Hidden Information

[Thierry Michel]

One way to classify games is to use the criterion of what information is accessible to the player. Chess is an example of complete information game (everyone knows exactly all the available information) whereas in poker, for instance, decision making with limited information is what the game is about, and it wouldn't work with full disclosure of the hands and the deck.

RPGs exist somewhere between those two extremes. For instance, generally players have access to all in-game information about their characters, and none about the NPCs.  

A game like Unkown Armies removes the hit points of the characters from the player's information domain,  and by doing so - I imagine it is a calculated decision- changes the risk-taking behaviour of players. The treatment of demons in Sorcerer is another -self-conscious- example.

Are there other examples of "unusual" treatement of information ? Can one imagine that the players would want to keep some information hidden form the GM (and other PCs) ?

More generally, I'm interested in the rationale (again !) of providing or withdrawing information from the game participants.  So, any thoughts ?

[Drew Stevens]

Amber, as I understand it, removes all character knowledge from the player's domain after character creation.

[clehrich]

In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4948" target="blank">Shadows in the Fog, the players' real power comes from a hand of cards, and the GM doesn't know what they are.  In addition, even if you did know, the potential uses of any given Trump are so wide that it would be very difficult to predict what could and could not be done with it.

For me, the rationale is that players have tremendous power over the game-world, and that power cannot be abrogated by the GM.  In addition, this power must be creatively deployed if it is to be effective (the Pool also does this, with the MoV mechanic).  

The other part of the rationale, and one that I think speaks more generally to secret mechanics in RPGs, is that Shadows is a very secret-oriented game, and I want the mechanics to reflect the fact that the characters have secrets by having the players also have secrets.

[Andrew Martin]

Are there other examples of "unusual" treatement of information ? Can one imagine that the players would want to keep some information hidden form the GM (and other PCs) ?

In my S combat system for Fudge, player tactics are revealed in reverse initiative order. This forces players to play conservatively (if they want their characters to live), or extreme (if they don't care). In ambush situations, the ambushees reveal their tactics first, the ambushers last.

Another example is revealing/hiding level of character skill. For example, hiding a character's ability to re-roll (my Ratio, Tally and others) to appear less skilled.

Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Gama (MSHAG), my Amber variant, and and my Pulp has the player's hand of cards, with the capacity to hide player resources "cards" from other players. In Pulp (caution! not fully written up!), the characters resource can be hidden (by stacking cards), or revealed by declaration of a flashback.

In the table-top battle system for Cherry Blossoms (tragic romance with Mecha!), players will be able to place mecha on the table-top out of line of sight of enemy mecha (so producing "realistic" surprise in the players) during play (instead of at the start of the game) to better reflect the need for scouting, instead of assuming that what the players see is what the characters get.

[Thierry Michel]

Shadows is a very secret-oriented game, and I want the mechanics to reflect the fact that the characters have secrets by having the players also have secrets.

Do you provide in-game incentive for players to discover each others' secret ?

player tactics are revealed in reverse initiative order.

Yes, I didn't think of asymetry of information in the tactical part of the games, but it's true that most use it via asynchronous decisions (again, if I remember correctly, Sorcerer is an exception).

[Mike Holmes]

Have you checked out "SOAP"? All about protecting secrets, and discovering others in an explicit fashion. Also, see the material hereabouts on Scattershot related to Fang's concept of Mystiques. Interelates quite a bit. Interesting topic.  

Someone had to mention Shadows. Zak has some theories about games being defined by what in "unknown". You can find those here, too.

Mike

[clehrich]

Do you provide in-game incentive for players to discover each others' secret ?

It depends what you mean by incentive.  You cannot score off someone by finding out his secrets, no.  But much of what really goes on in a Shadows in the Fog campaign is a process of discovering lots of secrets, and turning them to one's own advantage.  That includes other PCs' secrets.  So indirectly, yes.

I don't know that that answers your question, though.  Take a look at the game http://www.auroragames.com/pdf/shadows.pdf" target="blank">here and see whether that makes any sense.

I think the big danger of some of this secret-keeping is that it too often ends up one-sided: too often all the secrets remain with the GM, promoting us-vs.-GM mentalities.  This isn't all bad, by itself, but I think that whether mechanically or in terms of story, it helps a lot if the PCs and perhaps players have secrets they keep from each other.  Ideally, you would also have some secrets from the GM.  That's tricky to implement, long-term, but maybe that's the direction to push.  Any ideas on this?

