There is something that I want to reproduce in a more efficient way than how I am used to.
I'll explain.

Playing Vampire the Masquerade with my friends a big part of the fun came from one thing: not knowing.
I experienced it both as a player, and as the game Meister (and confirmed it by talking openly to my players).
Basically, every time a PC needed to do something that the others were not supposed to know, me and his Player physically moved to a different room and played the scene behind closed doors.

This had many cool effects on the game.
Players felt real paranoia and performed real second-guessing.
They enjoyed reading between the lines of other players actions and words...trying to snatch some bit of information that may turn out to be useful...they played mind games with one another, trying to manipulate information in-game so that the person out-game would behave in a different way, thus altering the in-game behaviour of the character.
Giving trust was a very big deal, having real friends and allies was a truly major asset.

It was like being in a free-for-all PvP arena.

Now, this was awesome...but...it also had one major problem.
Every time the Meister played with ONE player, all the other players were left alone, dong nothing but wait.
Even with an aggressive scene framing and fast play, the cumulative wait-time endured while your other 3 or 4 fellow players were "activated" one by one ended up being A LOT...and it was very boring.

So, my concern here would be to somehow find a way to reproduce the same player-level effects, but without the need to call out people one by one in another room.
I would like to keep it all at the table, so that no one ever has to just wait doing nothing.
But it looks like an unsolvable problem.

I can imagine ways to somehow save the "tactical" level of this experience.
You play all at the table...it becomes like a game of chess: you see your opponent move, and react to it...the best overall strategy, wins...the one who is more skilled in coming up with narrative counter-moves, wins...the one who is better able to take advantage of the rules, wins...etc.

But all the paranoia and mind-games would be lost!

I'll give one example of something that happened one time.
Alessandro's character got a hold on some dirt about Aldo's character...and used it in this way:
- he wrote a blackmail letter pretending to be some shady and unknown vampire named Caio Benandanti (a completely bogus name)
- he had the Meister re-write it and physically deliver it to Aldo during the game session, so that Aldo would not know that the letter was from a fellow player
- Aldo was unimpressed by the letter, but to be on the safe side he had his character show the letter to the ancient Setite vampire of the city (Aldo's PC was a setite too)
- the ancient Setite saw the letter, and honestly said "I don't know who this vampire might be"

Now...Alessandro thought that this would have definitively put an end to his little scheme.
Aldo was unimpressed to start with, and now he also had confirmation from his ancient that the blackmailer was "no one" ... Aldo was already considering which of the vampires of the court could have played such a bad joke on him ... because if it was one of THEM (PC or NPC alike) then he knew how to deal with them.

But instead Aldo panicked!
"if not even the ancient Setite, master of secrets, knows who this person is...then how ancient and powerful can he be??? and he DO knows stuff about me! I'm screwed, this is no joke or cheap trick, this is for real !"

This could have never happened if Aldo knew it was Alessandr's PC all along.
Sure, Aldo could have CHOSEN to make his PC act like this, to develop this possible branch of the story...
But the point are not the in-game events.
The point are the out-game effects...the paranoia...the doubt...the mind-games...and also the strange twists the story takes because of such effects (you can willingly produce a story that is similar, as a collection of events, but the "feeling" of it is totally different)

...

So I'm looking for some way to get a similar effect without the need to keep players waiting in line for their turn in the "secret room".
Maybe a gimmick, like Jenga is for Dread...or action-timing is for DoN...
I don't know ... I'm at a loss of ideas :P

Can anyone help? ^_^

What about having multiple GMs who have some way of communicating to one another without speech?
This would mean that you could have your separate room AND keep all the other players engaged.
A side benefit/opportunity: each of the GMs (I'm thinking two) would be just as ignorant of certain developments as some of the PCs are. This would mean that, for a change, a GM would get to be surprised by something! Not just that "oh, wow, Player, wot a decision!", but more "Wow, you've been planning that for three sessions, and you only talked to GM #2 about it? Wow."

Eh? :)

I have played in games where player secrecy was a huge element. And, they were a ton of fun. One game in particular kept the GM tied up with one or two players at a time for 75% or more of each session. While the players weren’t active with the GM we would do some in character RP one on one and in small groups, as that was a large element too. If we really had nothing in game to do, we would play short card and dice games. To date, that is still one of the very best campaigns I have ever played in.

I often have players pass me notes, or even send text messages, during games for things the other characters don’t know. I also like to have my players write character histories and session recaps as additional feedback about how their characters think and feel, and what their goals are. This can knowledge can give in session notes a lot meaning and power.

