Telling the players *everything*

[Aliquid]

I'm running a game right now where I'm handling the whole player knowledge vs. character knowledge and metagaming thing from a different angle than I normally do.

I let the players know what's going on without any concern for metagaming. They agreed and want to play a game where they have to remember to separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

I'm making it as if they are viewing the "story" as if they were reading it in a book, or watching it on a show.

So, if the "audience" would know something if this were a show, I tell the players about it. I even narrate the "meanwhile" scenes where you get to see what the bad guys are up to.

It seems to be working so far, but it certainly takes effort to change the way I approach the game... considering I have played the opposite way for decades.

Anyone else try this? Any advise on how to keep it working?

[kyoryu]

I've done similar.

In almost any RPG I've ever played, there's some things the player knows that the character doesn't, and you have to learn to separate the two.

Fate kind of implicitly assumes that the player will take the part of both the audience as well as the character, and so that type of thing tends to happen a bit. (A Fate character sheet is more "what the audience knows" than a full detailed writeup of all the facts of a character, for instance).

I still don't know that I'd reveal *everything* to the players, any more than a good movie reveals *everything* to the audience. But I do find that letting the players know things that "the audience" knows, rather than just what the characters see, can make for a good game in some circumstances.

[Aliquid]

I still don't know that I'd reveal *everything* to the players, any more than a good movie reveals *everything* to the audience.

Agreed

The "meanwhile" scenes are typically vague and suspenseful. "20 minutes after you leave, a shadowy figure slips a note to the mayor. The mayor reads it and nods approvingly"

[kyoryu]

One scenario I've run a few times typically starts with a cut scene involving the folks the PCs are *about* to meet. It's worked out pretty well.

But for other sorts of games, i absolutely wouldn't do it. It's definitely a situational technique, even more than most.

[RazorChain]

Theatrix did this 25 years ago. The system is set up as episodic TV show or a movie with scenes showing what the bad guys are doing. I must admit it had a big influence on me at the time, opening up different possibilites of roleplaying as I started experimenting with different systems.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatr...-playing_game)

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Absolutely, I love doing this sort of thing - I've only ever encountered a couple of players who didn't enjoy it (they were stick-in-the-mud old grognards who refused to go along with any sort of RPG innovation from after 1979).

[Aran nu tasar]

This is exactly how I play, especially with intraparty conflicts and scheming. It leads to fantastic dramatic irony, and prevents unwelcome surprises for the players on the receiving end of schemes. I don't know if I'd go so far as to narrate 'meanwhile' scenes, except as a GM move/complication if I'm playing something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark, but that's more because of my preference for player-driven games that don't lend themselves super well to big bads with big evil plans.

[kivzirrum]

Hmm, interesting! Never played in or DM'd a game quite like this--while there's always some difference between player knowledge and character knowledge in most games, nothing on that level. Could be fun!

[Koo Rehtorb]

Set up situations where the interesting question isn't if the PCs know about something, the interesting question is what they're going to do about it.

"The King is totally lying to your faces right now, you can see it in his eyes. He has no intention of pardoning them. In fact, as soon as you leave the castle he's going to have them all executed. What do you do?"

[Pleh]

Actually, I find that entrusting my players with larger portions of DM knowledge and authority (larger than typical, that is) only makes it easier to get them invested in the story I was intending to have them participate in.

I rather only hold back information where I feel the players would prefer to be surprised. It's a bit like getting older with christmas presents. I'm more transparent about asking them what they want and what I'm thinking about getting them, but I still wrap it up in a box for them and get a few things I didn't tell them about. I just don't feel much is gained holding my cards very close to my chest.

[Geddy2112]

I don't have the meanwhile scenes of what is happening outside the players, but that is because in my games the camera is always on one of the party members. My group is really good about not metagaming, and we often laugh and say "if only my character knew..."I favor telling players a little too much than telling them nothing and leaving them to flounder in the dark.

I still don't know that I'd reveal *everything* to the players, any more than a good movie reveals *everything* to the audience. But I do find that letting the players know things that "the audience" knows, rather than just what the characters see, can make for a good game in some circumstances.

+1 to this.

[Tinkerer]

I've tried it and it's definitely a fun way to play however it tends not to fit well with my normal style. I generally prefer to do this post-campaign to show some aspects of the adventure which the players were unaware of and some background. Or if it's a long running campaign then show it once per tier level after the points are relevant.

But I've definitely seen several GMs where it fits perfectly with the atmosphere that they are setting.

[kyoryu]

While it's not the same as a cut-scene, in one *very* old-school game I played, players wearing full helms were expected to make decisions as if they could not see anything outside of a very, very narrow cone directly in front of them.

