We are all elitist pigs!

[Matt Gwinn]

Last week I nearly walked out of my D&D game.  I was getting overly frustrated with players keeping secrets about their characters from other players (not characters).  

What started it
There are three basic thorns in my side that kicked this off.

Tim - Just created a new character as his old one died.  His new character is an unusual race and for now has remained hidden under a hooded cloak.  Thus Tim has refused to reveal to any of the other players what race his character is.

Miriam - Her character is evil.  We all know this, but only because I bullied it out of her during character creation.  The funny thing is that I was DM at the time and I still had to bully it out of her!  Anyway, she continually has to have private DM/Player talks.

Kristina - He character is a free genie that is on a mission to destroy genie rings.  She's masquardeing as being bound to a ring that one of the other chatacters has.  Turns out I am the only one that knows this because I helped her come up with the backgroun.  Well, I said something OOC last week revealing that she wasn't really bound to the ring.  The DM yelled, "No one else knows that!"  I responded calmly with, "I know.  My character doesn't know either.  That was OOC."  She came back with, "No, I mean none of the other players know that!"  This drove me to start a group discuss about how I felt the other players didn't trust each other to be able to separate player knowledge and character knowledge and that it bothered me.

Well, most ofthe group pretty much turned on me.  I told them that I just wanted to get everything out in the open.  I tried talking theory and social contract and stuff and they were not buying into it.  I eventually gave in and told them that our styles of play differed enough that it was hard for me to enjoy the game.  I went as far as saying that if they were not my friends I probably wouldn't game with them as a group because our styles of play are so different.  Of course they took it personally.

Our DM, Jen, was taking things in stride, because she wanted to make sure that I wasn't left out on the fun.  After I had basicly given up, she asked if anyone else had a problem with the way the game was going and Tim brought up how he didn't like it when the NPCs saved the day all the time.  This conversation degenerated into more argueing and Jen nearly broke down into tears over everything.

Well, today I talked to Jen and mentioned that I hoped no one was upset and she revealed that I came off as kind of elitist.  I was kind of offended by that because I never claimed that my style of play was better than anyone else's style.    I'm thinking that somewere along the line my Forgite discussion translated to "I'm a better gamer than you" when I was actually saying "My style of play is different from yours".

Have any of you experienced this when you bring up gaming theory with non-Forgites?  How do you handle it?  What led up to it?

,Matt Gwinn

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Well, today I talked to Jen and mentioned that I hoped no one was upset and she revealed that I came off as kind of elitist.  I was kind of offended by that because I never claimed that my style of play was better than anyone else's style.    I'm thinking that somewere along the line my Forgite discussion translated to "I'm a better gamer than you" when I was actually saying "My style of play is different from yours".

Would it shock you if I said I thought you were being elitist? Of course, I don't mean this in a negative sense, or even by the real definition of elitism (the belief that certain persons deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority.)

It's ok to think that a studied, considered style of gaming is better than just "doing it the way it was done before." We fall into the trap of "I'm ok, you're ok" too often: we should remember that we do put more thought into what we're doing than 90% of the hobby.

---

Having said that, I totally get where Jen is coming from. It's easily explained through two things: (a) natural human instinct regarding what a person doesn't understand, and (b) the oral tradition.

First, people are instinctually afraid of what they don't understand. I'm stating this as a fact: a lot of history's pretty hard to understand without it. You stated a lot of ideas to your GM that go completely against what she's been taught. I imagine her thoughts were, "But how would I run my game that way? It doesn't make sense."

For many of us - at least for me - we went through this process. I found myself very interested in Ron's theories when I first heard them on the Gaming Outpost, but I didn't run my first narrativist game until about a year after I started administering the Forge. It took me over a year of reading Sorcerer to get the nerve to run it. I would expect anyone confronted with these sort of new ideas to lash out at first.

