So, I'm working on a game about the apocalypse, and have run into a problem in the preliminary stages. One of the game's main themes is secrets, and it has a focus on inter-players conflict. As such, there's a decent amount of private plotting and scheming, and there needs to be a venue for secret communication... and I'm not sure what the best way to model that is. Here are a few of the options:

a) Have the "secrets" be said out loud, but trust the players not to meta-game.
b) Have the "secrets" be said out loud, and introduce mechanics which make it difficult to act on them if they haven't learned them through other mechanics.
c) Have the secrets orchestrated through informal note-passing, using a few rules to keep everything fair.
d) Have a formal sort of note-passing which constrains how the plots are created and progress, but allows for more precise mechanical resolution of the secrets.

None of these particularly appeal to me, though. A and B negotiate the theme of secrets and take away any degree of immersion the characters could achieve. D feels like it would be too clunky mechanically, but I like the idea of what it could do if done right. C feels like it could work, but it'd be time consuming and make play drag.

So, here's my question: Which of the above methods seems like it would be the most fun to play, and why?

Do you want people to be paying attention to:

• The act of keeping secrets from others, and the state of knowing something others do not?
• The advantage to be gained through secrecy, and the difficulties of navigating in a world where the important features are shrouded in fog?
• The moment in which a secret is revealed, and how that changes everything?
• Something else entirely?

Each of those (to my mind) would require subtly different mechanics.  All of the ways you've listed of dealing with secrets are fine, as regards secrets, but may not serve your more specific purpose.

Tony has good questions to consider.

In regards to option C, what needs to be kept fair? and what rules are you considering to make that happen?

It's possible that my experience is the exception, not the rule. Let players get up from the table, drag another player from the room, and talk in private about the plans. Or let a player drag the GM out of the room. The game I experienced this in was always at least 5 players, and the party was broken up a lot, but there was still a ton of sneaky stuff going on that I don't even know about now. This breaking-up of things also allowed characters to scheme and communicate without the GM knowing.

I like the idea of not including a mechanic/rules for it (close to option C), and require players or play groups to find their own way to communicate secrets. Have suggestions in the text for how to keep note passing from dragging the game down. Tell the GM to not slow down for his players and not take up "GM time" for dealing secrets. ie: If your character is active in a scene, and the player is distracted by things not happening in that scene, it's possible his character is also distracted, and open to peril.

I think the level of secrecy you want here has a great deal with where you want to set the competitive dial of the game.  Do you want it to be a game where the players feel like they're in competition with one another to win?  Do you want it to be a game where maybe the characters are in terrible, bloody competition but there's plenty of cooperation and mutualism between the players?

Tony's questions are of course terrific.  I think you should ask yourself whether secrets are an important part of the game (in which case, build for them) or if they're a side-effect you see possibly cropping up from play that you want to manage.

Finally, perhaps you should provide a "dials" section, where you talk about what effect different secret-managing techniques will have on the game.

Like others have pointed out, it depends what you mean by "secrets".  Very constructive advice.  Anyway... Personally, I find that note-passing and taking people aside are rather disruptful to a game's flow more often than not and when it's done well it's not usually a factor of the game system.  Unless you want to include specific advice for that sort of thing in this game... but that's still not a rule mechanic per se. 

One of my favorite secrets mechanic comes from Paranoia, in which players make choices early on that affect their secrets.  The GM knows what these secrets are, but the other players don't.  During the game, at a critical moment, those secrets are revealed... players know they will be betrayed but don't know when, how, or why. 

One suggestion I might make are the use of "secret cards" that can be selected by a player.  Simply hand out ten or so cards to a player, have him select two, and hand the rest back.  This way players don't know what cards other players have and memorizing the deck probably won't help you guess it.  Players in such a game should be encouraged to come up wtih cards of their own.  Perhaps notecards could be used?  Whenever a trigger event happens, the card is revealed and AHA!  Personally, I wouldn't find the game very fun unless these AHA moments happened quite often and I could change my mind (and cards) whenever I felt like, but I think the cards are necessary because there has to be some record of my choice that is easy and doesn't disrupt the game flow. 

Another idea I've seen used are the idea of counters to represent probably truths within a game.  For example, in a murder mystery, each player might be able to allocate suspicion to one or more of the players (maybe even themselves) and as evidence is gathered, they gain or lose points based on whether or not they were right.  For real wackiness... the in-game effects could be based on the suspicion rather thant he in-game effects... for example, whent he murderer is revealed to be Fred then Bobby goes off to jail because the most suspicion was directed to him.

There's a million varieties of ways you could combine these two systems to play with them however you want.  If you add note-passing and taking-people-aside techniques, and perhaps give some players a limited control of authority over another players actions, there's really no limit to what you can do.

You do have to make quite a few choices along the way though.  What constitutes a secret, for example?  What constitutes evidence -- is it just that other players know my secret, or does the character need some kind of definite proof for some reason?  How do you measure if a "secret" is successful or not?  For example, in the above example, did Fred keep his secret?  He was revealed to be a murderer but then Bobby got arrested?  In an Apocalypse version of this game, poor Bobby could be burning in hell even while Fred holds in his hand the soul-eating immortality grail of false salvation.  Is the game "over" at this point, or does everyone develop new secrets?  Is Fred considered to have "lost" the game because he didn't keep his secret, or does he just continue playing not participating in the secrets mechanic? 

Just random thoughts on the keeping of secrets and turning them into game mechanics.  And we haven't even begun looking at methods of investigation and interrogation yet....

Here's a bit of food for thought.

The best way to role-play not knowing a secret is to know what it is.

A bit over-stated, and it doesn't apply to all aspects of setting and back-story, but if we're talking about a character's secret, then as a player, it's far better to know what it is in order to play a character who doesn't know it.

This flies in the face of nearly every "how to role-play" assumption you'll find in most texts.

Best, Ron

You've all given me a lot to think about, and I'm very greatful. I'll elaborate.

All,

Thanks for the replies. This was exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping I could find around here, and has pointed me in several useful directions. I now have a few games I can research, several questions to consider, and a nice reservoir of practical advice to help shape things pre-beta. There are a couple specific replies I wanted to make, but on the whole I feel like my question was answered and am grateful for the quick feedback.

Tony,

Your question was really helpful- it made me realize how nebulous my thematic desire was in my own head... It was the sort of thing that I had a very concrete abstract representation of (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) in my head, but wasn't quite able to articulate until the question was put to me so plainly. That being said, I want people to pay attention to the act of revealing secret motives behind apparently random or suspect actions. A Lovecraft quote comes to mind- "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." The secrets are the correlations, the contents are the games.

However, unlike the quote, the characters are both the creators and recipients of the horror. They play a dual role of cultist and man encountering cultists moments before the world collapses.

Rob and Ltesser,

Good points on what to include for the GM, I'll keep it in mind. (To answer your question Ltesser- things to be kept fair would include not showing notes to other players, and other meta- things of that nature.)

Rahvin,

Thanks for the pointer to Paranoia, I'll go check that out... it sounds like it has a similar feel to what I'm going for.

Ron,

Thanks for the response, and for maintaining a site where discussion like this can take place. It's dead useful for hopeful designers like myself.

Cheers,
Nick