I have also seen plenty of sessions where a player or two split off with the GM for few minutes at a time. This usually works well as long as these side sessions don’t last too long and they are not too often. Again, character histories and session recaps can amp up the power and reduce the duration of these.

I think the real key to making this sort of play successful is having everyone on board with it so they are tolerant of the down time. Also, get as much information out of the players between sessions as possible.

I’ve done the multiple GM thing with limited success. It seems to go pretty well with only a few players and a very well planned out and detailed scenario. Of course scenarios devolve for the intended play more and more the longer they are. In my experience the multiple GM games only worked well for a session or two. And, it was a lot of extra work on the GMs side.

I was going to suggest notes as well, with the GM having them propped in front of him (behind some GM screen), and considering them until he can give an answer. So the player might say his PC slips out to do X, but he doesn't slip out until the GM has considered X and can give a note answer back.

Also an idea that comes to mind is to assign a secondary GM and run a combat for the other players, while your out of the room. The secondary GM doesn't need much GM powers to run a combat, and it keeps the rest of them occupied. Though I'm kind of refering to a combat where whether you live or die is pretty much certain (you'll live).

If a PC were going to pull an elaborate and Machiavellian plot, it would take time.

Vampire (and the storyteller system in general...at least the old world of darkness version) has the beauty of background points and influences.

You can get stuff done behind the scenes while you get your hands dirty with other scenes in front of the other players.

Sure other games also have this sort of feature, but I haven't seen it done as well as I've seen it done with the World of Darkness stuff.

Two paths you can take.

1) Second GM. In my experience, the problem with this is that most people gather for sessions of roleplaying to play the game. GMing is often considered a chore unless you've got someone really enthusiastic who wants to tell a specific story or provide a specific experience. Getting two people who want to provide a regular group with a single coherent story is night impossible. It works as a one off situation at conventions or game demonstrations, because everyone has a set timeframe for their story and there is often a hell of a lot of preparation for convention based games in order to showcase the gaming experience in the best possible light.

On a side issue, it's hard enough for one GM to keep the conflicting game realities of the players in check, let alone two GMs trying to keep the players realities in check while referencing each others realities to ensure proper game continuity.

Having run a number of 100+ player LARPs, with ten or more GM's communicating via radio headsets and a single Uber-GM coordinating the GMs, I know how complicated this can get when just one of the GM's makes a bad judgment call that cascades across the entire game.

2) Prepared Spontaneity. Between games, each player gets the opportunity to set plans into motion using their background influences. They might set three or four plans into motion based on the previous sessions events. Each plans is simply issued a number from 1 to 4, and these are handed to the GM at the beginning of the session. A cunning player could even offer a blank plan.

During the session, a player needs only show a number publicly to the GM. At an appropriate time during this scene (or during the next scene, depending on thje nature of the plan), the GM can incorporate these effects into the storyline.

With the GM having a general idea of the plans in advance, they can tailor scenes to incorporate the events in motion. Players need to think in advance about how they intend to manipulate the storyline, and when the group as a whole sees numbers being flashed at the GM, they can't be sure who's effect has just gone off....or whether the flashing of a number was just a decoy.

I've found this second option to work fairly well in my games.

V

Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

2nd Meister
I don't think it will solve the problem.
If one Meister gets private time with Player-A, then the other Meister will have to deal with Player-B -C and -D.
Each of them wanting some private time for his own schemes.
So either the second Meister has private time with one of them, leaving the others with the same problem...plus any coordination issues with the other Meister...or he has such limited power that he can only act as public-Meister, thus being almost useless (but still producing coordination issues).

Maybe a diffused co-meistering solution could work...something like Polaris...
But then a lot of people would know secrets about a lot of people...and NPC behavior (and general backstory consistency) will go to rot ... and this is a big problem for a gamist design that relies on plotting and scheming that are based on the assumption that a certain person will behave in a certain way because he/she/it has certain specific personality traits, goals, desires, fears, etc.
I think :P

Notes & Signals
They won't work.
I can devise a plan at home, then write it down and give it to the Meister...and activate parts of it during play with some occult signals.
But this completely cuts away all the face-to-face roleplay with the NPCs, and maybe even some of the other PCs.
The desired effect is not just the secret management of resources...
It is the actual carrying out of such actions: talking to a shady informer trying to make him slip on some information that he didn't intend to let out...confronting a person face to face to see what reaction he has...letting some false information casually slip out during an otherwise "safe" conversation...etc...
The simple fact that YOU came to ME for help about the pirate raids...not knowing that I AM the one behind the pirates.