[Le Joueur]

Also, see the material hereabouts on Scattershot related to Fang's concept of Mystiques. Interelates quite a bit. Interesting topic.  

Mystiques are a difficult topic to explain.  On the one hand, they're something the 'owner' has rights to (especially when intruding into 'the sphere of it's interest).  On the other, everyone else is expected 'to play along' without actually being given specific information 'within' the Mystique.  On the third hand, and perhaps most important, they must be chosen such that they generate intrigue; who cares why Hamlet's death affects the price of tea in china.  (That may be why I was invoked here; unfortunately, intriguing Mystiques are of the same 'art from' as flirting, I can't instruct there.)  Finally (on a fourth hand?), it is actually possible to run a Mystique without anyone knowing it's contents; I think InSpectres and Donjon function famously this way.

Fang Langford

[Thierry Michel]

This isn't all bad, by itself, but I think that whether mechanically or in terms of story, it helps a lot if the PCs and perhaps players have secrets they keep from each other.  Ideally, you would also have some secrets from the GM.  That's tricky to implement, long-term, but maybe that's the direction to push.  Any ideas on this?

A few general ideas  (but probably not appropriate to your Victorian setting. I have to read the rules more in depth, though).

[clehrich]

A few general ideas (but probably not appropriate to your Victorian setting. I have to read the rules more in depth, though).

Setting aside whether your ideas can be implemented within my game setting, want to give us a taste?

[Thierry Michel]

The problem is how to treat a (long-term) character secret, that would be hidden from the GM and other players (other types of secret are easier to handle)

I would start from the question: what happens after the secret is out ?
If the game is about the secrets, then obviously it would be hard to play the character after that event. So why not retire it once the secret is out ?

Then the secret would be a device to allow the player to "close" the character. Could be a prophecy in a fantasy world (becoming a king, slaying a dragon, dying defending a friend etc.), a problem from the chracter's past that need to be solved (family stain, atonement for a violent past, unsavory acquaintances, etc.)  or another internal drive (almost any type of ambition would do).

Fulfilling the secret would be a kind of victory condition, allowing  several players to collaborate for a joint "victory" (including manipulation/blackmail of a player by another), and surprising the GM by retiring unexpectedly a char.

Now for completely unstructured ideas: differentiate secrets relative to the past/future of the char, maybe by putting the former in GMs hands and the latter in the player's hand ; allow the other players to have an input in the player's secret (write them secretely, he'll pick one, but which one ?) etc.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I am having a terrible time understanding this thread, because I see in-game secrets (held by PCs or NPCs from one another) as a very different thing from metagame secrets (held among players or GM from one another). Can someone explain to me which of these is under discussion, or, if it's both, how they are perceiving them to be related?

Best,
Ron

[Thierry Michel]

Can someone explain to me which of these is under discussion, or, if it's both, how they are perceiving them to be related?

The thread started with the concept of asymetric information as a game mechanism.  

Now, the topic has drifted a bit to "in-character" secrets that are also  players secrets, as specific examples, but only a subset of, asymetric information.

[Le Joueur]

The problem is how to treat a (long-term) character secret that would be hidden from the GM and other players (other types of secret are easier to handle).

Lessee, you sure got a lot of load in that loaded question.  Let's look at some of the assumptions being made here.

First of all, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'secret.'  Some conclude that 'what a character plans to do' is a secret.  Others imagine a 'deep, dark secret' about the character.  Still, the problem of secrecy itself remains.

I mean, okay, you can keep a secret, but to what end?  I can decide my character is secretly a gypsy, but if it never comes up, how does it 'add to the fun?'  I rather think most of the fun with secrets is 'walking the fine line' between keeping them and losing them.  Every 'near miss' adds tension; 'the perfect secret' (one never told, nor even guessable) would be boring (I think).  Even if only the player keeping the secret has this 'almost lost it' feeling, it's still fun.  But otherwise?

That's why we went to so much trouble in Scattershot to 'rename' them Mystiques.  A Mystique is like a secret people know you have (in this case the players, but perhaps the characters too).  It is also, and very importantly, a matter that attracts their interest.  I think that if no person 'at the table' is interested in your Mystique, it is of relatively small value.  Otherwise, 'keeping it from them' becomes the pleasure.