Secondly, remember the oral tradition. The art of playing RPGs, and especially GMing, has been passed down orally through the sub-culture. Very few (I imagine none, but there's always that one guy who protests) people learned to play or GM from a book. The oral tradition is powerful, and results in dedicated people, but in the case, it's been highly resistant to change. Ideas like OOC knowledge shouldn't be shared with other players or a GM's plans should be secret have been passed down, often without reasoning behind them. Earlier GMs can be considered "mentors," and it's going to be hard to get someone immersed in this oral tradition to change their minds.

(Tangent: this is why people new to role-playing get GNS better than 20-year veterans. I was luckily fairly separated from the oral tradition when I found GO.)

Now, to our advantage, oral traditions are easily infiltrated. An oral tradition is not that different from its biological equivalent: a virus, a medium that spreads information on how to construct (DNA) to cells, which create more of the virus, which then spread again. Viruses mutate, and the mutation, if more effective, spreads quickly.

Like this, if your ideas on gaming and GMing work well - work better than the old ways - you can get them to spread quickly. In Seattle, I've seen it. Not to disparage anyone, but through running games like the Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, and Trollbabe, I've created a lot of fans of these games, and of the GMing styles they engender.

---

In conclusion, Jen's reaction makes sense. How'd she learn to GM, though? Probably through watching other GMs. Instead of walking out, offer to run the next game, and show her how you do it. If it works for her, it will spread.

I think you will have good success, by the way. Some of the character ideas you posted ("His new character is an unusual race and for now has remained hidden under a hooded cloak. Thus Tim has refused to reveal to any of the other players what race his character is.") strike me as people who are trying to achieve results that'll be easier to achieve with more openness at the table.

[jdagna]

I think I can understand the way your group feels.  Let me give you an example from my real life.

As a kid, I was working in my dad's wood shop on a project.  I had a question, so I went and asked him.  Three hours later, he was still expounding on tools I'd never heard, analyzing weight-bearing strategies, the advanages of various joints and so forth and so on.  Now, I new I needed help and was open to help.  But all I wanted to do was build a simple shelf in my tree house to put a can of soda on!

This is often what happens when people bring up role-playing theory during actual play events.  People, even when they admit to a problem, often just want a simple fix.  They don't really want to analyze the deeper secrets of role-playing and definitely don't want to call their entire role-playing history under the microscope for fine examination.  You might have received a better response by saying "Hey, could we stop keeping so many secrets?" and have left it at that.  

Of course, I suspect your game group may see secrets as a sort of gamist victory condition.  I've seen this done in a functional way, though it's usually pretty dysfunctional (and often a dysfunctional solution to other dysfunctional problems).  This would explain part of their reaction as well.  Imagine if you proposed to a typical D&D group that they should stop trying to get experience and treasure!

Anyway, it's my experience that the best time to bring up theory is out of game and not in reference to any particular topic.  It's a good thing to do with e-mail, prefaced with "Hey, I saw this concept on some weird website.  Have you guys ever thought about this?"  Then, AFTER they've discussed what they think, you can bring up a particular situation.  "Hey, thinking about all that stuff, what if we modify the social contract so we don't keep so many secrets?"

[Enoch]

My group uses secrets in game a lot.  I sometimes slip in what I'm saying too, but I kinda like secrets too.  Its not for any hidden tactical advantage, its to see the look on your fellow player's face when they realize something completely new about your character.

Elitist?  Not sure.  The friend thing was kind of mean though.  I agree with jdagna, this kind of stuff should not be discussed during actual play, I can see the sparks fly if I all of a sudden started off on some theory or what not.  Its best to discuss it before or after the game so no one feels as attacked.

-Joshua

[Matt Gwinn]

Just to clairify things a little.  When I talked to the group I didn't go into a big diatribe about GNS, scene framing, or any of that sort of stuff.  I limited my forge references to social contract and disfunction.

Also, this is Jen's first time running and she is very open to new ideas.  However, the rest of the group is not and she is wholely concerned with ,making everyone happy.  Hell, Jen loves Soap, so I know she's not totally opposed to what I was talking about.  Want made her most upset was Tim's disppleasure with NPCs saving us all the time.

Instead of walking out, offer to run the next game, and show her how you do it. If it works for her, it will spread.

