Deception as a Game Mechanic - open discussion

[Hasimir]

Once upon a time I used to play Vempire The Masquerade.
This is what happened one time...

Our group used to play in a mini-session format.
We all met for the game session, then we ONLY played at the table the things that in the Fiction were actually public, or we all deemed not very important.
All the other more interesting things (the plotting and scheming and backstabbing) we did in a separate room, playing out sort of mini-session of 10-15 minutes between one Player and the GM.
We used to take turns doing this, unless the events in the Fiction required otherwise.

So while I played with the GM all the things my PC was doing, the other Players would be left in the common room, waiting.
After the GM was done with me, another Player would go in the "GM Room" and I will join the others in waiting for my next turn.

Also, all Character Sheets were jealously kept hidden, every PC was a veritable secret for all the other Players.

While waiting we sometimes played out some PC-to-PC meetings and discussions, if no trouble arised and no rolls were required, then informed the GM about what happened.
But this was VERY limited because only the GM knew if someone was being followed, or if something had to happen.
So for the most part we chatted or distracted ourselves or some such.

Now, the waiting part was something I absolutely don't miss :P
But such game-style allowed for things like THIS:

We were playing a medieval chronicle.
My PC was a Bruja with lots of money.
I made a point of playing it as dumb as possible, almost retarder, I let everybody belive I built the usual bruja-fighter ... all muscle and no brain, with the twist of being a stupid spoiled nobleman filthy rich.

In truth I had invested a LOT in Intelligence and Perception and Auspex and lots of languages ... translated, it meant I perfectly heard and understood everything the other PCs sayed, and sometimes I did not even had to SPY on them because they almost didn't bother hiding from me, because I was too dumb to be a threat.

So my PC knew secrets in-game.
One of them was that on PC (a Follower of Seth) made a mess in another city (Pisa) and travelled long and hard to get away from it and start fresh where our new game was set (Constantinople).
This was widely known because we all played the previous chronicle, but my PC was new so I could not use such info ... until I managed to acquire that secret in-game.

What did I do with such secrets?
Blackmail, mostly.

But I knew my fellow Players will ignore any threat originating from my PC, as they knew it was MY character, so it could not be too much dangerous/powerful/connected/etc.

So I created a fake NPC.
Between game sessions I wrote physically the blackmail letters my PC was to send to the other PCs.
Then I made the GM write them again in his own handwriting.
Then I explained to the GM how my PC actually produced such letters in-game, and how he delivered them (basically everything was done by others, so that even with vampire powers no one could trace them back to me).
Then, during the weekly game session, the GM will deliver the letters to the appropriate Players.
He looked like a God-GM for using props, and all Players assumed that the letters were written by an NPC.
To that end I even came up with a fake name that I thought sounded "very NPC-like" :P

NPCs are much more dangerous than PCs... they are the GM's characters, they may be infinitely powerful, ancient, connected, etc.
They don't have a shaped character sheet, or if they have it, it may be built with ANY amount of points to represent what the GM needs.
So, you can piss on a PC's threat, but you take and NPC damn seriously.

This was perfectly demonstrated by the setite Player.
My first blackmail letter got to his PC.
It basically said "I know what you did in Pisa, but you don't know that your mess also fucked up MY plans, the only reason you are still (un)living is your resourcefulness, so maybe I can use you instead of killing you, so STFU and do this and this and that".
It was MUCH more elaborate than this, but these are the bones.

The Player at first gave little tought to the letter.
Went to the ancient Setite NPC of the city, and asked if he knew this guy who was blackmailing him.
The GM/Ancient_Setite answered truthfully: "Nope, never heard of this guy".
This was publicly played at the table.

I remember thinking that my plan had failed.
He didn't feel the threat, he didn't eat the bait.
Instead the Player surprised me!
He thought, and then told to the others "FUCK! If not even my super-ancient Setite connection, a veritable Master of Secrets, doesn't know this guy ... how much more ancient and connected and powerful can this guy be?!"
The other Players nodded acknowledgment, as we all knew that the more powerful you are, the better at hiding your identity, influence and even presence you are.