The number of times you'd have to go "Well, I guess if this is all I saw, I'd go ahead and do this obviously dumb thing" was amazing.

[Bogwoppit]

I did exactly this in a Star Wars game for a while. It totally fits that style.

[Quertus]

Hmmm... This is very antithetical to my general style, but... I've had difficulty getting some of my players to engage in the "understand what's going on" portion of the game. We've hit this cultural impasse of "only using what's on the sheet" vs "read the GMs mind", and this may be an interesting technique to experiment with to try to work on overcoming that difficulty. I'd just need to practice the technique a bit first...

[ImNotTrevor]

I do this a lot. I even describe scenes in terms of camera angles and shots, because it's easy shorthand for communicating visual information, and you can even throw in soundtrack information according to the mood. So if a character is feeling upset or sad, you can say something like "ah, so in this scene we get to hear Jason's theme but slowed down and in a minor key." Which most people understand.

It also makes it less jarring when you switch to scenes of other characters, since it already feels like a tv show at that point. Personally, I like it a lot. (I also like doing what Koo mentioned, where you give them information without having them roll for it just to see what they do.)

[Bogwoppit]

I do this a lot. I even describe scenes in terms of camera angles and shots, because it's easy shorthand for communicating visual information, and you can even throw in soundtrack information according to the mood. So if a character is feeling upset or sad, you can say something like "ah, so in this scene we get to hear Jason's theme but slowed down and in a minor key." Which most people understand.

It also makes it less jarring when you switch to scenes of other characters, since it already feels like a tv show at that point. Personally, I like it a lot. (I also like doing what Koo mentioned, where you give them information without having them roll for it just to see what they do.)

Totally! This is exactly how I ran my Star Wars game - plus there's loads of SW music out there that can actually deliver on "Jason's theme, but slowed down and in a minor key".

[AMFV]

It's certainly good for a particular sort of story (I would imagine). The issues I could see would be that for some players it might be very hard to not use knowledge to their advantage, as opposed to using knowledge to create a better story. For me, I think that could be difficult. But it'd probably be manageable. I'd be very interested in hearing a campaign log or a session report from your system.

It's also worth noting that there are entire systems based around this premise PTA or (Prime Time Adventures) is based around doing a show type thing. I've only skimmed it, so I can't recommend it or comment on it at any length but it seems interesting. I would check into it, maybe there's some tools you can adapt from it to suit your needs.

The main issue I could see cropping up would be first: As shows develop their plotlines get more and more muddied, so you get more and more meanwhiles, and more and more characters. Ergo you're spending more time narrating things and the players are spending less time playing. So I would potentially let the players have characters in the scenes that you're narrating. Like give the players characters who operate in the villain's retinue, that they're not fully in control of, but that would give them some narrative "oomph" that they would be lacking otherwise. Now that would take some control of the story out of your hands, so that may not be the best bet. But with how you're doing things you could always just hand them a plot outline, and then they could help develop the story with you and you'd get to see as many exciting surprises in execution as they might.

Now that might be a real hassle, but with your approach if you can work it, that would be what I would try.

[Max_Killjoy]

If it works for you, do it.

MMV.

I don't think it would have worked for any of the campaigns I've been in. PCs usually had secrets, and plans that didn't all automatically include all the other PCs, and so on. Even without that, there were often mysteries to unravel and plots afoot, and much of the fun came from figuring it all out over time.

[AMFV]

If it works for you, do it.

MMV.

I don't think it would have worked for any of the campaigns I've been in. PCs usually had secrets, and plans that didn't all automatically include all the other PCs, and so on. Even without that, there were often mysteries to unravel and plots afoot, and much of the fun came from figuring it all out over time.

Well certainly, you see that same distinction in narratives and novels and TV shows. I mean LOTR doesn't have cutaways where you see Sauron or Saruman planning things, because it wouldn't work in that instance. The Belgariad doesn't. A lot of fantasy quest stories don't. And mysteries you shouldn't as well. But I think there are stories it would work for, depending on what kind of story you're telling with the campaign.

90s Kids Cartoon stories, work well that way. Now I don't mean that demeaningly, I don't object to 90s kids shows, but that's a very strong example of everything being revealed to the viewers as it were.

[Aliquid]

Fate kind of implicitly assumes that the player will take the part of both the audience as well as the character, and so that type of thing tends to happen a bit.

I'm actually using FATE Accelerated rules, so yes it was the system that inspired me to use this new approach.

The main benefit of that system for this type of play is that you do get rewards for playing "in character" if doing so will cause you trouble.

The player knows there are traps in the room... but their character doesn't. They also know their character is impatient and would just barge in without thinking...

