with long term goals. It’s nice to for the players to have a goal outside of the immediate quest objective(s) that they are trying to achieve. That goal could be anything from “become king by my own hand” to “kill the six fingered man”, to any other idea the player has. If the Dm is supposed to bring those goals out (which I assume is the purpose of having them) and let the players pursue them, then he bloody well has to know about them in the first place.

Now why do it feel “playing the DM” is not good? Well I believe that it falls squarely into the “PC vs Dm” style of game play which I don’t feel is a “good” style of play. If the OP and his Dm are fine with that style, then that’s that. It’s not my game anyway. That style is not for me, and I do not advocate it for any person, DM or player.