[Sorcerer S&S Charnel Gods] As the hands turn...

[Old_Scratch]

Well, thanks for some very thoughtful replies, I have a lot to mull over.

 And I realize that we're talking about the preferred method of play, and I've been thinking about it alot, but if I were going to do it over again, I'd do it just the same as I did this time.

 I've been friends with each of these people for over ten years, and I made a decision based upon my knowledge of the group, and I think, based upon the discussion with them, that they were much happier not knowing and the in-game revelation of their consequences was much more interesting for them as players. It was a one-time thing, the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, and I know that I wanted them to have a little bit of a surprise, as much as this is about their story, I think they definitely enjoy a little twist, inevitably cosmological. Just happens to be their preference.

 In future play, they'll know, and yes Raf, we do plan on playing the game over again, in a different epoch, and it should be interesting to see how the game differs from the knowledge than in the earlier (current) game where they did not have the knowledge.

 Since Charnel Gods is a game with high replay value in my opinion, I can't help but feel that due to the role of the Charnel God, that it might actually be better for players to play the game first without knowing that, to concentrate on telling their character's story rather than getting wrapped up at how close somebody is to triggering the end game. In this case, the meta-endgame mechanic would have actually distracted by my incipient narrative play than aiding in it, I feel. In essence, not keeping an eye on the clock but having fun with the characters and playing about in the system and the world, and drifting the game to more narrative play. Knowing they would have had the power I think would have been seriously distracting. Now that we've established the style of the game and are familiar with it, it seems they're more relaxed about this approach to gaming.

 Has anyone else ever done this? What were there consequences? Is this a case of conventional wisdom needing to be challenged? Or an eccentricity of my group? Or did I wrong my players or compromise play by not discussing this initially?

[Andy Kitkowski]

Has anyone else ever done this? What were there consequences? Is this a case of conventional wisdom needing to be challenged? Or an eccentricity of my group? Or did I wrong my players or compromise play by not discussing this initially?

Did your game group have fun? More fun, in your opinion, than if you let the cat out of the bag?  That is the single and only criteria to base this judgement on. After reading your post, I think they did have more fun the way you ran it.

And I'd love to see a new Actual Play thread on the Value of Witholding Game Knowledge from players.

For me, I'm all about trouncing the Old School GM methods (witholding "secret stuff", taking folks off to the side outside the gaming table to tell them what "their thief discovers in the ruins", etc). However, one of the Unwritten Social Contracts of my gaming group when I run certain adventures (Unknown Armies and other games) is that I actually make secrets to withold from them in order to generate feelings of suspense or surprise for them as players.  

Sure, it's in one context a little like witholding oxygen to get a bigger kick while masturbating, but my players love it when I do this (the witholding info thing, not the autoerotic asphyxiation). Often I make secret up on the fly, and change them over time when I see an opportunity to make the secrets cooler, etc. The players love it, I'm ambivolent.  But I knew I should pursue this kind of thing to coincide with some of the unwritten rules of my group's social contract when two of the players actually told me after a session (getting nods from the others) that they would have preferred that I left some "game world secrets" as secrets.

Again, it all comes down, to make a metaphor, to whether the players like to choke themselves while masturbating, or do they like to know what their partner is capable of so that they call the shots (in a mutual manner) in bed?

But again, I'd personally love to see a thread here where this is discussed in a "not tied to Sorcerer/Charnel Gods" manner.

-Andy

[Mike Holmes]

I guess as an experiment, it makes sense to have played the way you did. Just as long as you realize that you were altering how Sorcerer plays by doing so, and that future games will be different.

I most wholeheartedly disagree that letting them know the full humanity definition would have hampered any narrativism (note, all play is "narrative", narrativism is something else - I hope I'm reading you correctly). The game is designed to support narrativism, and one of the things that does this is by encourging sharing of information OOC. Again, that doesn't mean that you can't have any secrets, just that there's nothing ever about sharing information OOC that damages narrativism. Narrativism is not soley sxploring characters without considering the ramifications of setting (it could be, but is not neccessarily).

What you're describing sounds more like "Immersionism" than narrativism.

Mike

[TonyLB]

Nothing, ever?  That's an awfully broad and sweeping statement.

Personally, I think that sharing OOC information is one of the specific mechanisms that Sorcerer uses to achieve a system that supports Narrativism.  But I don't see that it's always an appropriate component for any system that is meant to encourage narrativism, any more than levels and armor classes are appropriate for any system that is meant to encourage gamism.

If you'd like, I could start off another thread on "OOC communication and narrativism", and we could discuss whether it's an unalloyed good for the CA or just a tool that will fit in some toolboxes and not in others.  I think that would be an engrossing topic.

EDIT:  Grammar corrections and slight clarification.

[Andy Kitkowski]

My, that auto-erotic asphyxiation metaphor above (witholding oxygen for the bigger bang/witholding game info for the bigger bang) seemed really clever when I wrote it at 2 in the morning. Now, the next day, it just sounds a little creepy.

And it's too late to edit the post. *sigh*. Sorry if I disturbed anyone.  :D

-Andy

[Mike Holmes]

Tony, I'm not saying that it's always neccessary to share information, I just can't think of a situation where it makes a player less able to make a decision for his character. So, I'm not saying do it all the time, I'm saying never assume that you're going to damage the player's ability to decide (or rather to decide in context, which is what counts) by giving him more information. The only considerations would be ones of drama and such.

Mike