Paradigms in RPGs

[David Berg]

We seem to have 3 styles of play under discussion:
1) players have OOC knowledge and have to come up with clever ways to both use that knowledge and rationalize why their characters are acting as such.  Jens appears to have enjoyed this in the past.  (Right?)
2) players have OOC knowledge that could help them, but they aren't suppose to use that knowledge at all.  I think we all agree this is just frustrating and no fun for anyone playing a game wherein the character is the tool of player effectiveness (as opposed to, say, a tool for creating stories or just exploring the setting or some such).  I think this is what Vulp (sorry dude, forgot your real name) is warning about.
3) players have no OOC knowledge.  David's offered one way to attempt this.

Nolan, are you interested in #1, #3, or running a game in which no one is expected to care that much about their character's effectiveness (so #2 would be fine) or something else?  Or are you still trying to figure that out?

I am a longtime seeker of #3.  I like playing games where I can really imagine myself as "being there" with as few distractions as possible to remind me of my existence/location in the real world.  Passing slips of paper back and forth between one player and the GM works fine for short scenarios, but is very limited.  David, I really dig your "take turns hiding" idea.  So, some thoughts on that:

• Simply covering your ears is generally insufficient to block out speech close by.  Earplugs and headphones help.  Failing those, humming helps.
• In combat, depending on your mechanics, players might spend a lot of time with eyes and ears covered.  This can severely interefere with a player's ability to stay in the flow of "imagining himself as being there".  My own system involves hitting & damage, hit location, armor soak & wounds, toughness soak & shock, so I'm worried.
• In any situation where the GM doesn't want to give away whose perception is Real, it may be necessary to have each player be the only player "uncovered" during his action declaration turn (when he's asking the GM "What's going on?" so he can choose an action).  This further worsens the problem I just mentioned.

Anyone have thoughts on resolving these issues?

Pardon the semi-threadjack... we can start a new one on this if Nolan's not interested but others are...

[Rafu]

I find this very rarely to be the case. I've seen it in all froms of roleplaying, from live action, through table-top and even down to miniatures. If someone has the knowledge in the back of their mind, it's human nature to use that knowledge to gain an advantage.

Questionable. This really depends on what an "advantage" is.
Strong separation between "character knowledge" and "player knowledge" can, in my direct experience, be a powerful source of "fun" in some forms of roleplaying game... It needs, however, to be pivotal to the game form being played, not just a marginal addition sticked onto it.

Example (from old, now "classic" Italian game "On Stage!"): player characters have conflicting objectives, there is strong competition and tension in-between PCs. Since the game is played by "scenes", players do see and hear anything which goes on the "stage". Their characters of course don't know, unless they were actually "on stage" themselves at the time. (Two PCs plotting the assassination of a third PC? Check. Next scene, target PC does not know the cup he's about to drink from contains lethal poison; the player knows it all, so he has to devise some clever escape, but can't have the character himself act on "player knowledge".) Part of the game is about creating "in character excuses" so that your character may act on what is, actually, "out of character knowledge", but not obviously showing to be doing so. Of course, this implies the game is not really about "immersion"...

If that usually doesn't work well in D&D and D&D-simile games, that's chiefly because all of the players should be coordinating all of their efforts towards survival of their collected PCs in that kind of game (and not even the DM is playing "against" them).

[David Berg]

1) players have OOC knowledge and have to come up with clever ways to both use that knowledge and rationalize why their characters are acting as such.  Jens appears to have enjoyed this in the past.  (Right?)

Make that Jens and Rafu. 

[Filip Luszczyk]

And Filip

Basically, until we hear from Nolan and learn whether players' usage of out of character information is an issue in the game at all, it will be hard to consider specific solutions.

[Vulpinoid]

Filip's right, I guess my comments on OOC knowledge have side-tracked this thread a bit.

There are plenty of ways to attempt to address these issues, but they should be address in a context relevant to the game design in question.

As we've touched on, the way these issues are addressed can radically alter the style of play produced by a game.