And then there is the whole matter of the scope of the 'secrets.'  I mean, 'I have a crush on Barbara' is a fine "long term character secret," but so is 'I'm the offspring of the Major Villain.'  The problem is I don't see these revelations as 'game breakers.'  Prophecies would be, but I'm not so sure they belong in the hands of a single player (who doesn't share it with the gamemaster).  Certainly the 'bigger' the 'secret' the more likely it ends the character (if not the game), but what about going 'the other way?'  When does a "long term character secret" fail to be the obvious 'closure point' for the character?

I'm not even going to try to answer that one.  Why?  Because I don't think objectifying 'secrets' to this level is that useful.  It creates a false dichotomy; sure there are 'secrets' that 'big,' but for the most part (and I think Hollywood's 'sequel-itis' bears this out), you can 'get past them.'  (Unless the character's 'place in the world' is so 'superficial' that they only exist for their 'secret.')  That being said, I would almost think that 'medium to small' "long term character secrets" would therefore be the most fun.

Conceiving of a character based solely upon the solution of its 'secret' can be quite fun (would such a 'ending-based' character 'secret' really qualify as "long term?"), but dealing with all 'secrets' in the fashion that only supports that would hamper what a lot of people would do with 'secrets,' I think.  What about 'secrets' that function as 'the opening?'  With those their revelation actually functions as 'the beginning of the story,' turning all previous play into a prelude.  ("Luke, I am your father," springs to mind; that certainly doesn't end the story, if anything it only just starts it.)

I mean, you make it sound like the only 'secrets' playable are those that anticipate 'an ending' (if not for the game, for at least the character).  Then you talk about a "game...about the secrets."  Surely a game like that ought to allow for more than just 'character-ending secrets.'  Doesn't this sound suspiciously like how many soap operas operate?  Everybody has secrets, lotsa secrets; the whole text of some show is jockeying 'around' these secrets, determining their existence, extorting them, hiding them, and revealing them.  No, I think it's a little too abstract to think in terms of only 'character-ending secrets.'  (Heck, soap operas might provide lots of suggestions, not only in 'secret' maintenance, but also in the creation and manipulation of them.)

Then there's the whole idea of arbitrary limitations like 'past secrets' are only for the gamemaster, 'future secrets' are only for the player.  I dunno, that seems awfully restrictive.  (Consider a 'secret' shared one player and the gamemaster or by two players alone.)  Personally, I rather like a player revealing a 'secret' out of their character's past; if they're careful about the stuff that 'gets into the game' being 'okay' with their secret (that's the basics of Mystique Proprietorship in Scattershot), there's no reason anyone else need be involved.  I also think that a prophecy ought rightly 'belong' to the gamemaster.  It exists 'in his domain' and before the characters show up, they learn about it from the gamemaster and (I hope he isn't planning who will do what 'by name') he is the one who orchestrates how 'it comes to pass.'

Right now, we wrestling with Scattershot Online: a version of Scattershot for play in chat rooms and email circles.  The first thing we identified was the pointlessness of...well, hit points.  What to use as 'interest points' to 'get people involved?'  Secrets.  Whether played like a soap opera or a murder mystery, we realized that Mystiques would be a better stock and trade than 'life or death' issues like hit points online.  (I remember many a time where some conscript filled with youthful exuberance – I'm being kind - launched into an interesting and complicated scene only to attempt to murder the apparent center of everyone's interest.  Short of creating all kinds of 'anti-Gamist' programming elements - which get farther and farther from 'interpersonal play' - we decided something else was necessary.)  So we've been thinking a lot about 'secrets' recently.

Fang Langford

[Thierry Michel]

So we've been thinking a lot about 'secrets' recently.

I can see that ;)

Just note that I was rambling about the following problem

Ideally, you would also have some secrets from the GM. That's tricky to implement, long-term, but maybe that's the direction to push

 

My assumptions come from this constraint: can a player gain new secrets in play if they are to be kept hidden from the GM ? If not (but there is probably a way), then somehow the character is limited by the stock of secrets he starts with (though one big secret might be too restrictive), that's why I was envisioning secrets as closure.

Hope this makes sense.