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 ?

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

In 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.

Thierry Michel wrote: 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) ?

clehrich wrote: 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.

player tactics are revealed in reverse initiative order.

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

On Shadows in the Fog, Thierry Michel wrote: Do you provide in-game incentive for players to discover each others' secret ?

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

clehrich wrote: 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).

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.

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

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

Thierry Michel wrote: 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).

Le Joueur wrote: So we've been thinking a lot about 'secrets' recently.

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

Thierry Michel wrote: My assumptions come from this constraint: can a player gain new secrets in play if they are to be kept hidden from the GM?

I really think we're getting a bit over-specific about this idea of "secrecy." If it's valuable to specify, we've got to have a number of categories, not keep implicitly redefining "secret" each post.

For example, Thierry is thinking about the issue of secret-revealing effecting closure for a character. It happens, quite a lot, and it's often deliberate. You construct a character of whatever sort around a particular secret, and that character climaxes -- and then burns out -- when the secret is revealed. But if you can just happily construct secrets right and left as a Director Stance thing, then you can readily construct a "fact" or a new revealed secret that invalidates the secret someone else has been working on for months. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Certainly I'd agree with Fang that a secret that never comes out and never influences play is no fun. But that's your own problem: you have to make the secret relevant (assuming the GM doesn't actually block this). That way when it gets revealed, everyone will respond with a satisfied, "Ohhh, so thaaats why!"

So if this sort of thing is going to be fun, you have to delay and hint for quite a while. But in the meantime, if everyone can invent anything he or she wants, you can get your careful setup destroyed in front of you.

The basic distinctions I'd draw are (1) buildup and hinting, and (2) aftermath. As in, do either or both of these things matter?

1. Secret with no buildup and no aftermath: spring-loaded monster in cellar. Boingg! Arrgh! Whackety-whack fight fight crunch. Fun, but really pointless if done often.

2. Secret with buildup but no aftermath: murder mystery, whodunnit? Once you know the answer for sure, the mystery is over. The buildup is the whole finding out part.

3. Secret with no buildup but a lot of aftermath: "Luke, I am your father." There's minimal warning for this, so the whole shtick happens afterward.

4. Secret with buildup and aftermath: after a lengthy search, the PCs work out (1) that there's a monster in the basement, and (2) how it got there; they track it down, and kill it --- only to discover that all those hints and whatnot that they have figured out were missing one vital clue, and now they realize that the monster is actually the twin brother of a member of the party. But the party goes on, with everyone always looking over his/her shoulder, and the party-member necessarily always trying to prove that really he's on the right side, and so forth.

As far as I'm concerned, any secret with much buildup should not be undermined, however accidentally -- that needs to be prevented. Any suggestions, apart from letting the GM hold all the strings?

Well, one can build up to an unknown secret. That is, events can be determined that give partial information about what something is without anyone actually knowing what the secret is. Then, at a critical moment, the nature of the secret can be invented on the spot.

Such a secret cannot be undermined, as it's nature is determined by whatever leads up to it. This is exactly what happens openly in InSpectres. The players add a bit of data in research. They invent equipment that turns out to be uesful or not. They add information on successes looking around for stuff in the field. Eventually the picture starts to resolve until at some point, somebody just decides what a cool secret would be that fits all the facts, at which point they "reveal" it.

Universalis is entirely that way. You never expect anything that's happening, despite the fact that you are making it up. Because even as you decide something, it's being made on the most recent information. And you surprise yourself with what you've come up with. This was the weirdest thing we discovered playtesting the game. The effect was itself unexpected (by me at least). I created a beastie called a Dragonthane in a game a few nights ago. No idea where I got that (anyone think of a place where the term is used)? A total surprise that such a creature was behind one of the plots going on.

So, Chris, all I can see are these two methods. Either one player holds the power to maintain an objective universe, and therefore can "protect" secret information decided up front, or the information must be created on the spot (and a good Illusionist GM can make the second look like the first if he wants to). I can't really see any other ways of accomplishing this; but then again, maybe I'm just not trying hard enough. :-)


Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, one can build up to an unknown secret. That is, events can be determined that give partial information about what something is without anyone actually knowing what the secret is. Then, at a critical moment, the nature of the secret can be invented on the spot.