I've already run for this group for over a year.  I quite running because the disfunction was finally getting to me.  I decided that it would be easier for me to concentrate on entertaining myself with one character than running the game and being concerned about everyone but me having fun.

One thing that was brought up in our conversation that we all agreed was a big part of the problem was that when I play I look at the game from a DMs perspective; I want to see the entire story unfold.  The rest of the group is only interested in their own character's story and could give a damn about anyone elses character.  When I used to run for this group, I always had problems with people wandering off or playing with their palm pilot when the focus of a particular scene was on someone else's character.  It pissed me off to no end and was part of the reason I stopped running.

You might have received a better response by saying "Hey, could we stop keeping so many secrets?" and have left it at that.

Tried that during character creation and was met with blank stares and resistance.  This isn't the first time this has been discussed.

Of course, I suspect your game group may see secrets as a sort of gamist victory condition. I've seen this done in a functional way, though it's usually pretty dysfunctional (and often a dysfunctional solution to other dysfunctional problems).  

About 75% of the group fits that category.

This would explain part of their reaction as well. Imagine if you proposed to a typical D&D group that they should stop trying to get experience and treasure!

I've done that before too and they didn't like that at all.  They almost burned me at the stake.

Anyway, it's my experience that the best time to bring up theory is out of game and not in reference to any particular topic.

Not possible, our game sessions are the only time we have contact with each other all at once.  Some of our players don't have regular access to email either.  We could discuss it before or after, but I honestly don't think it would have changed anything.

My group uses secrets in game a lot. I sometimes slip in what I'm saying too, but I kinda like secrets too. Its not for any hidden tactical advantage, its to see the look on your fellow player's face when they realize something completely new about your character.

I don't appreciate being the target of deception, especially by someone I consider a friend - whether they think it's harmless or not.  I guess that is where I differ from a lot of people.  And it's fine that you game that way, but if you were gaming with me it would result in disfunction and that's what I'm talking about here.  Does it make me elitist to point out that our different preferences cause disfunction?

,Matt

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I feel for you Matt. Similar shit has hit the fan in the group I used to be in. I had left the group like 2 months ago, possily more. I forget, but my wife still goes so I still get info every now and again.

I should point out that there are some very heavy-duty social issues that had been brewing for almost a decade...no, it's been a decade.. involving the GM and with the GM's g/f for less than a decade. I don't really want to go into that. That is, I want to get some of this shit off of my chest. Talking to myself or phantom people in the car about it just doesn't cut it. But why the hell should I dump on you? Anyway, There's a social aspect in it and you might want to consider that angle in your group because the whole gamer elitist thing might be on top of it.

But, suffice to say that I consider my friendship with the GM over because of these social issues, but talk of RPG theory, GNS or no, had added fuel to the fire.

I agree with most of Clinton's assessment about human nature and fear of the unknow and such, but is that an excuse for becoming defensive and calling another an elitist or a roleplaying snob? Personally, I find that a teensie bit hypocritical.

"You're such an elitist snob with you're hoity-toity theories that you haven't taken into account my feelings." Well, with that statement you have shown a similar disregard for my own feelings. Thank you. I doubt Einstein took into account of whether E=MC^2 would make the other physicists feel bad. Instead, come up with a rational argument about the theory or possibly some clairifying questions if you do not understand. Lashing out emotionally when I'm discussing something intellectual is rude and changing the subject.

Whew! No wonder why Ron has a rough time of it on the internet about GNS and having to deal with this kind of crap, I would wager, daily. I'm all worked up.

That all said, while the defensive reaction my be understandable, being understandable does not excuse it nor make communication any easier.

I went as far as saying that if they were not my friends I probably wouldn't game with them as a group because our styles of play are so different. Of course they took it personally.

It has been suggested that the better friends you happen to be, the less you should play with them if your prefered modes differ. You may wish to consider leaving the group if this is the case since very little good will come from you staying and continuing to clash your play preference with their play preference. Apparently talking GNS with them isn't helping, either. You can't teach the unwilling, I'm afraid.