V
(P.S. I keep my real name in my signature at the bottom of each message)

[masqueradeball]

Although the obvious pratfalls of in character out of character knowledge are obvious I think an overlooked point is that a perfect-information (to use a board gaming term) environment could be a narrative plus depending on the goals of the game. If players were more tied to creating an interesting story than achieving in character goals then knowing everything there is to know should help, not hurt, there ability to contribute.
That being said, I want the game all this is for (Innocence & Iron) to be a much more first person, immersive style of role playing, so I'm all for suggestions about how to share information with some players without giving it away to others. I think I'm going to design a similar situation in a different game (probably my current game of the late 80's early 90's Marvel Superheroes RPG) to test out the playability of the "close your eyes/plug your ears method."
In the past the only experiences I've had with limiting player information came in the traditional forms of passing notes and going into the other room. Notes have always been a distraction, but in some games, especially horror games, having some of the players leave the room can often add to the feeling of suspense, but in game with a premise like Innocence & Iron's I think leaving the room would be too constant of an obstacle.
Another note: this whole train of thought really started for me with playing Changeling: the Dreaming. For those not familiar with that game, the character in it constantly view two separate realities, the fey and the mundane. This always posed a problem for me in how exactly you described to things at once without breaking up the narration and slowing down play and also how much the characters perceived both versions.

[Vulpinoid]

People don't like penalties, they think they are being disadvantaged somehow. So consider the opposite option.

Perhaps a simple mechanic of bonus experience points for players who go out of their way not to use the OOC knowledge they've gained, especially where their use of OOC knowledge could have dramatically helped them, or where their option not to use this knowledge has helped to create a situation that has heightened the storyline developing.

This could be done specifically by the GM, or by contribution from all the players on the table.

V 

[David Artman]

Vulp, I think it's now clear that he's not trying to deal with what to do with players who gain OOC knowledge--neither punishment nor reward. His last post seems to me to clearly state that he doesn't want that knowledge to get into their hands in the first place, through a variety of techniques (shuttering on demand, restricting access to the setting source material, passing notes).

Or is it that you see such information flow control techniques as a punishment of those players who play low-Innocence PCs...?


Meanwhile, are there any other techniques for information flow control during play, at the table?

I wonder if, maybe, artwork could help in some manner. What if the "Bestiary" section of the rules had two pictures of each magical creature: one for low-Innocence PC players to see (looking like a mundane animal analogous to the magical form) and one for high-Innocence PC players to see. Maybe they could be on odd versus even pages, so the GM could say "ONE!" or whatever, show the mundane creature art, then say "TWO!" and flip the page after the low-Innocence PC players have closed their eyes? I know in the old D&D days, I used to show Monster Manual art a lot (and back then, modules even came with "art booklets" to show the players at various encounters).

Of course, there's always networked laptops or cell phone messaging... but who wants to play a game where half (or more?) of the info is typed while everyone sits quietly?

Bit there's GOT to be more ways....
David

[jag]

Of course, there's always networked laptops or cell phone messaging... but who wants to play a game where half (or more?) of the info is typed while everyone sits quietly?

Funny, i was going to suggest exactly that.  I'm not sure the moment of silence as the GM is typing is any worse than the moment of silence and blindness as your low-innocence character waits.  I'd go further to say that the logistics of _any_ system which has more than 2 or 3 levels of filtered information are probably not going to be sustainable -- especially if the "higher" levels don't just have access to all lower levels, but in fact different information altogether.

It might be quite easy, tho, if you had one base level (to which everyone was privy), and one mystical level (to which only a subset were), to set up a chat room for the mystical characters.  Then, as the GM is describing the forest, he could also IM that amongst the branches were fairies flitting about.  This is probably scalable to a total of three levels, but beyond that i'd be skeptical.  But i'd be similarly skeptical for the closed-ears mechanism too.

IM also would allow "notes" to be passed in a relatively easy way.  But all this assumes that you have a sufficient number of laptops/etc.

[Rafu]

I agree one should have a maximum of 2 levels of perceived information for any given scene.
What the system and "GM" can juggle with is the minimum Innocence score required to access the "higher" information level for the scene: this may be a variable.