And so it happened that my PC made a very powerful slave out of another PC.
He even came to ME asking for help with this mysterious NPC, giving me even MORE info to blackmail him -- and I made him fell in a panic when I confessed "I'm sorry, but I can't help you, I too am blackmailed by this guy, and I heard TERRIBLE things about him!".
Of course the next letter to him mentioned that the mysterious NPC already knew of his pitiful attempt to investigate his identity -- making the Player even more paranoid!

- - -

Now, the point is NOT the fiction.
Any number of games will allow a group of players to produce something similar.
You don't have to hide the game from the Players to have their PCs backstab each other.

The point is: I as a person, as a Player, pulled a clever trick on another person, and such person fell for it.
I, as a person, was more clever than him.

It was a huge fun devising the lie.
And it was endlessly satisfying to watch it deploy and take root, to watch my carfully planned details have the effect I hoped for, to ACTUALLY manipulate someone, instead of rolling dice and establish that my PC tricked another (N)PC.

I guess something similar happens when you play the Diplomacy boardgame.
Maybe just a little bit like when you play a bluff during Poker or other bluff-enabled games.
I'm talking about manipulation, deception, con-artistry.

THAT is what I would like to isolate.
THAT is what I want at the center of my new game project.
Possibly without the "wait" caused by mini-sessions... or maybe with some kind of GM-less activity that the waiting Players can engage while the GM does the individual mini-sessions.

DISCUSS! :D

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alessandro,

The following text makes me look like a caring and sensitive person
A number of people I know have a committed opinion about this kind of play: they call it abuse and the people who do it, gaping assholes. I'm not one of these people in theory although emotionally, I tend toward the same point of view.

However, I also know that Hard Core Gamism is not actually a bad thing, because it can be fun. It's fun under these circumstances.

1. Everyone playing knows that this kind of play is the point, and that it will be done.

2. Everyone playing has equal opportunity in rules and mechanics terms to use all the resources toward their ends.

3. Everyone playing is individually able to cope with losing a game without crying and whining and feeling betrayed.

4. There is a concrete and understandable "win" condition.

Of these, #1 is the most important. The counter-case is play in which one or more people are playing this way, but some or most of the other people don't really know or understand that this is what's happening. That's like playing poker with someone who doesn't really understand about bluffing, or playing Diplomacy with someone who doesn't understand the devastating effect of breaking deals. For really serious and competitive players don't do this - they prefer to play with people who are as skilled as they are. People who seek out suckers to enjoy ruining their day are, as I see it, not serious players - effectively pussies who are enjoying being bullies.

#2 is worth discussing as well, drawing upon Jesse's comments in Sex & Sorcery and Houses of the Blooded LARP. Briefly, games which incorporate social manipulation at the level you're talking about may favor a minority of players who have rules-privileges in some fashion, especially when "playing my character" is a part of the picture. I bet the people who love Camarilla play so much would flee like mice if they were dealing with rules that didn't automatically make them more effective than everyone else.

But the next part reveals that maybe I am not very nice after all
I don't know whether anyone cares about or respects winning a Ronny. But I can say for sure that if you get one, then I respect the game design. One of the winners in the 2010 Ronnies was (here I'll use its later name) Sunshine Boulevard. I think you'll find it thought-provoking. It prompted a number of interesting posts at the Forge concerning the issues you've raised.

Best, Ron

[Hasimir]

Hi Ron :)
Thanks for the quick reply, and sorry for my late answer, but I've been away from the net.

1. Everyone playing knows that this kind of play is the point, and that it will be done.
Yes.
In our Vampire games this was definitely a clear point... we actually entertained the idea that THIS was the "true way" of Vampire The Masquerade :P

2. Everyone playing has equal opportunity in rules and mechanics terms to use all the resources toward their ends.
As far as Traditional gaming goes ... yes ... we had that :P
Meaning that you could have a PC more performing than mine but, as my little AP showed, what also (mostly?) mattered were your ideas and skill as a player (of that kind, of that game, of that group).