(Tangent: this is why people new to role-playing get GNS better than 20-year veterans. I was luckily fairly separated from the oral tradition when I found GO.)

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I find these two quote somewhat congruent.

[Bankuei]

Hi Matt,

This is completely the dysfunction/denial/don't talk about it stuff I've been looking at recently.   Consider this train of thought-

1-We play the way we do because that's how we play
2- We don't think about it because we might recognize that the play doesn't live up to what is promised or expected of it
3- We don't talk about it because it might make us think about it.

Saying, "I'm not having fun" translates in people's heads as thus:

I'm not having fun because this game sucks
because you're a bad GM/player
because you are a bad person

Rational?  No, but that's how people read it.  And you can see it in their responses.  Rational reply?  Nope, just get angry about it, yell about it, maybe say sorry, maybe never mention again, but never actually work out the issue.  

What is terrible is that for most folks, a great deal of self-esteem is tied into "being right" all the time.  And like Clinton said, the oral tradition is "how we do things" so to do it differently is effectively saying "you are wrong, hence you are a stupid and bad person".

Sorry, I don't have any answers or advice, just some insight into the issue.  

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Guys,

I'm sorry if I'm jerking this thread off topic – but it's really touched a nerve for me.

First, though, to stay on topic for a moment, I would offer that speaking of dysfunction right at the game table is a bit like hashing out sexual problems in bed.  There are probably times and places more neutral in nature that might be better used.  The motives might be sincere, the attempt well-meaning.... But it might well leave a karmic wound right there where the fun is supposed to be had.

***

And now... (and I've switched on my rant button, so forgive me... )

An elitist is someone who desires the best.  That's all.  I am so tired of this word being misused as "snob."  (A snob is someone who apes the taste of others for the sake of status – a completely different situation.)

And more: If the word were only being misused, I probably wouldn't be so agitated.  However, it really is seen as a kind of insult to "most people" when someone strives to please his or own higest sense of pleasure and taste.

Fuck that.  The idea that I or anyone else is a pretentious fuck because we delight in something other than what "everyone else" likes is the logic that leads to adds that say "three out of four people prefer x."  And the implications of this logic is... what exactly?  That I should prefer x instead of y because 75% of my peers prefer x. The only power this kind of ad campaign can be playing to is the fear of being different.  And how, exactly, is that going to make that quality of my life better?

Games: When folks, seldom here, mostly elsewhere, refer to "niche" games with some sort of sniff in their tone, I just wanna take fist to their jaw.  A game is of less value because it doesn't have a vast marketing arm behind it?  Fuck that, too.  While one must be careful not to build an army of flawed arguments ("quality is never popular," "crap sells well,"), to assume that a game doesn't matter because "me and my friends" don't play it is obscene, faulty in it's logic, and, precisely, snobbish.

I scan the movie listings every week to go see a movie.  I love movies.  I'd love to go.  I don't.  I cannot find anything out there that looks remotely interesting that's been designed to do well at the multiplex.  (Again, I'm looking; I'd love to go.)  Instead, the last three movies I've seen were a South Korean 19th century costume drama about a famed painter which I found in many ways terrific; "Blue Car" which was written and directed by a friend of mine and made me think as the credits rolled, "I didn't think anybody made good movies anymore."; and "The Shape of Things," Neil LaBute's latest jurry-rigged exploration of morality and sexual-mores that I found to be nonsensical piece of shit the moment I thought about it for five full seconds.  (I bring this up to be clear: the Art house is clearly no haven for qulity, but these days, the odds, desperate though they are, are better there.)

Am I elitist in my choice of movies?  You bet.  I'm gonna go sit through two hours of nonsense just cause everyone else is doing it?  No.

What about relaxing?  What about "just having fun."

This is where taste really comes into play.  When I went to the Lucian Freud show a couple of weeks ago at the L.A. Museum of Contemporary Art, I wandered around for the two hours having a great, engaging time.  I left refreshed.  Was the engagement I had with the Freud paintings greater than I would have with X2?  Yes.  Just.  Simply.  Yes.  Was there more pleasure in it?  Yes.  Do I think all that is supposed to be "high art" is good?  No.  But I strive to find the best, most engaging work.