Abstracting all those activities to the point where they are played out just as Resource-Point commitment and Instruction issuing ... it kinda defeats the purpose :P

. . .

Rant about it all
Perhaps spilling out what I think about this issue will make some ideas move...or will reveal some flaw in my reasoning...

I would like to say that I don't need this project just for Vampire.
I may need this using a different setting, and a different system ... let's say the Solar System, for example (will the SS still work if players keep secrets in this fashion?)
Or, better yet, a completely new design specifically built to get this effect :)

The problem that I encounter is in the backstory coherence.
I need inherently coherent NPCs and backstory events to be able to devise plans about them...even if there is no pre-planned "story" (because players actively create it through their character's actions).
So I can gladly watch the kingdom fall by the hands of a player, if events lead to that, but I still can't let anyone other than the Meister move the NPCs and the rest of the world because they need a fixed and coherent personality...so that it can be analyzed and manipulated.

Using a good and solid rule-system will allow he players to do away with the Meister for PvP resolutions, so they will be able to play stuff even when the Meister is away.
But as soon as one of them needs to play stuff with an NPC...then the Meister is dearly needed again ... and if he's unavailable, the game stops.
I want to ally with the Red Countess, but I don't know that she is already allied with my enemy ... or that for reasons of her own she doesn't want to have anything to do with me...
From my perspective, even knowing that YOU had some sort of private meeting with the Red Countess is a valuable piece of intel ! (maybe actually useless, maybe misleading, maybe I AM paranoid and read too much into too little ... but that's exactly the point of the game :P )

I'm looking for a way to reproduce the feeling and though processes generated by disinformation (or actual lack of information) through some trick of the game...so that we can all play together at the table, never needing to have private sessions.
From where I stand, the NPC-problem is the focal point ... if it wasn't for that, the Meister wouldn't be needed in such a way.

Maybe it's a false problem.
I never played such a game using a new wave rule-set (like the SS, for example) ...so maybe just using such a solid mechanical foundation and an aggressive scene framing would minimize the game-lag so much it becomes a non-problem?
Maybe mixing in some of the afore mentioned resource-management techniques too? ...so that you get private time only when you have a major conversation with an NPC, not occupying the Meister for trivial bookkeeping matters?

Or is there a totally different angle that I am not seeing? :P

The simple fact that YOU came to ME for help about the pirate raids...not knowing that I AM the one behind the pirates.

Everyone GMs - its like the idea about having two GMs, but taken to it's logical extreme.
Our group, for a while, had four or five out of six people who GMed our games. We'd all have a character, and we'd take turns being the 'lead GM' who was driving the plot. Then, when a player went off on their own or needed some 'side-time' the rest of us could continue doing stuff either not plot related or related to other plots. Or we'd turn on the Nintendo and Smash it Up.
  Having multiple GMs who are actively a part of creating the game world and the collective story or campaign makes for a much more dynamic story, and it gives everyone opportunities to do stuff in secret - though we had to make guidelines so that we had to consult with another GM for our player's actions and stuff that affected them.
  This doesn't work for all GMs and players, however. I know at one time we played with someone who couldn't handle having to keep track of which GM to talk to about what, and he'd get us mixed up. On the other end of it, I have difficulty running plots with other GMs 'meddling' in my world, and I tended to step back and not do anything too complex - I just ran combats and simple market scenes and so on and focused more on playing my character.

Monk

First of all you want 1 on 1 player/npc interactions.

This means you will always have a problem if you have more players than GMs.

Now this is often solved by having the other players as audience, so they don't feel left out, but your secrecy defies this solution.

If the GM is the sole gatekeeper of the setting, there is no way to make things stick in in-game fiction without him there.

If he is not the sole authority, then how do you keep one setting? Surely he must delegate authority to other players or GMs telling them the region they can mess with, helped hopefully by a rules structure that avoids too much crazyness. They then have to feed back to him the hidden info so it can be a hidden part of the world, or at least he must check with them when his ideas affect things within that players region of authority.

So say you have two groups in different rooms. Both want to effect the setting, both want to talk to npcs. Now note passing can cover narrative authority. "I want to mess with __, ok but only as far as __" which gets forwarded to other GM with extra notes about style etc. And then the GM with the right set of responsibilities and NPCs goes out with them to do it. This is actually pretty equivalent to the microkernel structure of some open source operating systems like Hurd, and the theory still isn't finished for them, just like RPGs haven't properly sorted out troupe play.

Now this means bookeeping. There is no way round it. You could create some weird universalis type metagame thing between GMs to sort out authority, and so keep consistency, but that's quite an extra layer!