Once a player told the GM (that in turn told all the others after the Chronicle was over) that his PC was setting up a "trap" for another PC.
The GM asked for more specifics, and the player answered "what...a TRAP!"
This meant the GM just let him do a few rolls, with lots of negative modifiers because he was not convinced of the idea.
Turned out the trap was performed, but did not work, and the other PC escaped with a good idea of who might have betrayed him :P

Again, it was a Traditional setup... you convince the GM, you made half of the job.
This is also one thing I would like to somehow overcome :P

3. Everyone playing is individually able to cope with losing a game without crying and whining and feeling betrayed.
It was our "old" gaming group, forged by 5 years of continual play.
Someone took it better than others, but it was our way of gaming, so everyone coped pretty much fine.
Strange to say, new players usually had problems with the long waiting rather than the vicious backstabbing ... it was perceived as intrinsic to the Vampire game :P

4. There is a concrete and understandable "win" condition.
You do what you want... your PC prospers and/or survives ... you "win".
Your PC dies or gets exploited with no personal gain ... you "lose".

- - -

All in all the game I previously described was just our tribal flavour of Vampire illusionism ... which apparently had a pretty vicious Gamist Twist.
My intention would be extrapolate the FUN elements and translate them into a functional and coherent set of rules, so that anyone can enjoy being a criminal/political mastermind in an environment as safe and healthy as possible.

I'm gonna check Sunshine Boulevard asap ;)

[Hasimir]

I've read Sunshine Boulevard and no, it doesn't fit my aim.
It resembles a lot the jeepform Fat Man Down ... both present a game where an unknowing player gets deceived into playing something they know nothing about, to see their final reaction.

What I'm talking about is more like POKER.
You know the rules of the game, but you know that anyone may be BLUFFING ... and may the most skilled (or luckiest!) player win.
Or like a game of BANG where everyone claims to be allied with you, but in the end they are lying to further their Role's agenda.
A game of CHESS may also apply, as I only see the moves you make on the board, not the schemes and plots and traps you truly want to pull on me.

So we play and you know that my PC told to your PC "trust me, we'll rob the bank together" ... but you KNOW this could be either the truth, or a lie, or a half-lie meant to hide something, etc.

Now, lots of games allow for Character deception -- as a Player you play all out in the open table and then the rules determine how effective your PC machinations have been and maybe your fictional positioning helps and that is it -- Characters get deceived, or not.

What I'm looking for is more of a PLAYER challenge.
A game of moves and counter moves and counter-counter moves.
Plotting, scheming, laying, bluffing, trust and betrayal -- sometimes luck --

What I need now, I think, are practical solutions to regulate this process.
A way to eliminate or minimize or make enjoyable the waiting in queue for your turn with the GM (if there is a GM at all, but for now I'm thinking YES).
A way to regulate the GM-Player interactions so that the game is as "impartial" as possible.
Stuff like that :P

[Moreno R.]

Hi Alessandro!

I think that the only way to allow playing "with the GM" (or with another player, period) without playing in the open, but without having people wait for their turn, is not play together at the same time: play by forum, play by e-mail, etc.

The problem is not so much the waiting, but the kind of waiting: when you wait your turn at Trollbabe, you are still at the table and see the adventures of the other trollbabe, and you can even join them if you want. In Shock: or other games where people play in turns you still are in play (playing minutiae, for example). But if you want to keep the fiction secret, the other players must wait in another room.

It could be imaginable to play with 2 or more GMs to allow playing at the same time, but it would become a organization nightmare (how could the the GMs compare notes during the game?)

A possible alternative could be based on not having to share these actions in the fiction with any other player (or GM).  Do you know the game "the mountain witch"? It's not what you are searching for, as a complete game (it's not competitive), but there is a mechanic that allow every character to have a "dark secret" unknown to every other player, GM included.  The problem with this approach is that the moment these secret have a noticeable impact in the fiction, they are no longer secret.

From what you say, I think the only real solution is a total or partial play-by-email approach ("partial": for example, having both "at the table" turns and "by email" turns)