I was recently hired to work at a video game company to do design work.  I've been playing a lot of video games lately with an eye to what is best.  Some game are better than others.  It's that simple.  Some games are more fun than others, some games are better designed than others, some games are more engaging than others.  There's a variety of types of game, so there's a range of types of excellence.  But it's my job to know what is best and to make what is best.  Why work toward anything else?

When I collected comic books, you couldn't help but notice that the work of Jim Starlin, Gene Colin, Neal Adams and Jack Kirby was head an shoulders above the pedestrian stuff filling the rest of the panels in the monthly titles.  And those are the artists I went after – because I had an eye for what was best.

Same in styles of play.  How many of us gather every week (or gathered every week), playing out grinding rounds of combat that never really satisfied but we kept going because that's what we did with our friends and it was good enough?  How many times did some we think, "I really don't want to be here," but showed up anyway because... what?  We didn't want to risk leaving our friends?  Risk not knowing who we might meet?  Not knowing what to do once we refused to participate in activities that didn't actually mean that much to us.  (See Clinton's remarks on fear of change above: we all suffer from it.)

Enough of good enough.  What is the experience truly provided by the event?  What is the level of satisfaction?  What is the actual engagement?

Let me be clear: I'm not making a subtle case for Nar games over Gam games.  I'm making an explicit case for QUALITY.  If something is half-assed, it's not quality.  Give me chess, give me Diplomacy, give me Squad Leader, give me Sorcerer and Riddle of Steel, Peter Jackson, David Lynch, and William Blake.  Give me the people making something with clear vision that stands out because it strives to be terrific – in whatever field.  (Honestly terrific, not some strained pretense like LaBute's work.)

And quality depends on us.  It depends on what we choose to engage with.  Are we really, truly, engaged?  Or is it, well, good enough?  Do we go to see movies that we know we can dissect with our critically inflicted lingo, knowing we are safe from actually being moved ("The CGI is awesome,") or are we seeking out work that stirs us to thoughts and feelings we never anticipated?  Are we reading this or that novel to escape and get vague about what our life?  Or are we reading this book, playing this game, seeing this movie, walking this gallery, to engage further in life?

Engagement with life.  I can see no other yardstick for quality.  I can see no other yardstick for taste.

Yes, these are "just" games.  And a painting is just a painting.  And a life is just a life – one among many, soon lost and swarmed by the souls still living and those yet to be born.  But, for God's sake, in whatever we touch, let's stop being embarrassed about wanting what is best and searching for what is best.

To sum up then, should some fearful person say to you, "You're an elitist," be sure to speak the only appropriate response:

"Thank you."

Take care,
Christopher

[Matt Gwinn]

First, though, to stay on topic for a moment, I would offer that speaking of dysfunction right at the game table is a bit like hashing out sexual problems in bed. There are probably times and places more neutral in nature that might be better used. The motives might be sincere, the attempt well-meaning.... But it might well leave a karmic wound right there where the fun is supposed to be had.

Actually, it kind of helped getting everything out in the open right in the middle of the game.  After we were done discussing everything, something kind of interesting happened.  Miriam's character needed to sacrifice an intelligent creature.  It was something her and Jen were going to roleplay in private and not tell anyone about.  Well, as kind of a compromise, we agreed to roleplay it as a group.  Miriam played her character and the rest of us took on roles of the NPCs necessary to roleplay the scene.  I was the sacrifice, a 14 year old blacksmith's son.  Matt was the High Priest of the cult.  Kristina was the demon that needed to witness the sacrifice.  Charles, and Tim were cultists.  It ended up being all roleplay with only one die roll to determine the success of the sacrifice.  It was a blast.  Kris said she never had that much fun playing.  I think it was a step in the right direction.