It seems that the more people want to do different things the more people will have to step behind the curtain, or just take turns. The more focus you put into structuring your information flow, the more effort you will have to put in. I think it is almost a law of nature! (Info theorists have been trying to link up thermodynamics and information for years, but at the moment it's just elegant conjecture)

Given this, I'd go towards finding minigames with defined spheres of effect that people can do while waiting, without dropping immersion, but with one player put in charge of keeping the limits and saying stop if it goes out of the region the GM can cope with. Interpersonal relationships between PCs are a good example, providing the GM hears about any big changes in people's motivations.

Thanks to everyone for the answers, and sorry for the laaaaate reply :P
What I'm going to post is more or less a testimony of what I've learned lately.
It can be discussed, but I'm not actually trying to make a point; I'm just writing down my thoughts so that I don't loose 'em, and it also helps me to fix them in a more comprehensible (to me) order ^_^

...

Some time has passed.
I got some more direct experience of how a good conflict-rez system could work.
And I did some more thinking.

My conclusion on this matter, for now, is that the "big deal" of secret-play is actually one single specific thing: surprise.
Not knowing stuff allows me to be caught by surprise as a person, so I feel something directly, so I feel more involved in the game.
But this is actually LESS realistic and immersive, because I may be a happy man and not notice your political scheming, thus being surprised when it hits me ... but my ruthless and seasoned vampire SHOULD (or at least COULD) notice/infer/guess your plots.
( and some players DO grief about this discrepancy :P )
So actually the whole point of this style of gaming is, to my personal understanding, to get surprised as a person.

And this is something that I strongly value, having tried  it first hand.
But...
To achieve this result you have to "pay" something ... you have to withstand some logistical problems.
Lots of extra work for the Meister...
Private gaming ... that in turn produces dead times for ALL the other players.
A noticeable slowing of the overall game.
Not to mention that it creates difficulties for some type of resolution mechanics, especially if they are conflict based.

So...
Weighting Pros and Cons, is this surprise effect worth the trouble?
I'll personally say "Yes" ... unless there is a viable alternative.

And that's were my new conflict-rez experience comes into play.
Let's take the good old "I lay a trap" example from before.

Traditionally this would cause trouble and embarrassment if the Players knew that "your character is prepping a trap against my character" ... for all the reasons explained in the previous posts.
But now I see an alternative way to solve this situation, that is actually satisfying for my local brand of players.
It took me some reading about Character Advocacy, Passionate Play, Conflict With Teeth and stuff like that ... but in the end I can see a way.
In short, I realized that a good Conf-Rez can effectively solve the situation, also allowing for a lot of satisfying manouvering and counter-manouvering, producing a much more interesting and colourful narrative ( even if the players don't give a crap about "telling a story" but only care for the interests of their characters! :D ) ... and in the end solving the "I lay a trap" problem.

"I lay a trap"
"I don't fall into it"
"But you might"
"But I also may not"
"...confllict..."

I am not surprised, because I know what you are doing.
But on the other hand the overall game experience should be improved and more fun.
So maybe the tradeoff won't be as bad as I initially feared :)

In the near future I'll try a game in the Vampire The Masquerade setting, using a rules system of this kind ... playing everything at the table, to see if this theory actually works ^_^
Let's hope for the best :)

Hi again, Alessandro!

How do you mean conflict resolution will solve it? Not quite getting what you mean?

I'm going to test this with my PsychoSys ruleset, so I will only have hands on facts in the near future (hopefully next Sunday) ... but my basic idea is:

You as a player know what is going to happen...there is a trap!
But the character ignores it.
Considering as an example my local brand of players, Traditional task based gameplay only offers 3 possible scenarios

1)
you care for your PC so you don't want him to fall in the trap, thus you will come up with excuses to not let him fall into the trap.
this is not satisfactory because you did not overcome any challenge ... in fact, by using out-game info to obtain an in-game advantage you may feel (and others may perceive you) like cheating.

2)
you don't care for your PC as much as you care for the overall outcome of the story, so you DO fall into the trap because it may produce more interesting events and consequences.
this is NOT a viable outcome because it won't ever ever happen with the stock of players I'm dealing with.

2b)
basically the same scenario: you chose to fall into the trap.
The difference lies in WHY you made such a choice, and the answer would be something like "peer pressure".
You take a hit in order to do the "fair thing" ... you show that you are not a cheater.
Very honorable, but in the end also very frustrating ... you are basically walking toward a funeral you do NOT desire, not because it was your fault, not because you made the PC act careless, not because a fellow player outsmarted you ... just because some sensible info was misplaced and you were forced to make a CHOICE that you feel you should not be in a position to make.