The actual process of being denied information may actually be turned into a source of excitement of sort... Sort of playing Werewolves/Mafia, the party game.

[Charrua]

Two things I'd like to contribute: 

1) The first, a series of absurd possibilities for limiting OOC knowledge, all of which are technology based:

The first is to have everyone wear a set of closed headphones (the ones that don't allow sound in or out).  The GM has a microphone hooked up to all of them, and can shut off headphones as innocence decreases.  What you can't hear can't affect you, right?  Of course, it's a bit techie, but it's an option.

Another:  Have a screen where the narrator can type out lesser levels (where the lower the innocence, the more in-tune to the spiritual world you are) of interaction on a screen while ACTUALLY describing what the lower levels of innocence are. 

Example (and a poor one at that):
BEING SAID, with innocent players' heads down: You see a wolf cross your path.  It is growling, looking menacing, no teeth are baring but you wouldn't know the difference anyway.  Wolves are scary creatures after all.  The growling is continuous.

Being TYPED: The wolf comes into the path, wary but not menacing.  It says, "what are you all doing here?  Where do you come from?  Do you happen to know the current price of tea in China?"

And this perhaps might have been alluded to, but bears mentioning, a quick group pull might work.  If there are no tables in the way, having the gm on one side of the room, calling players to them per innocence level might work.  The major problem with that is that players might get annoyed with the whole moving thing.

2) The other item I wanted to contribute is another mechanical possibility regarding how in-tuned with the spiritual world a character is.  Using Rasputin as the only source of information regarding Russian mysticism, drugs were a part of his "shamanic" rituals.  Furthermore, historically shamans used one sort or another of substance to "expand ones horizons."  An interesting mechanic to use would be to have a hard innocence level at the beginning (let's say 0,1,2) based on some sort of nature/nuture thing (some people are just naturally more inclined to believe the unbelievable, so to speak).  Great levels of "awareness" (instead of calling it innocence) can be reached through sustained rituals and, for lack of a better term, drug use.  Of course, drug use has its benefits AND down-sides, which can be exploited in-game (would you believe that guy tripping on acid when he tells you that the wolf is talking?)  However, certain drugs/rituals, over time, can not only increase bonuses to awareness throughout their duration (a drug's effect lasts 2 hours), but certain rituals (I dunno, smoke hut in american indigenous cultures) can increase their hard awareness stat (you trip enough times, you start seeing things when you're not tripping, so to speak).  Depending on the substance, this may or may not have other detrimental effects on a character. 

You can take this vein of thought in several directions (smoking certain tabaccos will have weaker bonuses, take more doses to increase overall awareness vs. tripping on acid/smoking opium, which will grant you greater access, increase stat quicker, and eventually kill you).  Also, certain character types can be more/less averse to ritual/substances, thus limiting their ability to gain awareness.  Perhaps a stat mechanic that is inversely proportional to awareness (I'd hate to be cliche, but perhaps logic)?  Also interesting would be to consider the effect of science on the ability to perceive.   The time period would play nicely into the discussion of science vs. faith ... (random ideas).

Hope this has been helpful!  The idea is interesting indeed though, personally, I dislike the OOC limitations and prefer a GM that would arbitrate knowledge.  Furthermore, I would prefer a mechanic that would inherently force characters to talk prior to action..
i.e. Phase 1: Everyone says 1 thing, if they want.
Person 1: "ack! it's a wolf, kill it!",
Person 2: "No!  Don't!  All it wants is warm tea!" 
Person 3:  "Mommy, I'm scared"
Person 4:  "Don't worry my little babushka, the big bad wolf doesn't want to hurt us"
Person 5: *silence*

Phase 2:  (acting based on initiative, where convo can either persist or someone pulls a gun and shoots it)

Just a thought

-nico

[David Berg]

BEING SAID, with innocent players' heads down: You see a wolf cross your path.  It is growling, looking menacing, no teeth are baring but you wouldn't know the difference anyway.  Wolves are scary creatures after all.  The growling is continuous.

Being TYPED: The wolf comes into the path, wary but not menacing.  It says, "what are you all doing here?  Where do you come from?  Do you happen to know the current price of tea in China?"