Some of us got together today to play board games and stuff and I discussed the situation further to make sure there were no hard feelings.  There were none.  In fact they thought I was making too much out of it and that the whole thing was no big deal.  I really wish we were all still in college where we could game 2, 3, 4 times a week easily.  I would have more opportunities to introduce the more open members of the group to new kinds of games and different styles of play.  But we're all post grads now and have jobs and stuff.  We're lucky we get together once a week fo D&D.

,Matt Gwinn

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Matt,

That sounds great.  Especially the part about roleplaying out the scrifice as a group.  Congrats.

Take care,
Christopher

[John Kim]

Last week I nearly walked out of my D&D game.  I was getting overly frustrated with players keeping secrets about their characters from other players (not characters).  
...
I told them that I just wanted to get everything out in the open.  I tried talking theory and social contract and stuff and they were not buying into it.  I eventually gave in and told them that our styles of play differed enough that it was hard for me to enjoy the game.  I went as far as saying that if they were not my friends I probably wouldn't game with them as a group because our styles of play are so different.  Of course they took it personally.

Our DM, Jen, was taking things in stride, because she wanted to make sure that I wasn't left out on the fun.  After I had basicly given up, she asked if anyone else had a problem with the way the game was going and Tim brought up how he didn't like it when the NPCs saved the day all the time.  This conversation degenerated into more argueing and Jen nearly broke down into tears over everything.  

OK, I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here.  I find it a bit shocking that you would offend your friends and reduce one to tears over this.  Mind you, I've gotten into some pretty heated arguments with friends over games in the past.  I recall at least three really serious clashes with Chris Lehrich in our games together, for example.  However, I generally felt bad about it and apologized later.  

I certainly am having similar issues with a game that I am in currently: a Lord of the Rings RPG campaign.  But I am trying to be very sensitive about how I approach things, to try to avoid hurting the GM's feelings.  (I'm not sure it's going to work, but I feel I should give it a shot.)  Maybe in an ideal world people would accept criticism and disagreement impersonally, but in practice people are very sensitive over their creative inventions and activities.  

Something to consider: I know that you intended for it to come across as just a neutral statement of "My play style is different than yours."  However, it seems possible that you unintentionally implied a fundamental disrespect for the idea of keeping player secrets -- that is, of making secrets something that needs to be found by exploration.  I don't really know, but it's something to consider.  This is certainly something I want to really careful of when dealing with my LotR game.

[Matt Gwinn]

OK, I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. I find it a bit shocking that you would offend your friends and reduce one to tears over this.

I wouldn't say the argument was heated at all.  No one was yelling or anything.  Jen is just sensitive when it comes to being confronted with stuff and tends to take things very personal.  When I told her I wasn't enjoying aspects of the game, she took that to mean I was saying she was doing something wrong as DM.

No one was particularly mad.  In fact, everyone wanted to find a compromise somehow, but no one really wanted to change the way they play.

We're getting a little off topic here.  My group is managing ok and we wil likely find a way to work things out.  This post is really about whether you have been accused of being an elitist player because you prefer a different style of play that others in your group.

,Matt

[Ian Charvill]

I joined a hiking group because I enjoy challenging walks.  It turned out to be a woodland hiking group.  I prefer hill walking because it offers more of a challenge, and that's what I enjoy.

During a walk one day, I said to the group, 'could we do less of this woodland walking'.  I just got blank stares.  A couple of weeks later I booked everyone into hill walk, and the shit really hit the fan.  I told them I didn't realise no one was interested in hill walking, and thought it would be nice if we tried something different.

Well, pretty much the group turned on me.  I told them I just wanted to try hill walking.  We argued.  Eventually, I told them our preferred forms of hiking were just too different for me to enjoy walking with them.  I even went so far as to tell them if they weren't my friends I wouldn't even come out walking with them.  Of course, they took it personally.

*    *    *

Despite arguments to the contrary, elitism holds no positive meanings for me.  Too often, elitism is embraced as a tool with which to assert that the tastes of the few are superior to the tastes of the many.

[Cassidy]

Hi Matt,

Your initial post really struck a chord with me insofar as about 8 months ago I was wrestling with a not too dissimilar problem. See Breaking up is hard to do for the gory details.