3)
It is all decided by a lame-ass dice roll.
The definition of "lame-ass" is not accidental.
Usually you get pages and pages of combat maneuvers, of health rules, of power lists, etc.
And, along with that, a more or less small paragraph that basically says "to do social stuff, roll Charisma ... otherwise try something Intelligence-ish"
So the future of your beloved PC will depend on an unadulterated fluke of luck.
It may be "fair" and it can be "acceprable" ... but it sure isn't satisfying, and it'll be even more frustrating if it happens on a regular basis.

...

This makes KNOWING not fun in a task-rez system.
So what about conflict-rez?
Well, with a nice Conflict-rez "with teeth" (meaning, as I understand it, thet you can try to influence the outcome of the basic conflict onece it has been established ... like the Extended Conflict of the Solar System) and an overall system to support it consistently you have a new option: you DO use the rules to solve this dilemma (do I fall into the trap?) but it is SATISFING to do so.
You get to try your best to save yourself.
You get to make strategical choices, apply creative thinking, bid your character's resources, hope for some degree of luck at the end of it all ... and your opposition will do just the same.
So when the final outcome has been decided all players will (should...I hope ^_^) feel satisfied.

And as a by-product you can actually produce an amazing story ... like in those movies/comics/books where you see a battle of wits (or whatever) between two main characters.
Maybe a player could make his PC "act" through some flashback-narration, adding preparations and moves and plots to his plan to lay the trap.
And maybe the other player could in turn make his PC "act" in real-time, conjuring exuses, detours, changes of plans, or maybe keen observations of some off-place details supposedly overlooked by the trap-planner.

The specifics will obviously depend on how the rules actually work.
But the basic idea is more or less this.

...

So, you DO give up the surprise effect ... and that's a definite loss.
But in exchange you should (I hope) end up with a better overall game experience, because:
- there are no dead-times
- everyone enjoys more content (his own, and the ones of the other players)
- you can more easily use Waveplay tecniques, opening up functional and enjoyable game-scenarios where the game works even if the PCs never ever meet each other
- the GM has a lot less work and bookkeeping to do
- you enable a different kind of surprise-effect, which works on "what will my fellow players come up with now???" ... I know it's not the same as "I am my PC, what will happen now???" but it's still something good and enjoyable that wasn't there when you played with secrets :P

Hey Alessandro,

I've been enjoying your struggle. I went through the exact same struggle myself about seven years ago. I arrived at a similar place. Different mechanics -- conflict resolution -- emphasize different elements of play. Certain elements are lost -- paranoia, shocking surprise -- but what's gained is better for the game. Exactly as you said, everyone is more engaged, there's more content and surprises still happen, but they are of a different quality.

Good luck!
-Luke

I'm not convinced. Granted, both "what will my fellow players come up with now" and "what will happen to my PC now" both provide their own kinds of surprise, it sounds like we're saying the original problem is intractable and sweeping it under the carpet.

I mostly agree with what everyone has said, but I don't think the idea of having players take over more responsibility in running the game world has been explored thoroughly enough. If you think about it, MOST of a GM's job can be done by a computer, and a few extra things by any player. Running the hack-victim monsters and tracking combat are so simple, they're done in MMOGs. Building and describing the locations and running life-like but unimportant NPCs can be done by any player.

So on that note, here's a suggestion: set up a game structure that allows MOST of it to be run by any player, and build it in such a way that the reigns of control can be passed over quickly and easily to another player. In addition to allowing other players to take control and therefore granting the DM more one-on-one time with individuals, it would also make the DM's job a lot easier when the group is all together.

Daniel

ShallowThoughts wrote: If you think about it, MOST of a GM's job can be done by a computer

Luke,

I think by 'most', it means there are many book keeping tasks a GM has to do, outside of getting to emotional cores. These are, currently, part of most traditional GM's jobs. And yet they can be automated because it's just book keeping. Thus freeing him up to focus more on the emotional core stuff.

Alessandro,

You get to make strategical choices, apply creative thinking, bid your character's resources, hope for some degree of luck at the end of it all ... and your opposition will do just the same.

Callan wrote:

You get to make strategical choices, apply creative thinking, bid your character's resources, hope for some degree of luck at the end of it all ... and your opposition will do just the same.

I'm thinking you see the potential for uncertainty and surprise in this process and that's what will satisfy your need for surprise. Or am I way off?