I wonder how hard it would be for GMs to simultaneously say one thing and type another.  As long as it's just description and not NPC speech portrayal, I bet it'd go fine.  Speech might suffer a bit from pauses to think... but that's not the end of the world.

Here's the simplest version I can think of:

GM has screen facing himself, no one else can see it.  The GM:
Says: The wolf comes onto the path.
Types: The wolf comes onto the path.
Says: It growls deeply.
Types: It growls, but doesn't bear teeth.
Says: It looks tense and threatening.
Types: It's giving more of a warning than a threat.
Says: Alright, those with innocence 2 or lower, close your eyes.
Then the GM turns around the screen, the high-innocence players take a few seconds to read, they nod when done, and the GM hides the screen again.  Then the GM:
Says: Eyes open.

Sounds pretty painless to me.

[jefgodesky]

Well, you want your characters to be immersed in the setting, right?  For people in that historical period in Russia, there was no dichotomy.  The real world, as they saw it, WAS full of fairy tales and other things we consider fantasy.  The only people who see a divide here is, well, us.

So I would say that both elements of your setting assert the reality of the magical emphatically.  It might seem ahistorical to us, but that would be anachronistic thinking anyway.

[johntfrazer]

Another thing you might want to consider. Set your players around the table (or playing space) arranged in order of innocence. Then you could show a picture of say, the low innocene monster to the low innocence part of the room and show the high innocence picture to the high-innocence part of the room. This might also enhance the game's storybook feel (where you get the pictures is a matter for another time).

[Burrito]

Maybe this would work for you :

Before play and every two hours or so into play pick a few random numbers (I'd set the highest number at twice your "maximum innocence rating")

Give each player individually and in secret a number of those numbers equal to their innocence rating - a cold-hearted emotionally-crippled scientist might not get any numbers whereas a child raised by fairies might get all the numbers you picked.

Whenever the issue of magic comes into play preceed your statements with one of your chosen numbers.  Randomly say things occasionally that are not in fact happening preceeded by a number not on your list.

An example of play might be :

(One, Seven, and Twelve are the "magic numbers" in this scenario)
GM :
Suddenly a wolf jumps out onto the trail a few scant yards ahead of you, growling deeply.
Three!  The golden eyes of a werewolf lock onto your own hungrily.
One! The beast growls "In a rush to meet your maker, human? Then continue this way - I'm sure the "twilight hunters" will be much obliged. Good night to you, foolish two-legs."
True! The wolf arches it back towards you!  What do you do?

Player One who, with a low innocence, doesn't know that "one" is a magic number:
"It's just a lone wolf - It'll leave us be if we don't startle it.  Probably protecting it's cubs or something. Without turning away I'll back off slowly."

Player Two, with a low innocence but a knowledge that "not all is as it seems in this world" :
"It's unnatural! I draw the pistol in my boot, the one with the silver bullets, and let fly"

Player Three who, with a high innocence, knows that "one" is a magic number :
"No!  She's bowing, not pouncing!"

GM :
"Player two - you hear the last few words of Player three over the booming echo of your gun.  Roll to hit."

Not only would this give you the opportunity to play off a non-innocent (cynical? worldly? fearful?) character's fears -
GM : Eleven! There's a goblin in the closet!  Player : I open fire! GM : You totally waste the vacuum cleaner!
- but it'd support the idea of a superstitious culture that knows that strange things go bump in the night, even if most individuals don't choose to believe or can't quite make those things out.  If that's the kind of thing you're shooting for.

I'm curious : Is being innocent a positive thing in your game, or are there definate trade-offs?  Would innocent characters be more likely to fall for tricks or con artists or the such?  Can they grasp complex ideas or principles rooted in the "mundane reality" as easily as the less-innocent?  Would such a thing be reinforced by the mechanics of the game? Should things of a magical nature genuinely influence the "mundane reality"?  (I apologize if you've answered or implied answers to these already : There's quite a bit of good stuff to absorb from this thread and I'm running on less sleep than usual)

... and as an aside : This is one of the best threads I've read in a while. Lots of great stuff here from all corners.