At the time I could have confronted the issues I had head-on as you did. In the end though I chose to make a clean break. After playing with the group for 5 years I firmly believed that some of the personalities and game style preferences involved would never gel regardless of discussion or debate. Looking back I'm glad I made the break, should have done it far sooner.

That sort of drastic action doesn't seem necessary for your group. By the sounds of things they seem like a fairly easy going bunch, certainly nowhere near as screwed up as my old group. They seem open to new ideas which is cool, but that's a 2-way street though. You have to be open to their ideas and aware of their play preferences also.

Looking at your thorny issues...

Tim has a character who wanders around all hooded and mysterious. Presumably Tim created his character that way because he gets a kick out of playing a character with a mysterious past. I don't see anything wrong with that if that's what he wants to do.

Miriam's character is evil. I really would expect the GM to know the significant aspects of a characters nature and lets face it being evil is pretty significant, although I don't see any reason why the players themselves would need to know Miriam's true nature.

Question:
Which would you prefer? Knowing OOC that Miriam is evil from the start or actually discovering Miriam's evil nature eight sessions into the game? I know which one I'd pick.

If Miriam wants to have secret Player/GM talks then ordinarily I wouldn't have an issue. It is commonplace for players to want to impart some knowledge to the GM that she would rather the players not to be privvy to. That's ok by me. I would however take issue if Miriam's secret Player/GM talks constantly disrupted the flow of the game to the detriment of my enjoyment. I'm guessing that this may be so in your case.

Kristina (and the GM) may legitimately wish to keep some knowledge secret about Kristina because it is something that they as players find engaging. They may have justifiable reasons why they want the players discover to discover the secret during the game itself.

This drove me to start a group discuss about how I felt the other players didn't trust each other to be able to separate player knowledge and character knowledge and that it bothered me.

To be fair, none of the three issues as described strike me as being instances of the players not being able to trust each other to keep IC and OOC knowledge seperate.

They could alternatively be seen as an expression of each players desire to keep certain aspects of their characters "secret" from the other players to be explored and eventually discovered (with a bang perhaps) during play.

Of course, I may be totally wrong. It's just one way of looking at those issues and explaining why each players felt a need for keeping their secrets.

Player "secrets" are good if the prospect of their discovery can provide some tangible benefit to the other players, be it enjoyment, surprise, engaging plot twist, etc. When Tim's characters hood is thrown back it should illicit some real response from the players. When Miriam's evil nature is finally revealed it should ideally knock the other players sideways and throw the whole plot into a spin. When the players discover that Kristina is not bound to the ring it should have some effect on the story.

Keeping a "secret" just because the player wants to keep a secret seems needlessly self-indulgent, at best the secret becomes an irritating quirk of the character. If these secrets are never explored by the players or used by the GM they seem pointless. Even worse is when a secret is revealed only to have little or no impact on the players. All that effort and energy spent discussing, exploring, discovering the secret ends up being a waste of time.

[John Kim]

OK, I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. I find it a bit shocking that you would offend your friends and reduce one to tears over this.

I wouldn't say the argument was heated at all.  No one was yelling or anything.  Jen is just sensitive when it comes to being confronted with stuff and tends to take things very personal.  When I told her I wasn't enjoying aspects of the game, she took that to mean I was saying she was doing something wrong as DM.

No one was particularly mad.  In fact, everyone wanted to find a compromise somehow, but no one really wanted to change the way they play.

OK, sorry if I leapt to conclusions or blew it out of proportion.  In general, new GMs tend to be insecure -- and especially they feel a burden that they are supposed to entertain all of the other players.  

We're getting a little off topic here.  My group is managing ok and we will likely find a way to work things out.  This post is really about whether you have been accused of being an elitist player because you prefer a different style of play that others in your group.  

Well, no, I don't think so.  I have been accused of being troublesome, ornery, or similar labels (often with justification), but not "elitist".  Then again, I liked X2, say -- so I think I'm part of the unwashed masses who refuse to engage in life that Christopher Kubasik was ranting about.