How does this pan out? Tragic? Slapstick? Let the player decide. The more they own it the more they will buy into it. Maybe even let them decide what type of trap and how it was triggered.

[RazorChain]

It's certainly good for a particular sort of story (I would imagine). The issues I could see would be that for some players it might be very hard to not use knowledge to their advantage, as opposed to using knowledge to create a better story. For me, I think that could be difficult. But it'd probably be manageable. I'd be very interested in hearing a campaign log or a session report from your system.

It's also worth noting that there are entire systems based around this premise PTA or (Prime Time Adventures) is based around doing a show type thing. I've only skimmed it, so I can't recommend it or comment on it at any length but it seems interesting. I would check into it, maybe there's some tools you can adapt from it to suit your needs.

The main issue I could see cropping up would be first: As shows develop their plotlines get more and more muddied, so you get more and more meanwhiles, and more and more characters. Ergo you're spending more time narrating things and the players are spending less time playing. So I would potentially let the players have characters in the scenes that you're narrating. Like give the players characters who operate in the villain's retinue, that they're not fully in control of, but that would give them some narrative "oomph" that they would be lacking otherwise. Now that would take some control of the story out of your hands, so that may not be the best bet. But with how you're doing things you could always just hand them a plot outline, and then they could help develop the story with you and you'd get to see as many exciting surprises in execution as they might.

Now that might be a real hassle, but with your approach if you can work it, that would be what I would try.

Me and 3 friends played one season which was called Somewhere in Newfoundland. It centered on the fictional town of Somewhere and was set up as a weird soap opera, the Producer is a huge fan of the Soap tv serie, a parody soap opera. The mechanics are very light and we played 6 or 7 episodes and the stage (the town) always was reset after each episode, even though we had a cult of vampires, a flying saucer crash outside of town etc, everything always got back to normal the next episode.

I would recommend it for short 6-12 session campaign and bit of light hearted fun.

[Aran nu tasar]

If it works for you, do it.

MMV.

I don't think it would have worked for any of the campaigns I've been in. PCs usually had secrets, and plans that didn't all automatically include all the other PCs, and so on. Even without that, there were often mysteries to unravel and plots afoot, and much of the fun came from figuring it all out over time.

Almost counter-intuitively, I've found that PCs with secrets is one of the best times to do that - it can lead to a lot of fun dramatic irony. But like you say, MMV. It's a technique that can work very well in the right circumstances with the right group, but I would never claim that it is universally the best way to run a game.

[Avonar]

It sounds like it could work, sure. However, there is something to be said for the joy of the surprise. If the players know about something in advance, I can only imagine that it loses some of the impact when the characters find out about the surprise.

[kyoryu]

It sounds like it could work, sure. However, there is something to be said for the joy of the surprise. If the players know about something in advance, I can only imagine that it loses some of the impact when the characters find out about the surprise.

If doing this, the goal should be to build tension, not release it. Even if doing so at the expense of surprise.

Allow me to use the words of someone much better than myself at this sort of thing. A master, one could argue.

There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.

[Max_Killjoy]

If doing this, the goal should be to build tension, not release it. Even if doing so at the expense of surprise.

Allow me to use the words of someone much better than myself at this sort of thing. A master, one could argue.

The question, then, is whether the player wishes to be the audience, or play the character. (Admittedly, they're not mutually exclusive.)

Some of us don't want to be the audience. Which is why it works for some, and not for others.

[RazorChain]

The question, then, is whether the player wishes to be the audience, or play the character. (Admittedly, they're not mutually exclusive, they're not exclusive.)

Some of us don't want to be the audience. Which is why it works for some, and not for others.

I agree with that. Even though I've played both Theatrix and Prime Time Adventures and had fun. Those systems are not my go-to systems when I'm going to run a game or want to play.

But I find fun to try out different mechanics and styles as it inspires me and gives me ideas to improve my games.

[kyoryu]

The question, then, is whether the player wishes to be the audience, or play the character. (Admittedly, they're not mutually exclusive, they're not exclusive.)

Some of us don't want to be the audience. Which is why it works for some, and not for others.

I do not disagree with that.

However, I would say that, to a certain extent, all players are the audience. Whether they want to have that be explicit or not is a separate issue.

[Tinkerer]

It sounds like it could work, sure. However, there is something to be said for the joy of the surprise. If the players know about something in advance, I can only imagine that it loses some of the impact when the characters find out about the surprise.

That is of assuming that the information is of the type which will be eventually revealed. I tend not to use the style however there are definitely times where I'm biting my tongue wanting to shout out a crucial detail that there is no way for the players to know. Hence one of the reasons why I do a debriefing later.

[Tanarii]

The major downside to this is it seperates player from PC, and increased the feeling that you're following a story, instead of role playing a character.