When a PC successfully makes a knowledge check or notices something with perception... do you tell that player privately, or announce it to the entire table? Is it assumed that everyone knows because the PC is assumed to tell everyone, or do you leave it to the PC in question to disseminate that info?
Both have their pros and cons -- leaving it all in the PCs hands is more immersive, especially if the player was the only one told the info and can relay it to others. But we've all been there when someone misinterprets a crucial detail or does not relay it properly or just decides to inexplicably hide key information from everyone else. Is it worth it?
It depends. If it is something that the PC would announce to the party anyway, if it's not critical that the info remain privy, or if my players are savvy enough to separate character and player knowledge, then it speeds play to announce the info publicly. I find that about 10-20% of info from such checks requires some discretion or private conversation.
If it is somthing that other characters wouldn't know, and should be kept back from the other players then I will slip a note, but generally I just announce it openly. If the player calls for a check openly then the results are given openly. If it is a check the player requested via note or something they know passively (the player didn't ask, I rolled a secret check) then I pass a note.
So the answer is "it varies".
Quote from: Madprofessor;1015218It depends. If it is something that the PC would announce to the party anyway, if it's not critical that the info remain privy, or if my players are savvy enough to separate character and player knowledge, then it speeds play to announce the info publicly. I find that about 10-20% of info from such checks requires some discretion or private conversation.
Why not just announce it and let the players handle private knowledge? Or do you think the risk of metagaming is too high?
Depends a lot on setting, type of campaign and rules, which faction(s) one represents, and personal agenda.
As example, a Pathfinder Society (global) campaign assumes you all cooperate no matter what, it doesn't even let you pick evil alignment due to this and information is meant to be shared among all players. I assume a Star Trek campaign would be similar if all characters are from the Federation, to a lesser degree also in Star Wars if all are rebels or Jedi.
In Vampire: The Masquerade all characters (especially if from different clans/groups) are likely to have their own secrets and goals, often opposite of what the other ones want. They might be rivals or secretly enemies and sharing information would be done after deliberation, if at all. Perhaps one of them even wishes to spread disinformation
Even in a mostly friendly campaign characters could have competitive cooperation. Think medieval nobles from the same realm who might fight alongside in a war for their king and country, but at the same time strive for the best lands/titles, trade agreements & routes, troops, ect they can get. Here some, but not full information sharing is once again likely.
A different setting, like from GRRM would see almost no info sharing even among members of the same family.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015215Is it worth it?
Sometimes.
Sometimes I've prepped notes ahead of time to hand to players to cover PC knowledge. If I do that, I will often prep multiple notes to hand out so it isn't obvious which player has what information since handing just one player a note tends to focus everyone else's attention on that player/PC. For short notes (prepped or impromptu) post-it notes are nice. I can stick them to my notes so they act as a reminder and when the player get's them they can stick the note to their notes so the note doesn't get lost. For longer information transfers I may take one player aside for a quick conversation.
Although in a perfect gaming world, I'd prefer to keep character knowledge separate, often times it just doesn't seem worth the effort and the time delay.
I very rarely keep such information private. The players are there in two capacities:
A. Participants
B. Audience
For participants, hiding such information at times can give a big payoff, at the expense of slowing down the game. If the payoff is big enough, I might go for it. However, I highly value players that separate character and player knowledge, and don't mind opportunities for new players to practice that skill.
For audience, it takes a lot of work to make hidden information payoff in any way--typically by revealing it sometime later when circumstances give it more punch. And you usually need some help from the players that get the information early to even have a shot at making that work.
Of course, it very much depends on the particular players and the type of information. Some players naturally gravitate towards cultivating hidden information in ways that drive a good game, but I think the type is relatively rare.
My default is public information. The only time I'll keep Knowledge-type info private is if there's a potential PvP situation within the party. Occasionally, I also deliver information privately if it seems more dramatic for the player to divulge it themselves, in-character to their fellow players.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1015278I very rarely keep such information private. The players are there in two capacities:
A. Participants
B. Audience
That's a good analysis. :)
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015241Why not just announce it and let the players handle private knowledge? Or do you think the risk of metagaming is too high?
Players in my sessions have no problem handling private knowledge that's announced. I don't want to deal with halting role-play to pass notes around. If a player does metagame knowing such info that their character doesn't know, that person is banned from future sessions. They ignored the social contract they agreed to.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1015294If a player does metagame knowing such info that their character doesn't know, that person is banned from future sessions. They ignored the social contract they agreed to.
Isn't that a bit harsh? Sometimes it can be difficult keeping metagame knowledge separate when Knowledge lore is shared openly. Are your players required to specifically announce that their characters are sharing information with the others, or can it ever just be assumed that they do? Do you keep track of who's shared info with who?
Generally I announce it publicly; Steven's cogent observation covers why.
Sometimes -- not often -- I'll slip a note if I think that's the right way, especially if the player's asked me secretly for a check. As far as "halting roleplay" to do so, sheesh, I halt it for a lot longer than it takes to write a note to hit the bathroom or put the kettle back on, so I'm not seeing where that's an onerous thing.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015215But we've all been there when someone misinterprets a crucial detail or does not relay it properly or just decides to inexplicably hide key information from everyone else.
Part of the price of doing business, don't you think? If a player chooses to withhold information to which his PC is solely privy, that's his privilege. If he misinterprets it or doesn't relay it properly, then he does. These shouldn't be any more correctable through metagaming than any other facet of information.
Every group is different and what works for one may fail miserably for another. And that can even change depending on the style of campaign or even the tone desired.
Its up to the individual DM to judge if the players can handle it or not.
Personally if its something only a single player would know at the moment and its not something the PC would naturally warn everyone about then I hand them a note and let them decide to divulge or not rather than taking that decision and role play option away from them.
Quote from: Ravenswing;1015321Generally I announce it publicly; Steven's cogent observation covers why.
Sometimes -- not often -- I'll slip a note if I think that's the right way, especially if the player's asked me secretly for a check. As far as "halting roleplay" to do so, sheesh, I halt it for a lot longer than it takes to write a note to hit the bathroom or put the kettle back on, so I'm not seeing where that's an onerous thing.
Part of the price of doing business, don't you think? If a player chooses to withhold information to which his PC is solely privy, that's his privilege. If he misinterprets it or doesn't relay it properly, then he does. These shouldn't be any more correctable through metagaming than any other facet of information.
Well, re: halting roleplay, I mean the scenarios where the player in question has a tone of private things to ask or wants to follow up, and then it turns into a long back and forth. That or you can't give them the info they need.
Generally open. Rarely, in private if it's possible that not knowing is likely to make the situation more interesting/entertaining.
Yep, it depends on the circumstances, players, and the particular information. I tend to "scan" for information that it might be interesting to only tell to the players whose characters notice/recognize it, and/or that their characters have a reason to withhold, or that the separation of characters in one way or another means it would add interesting separation of knowledge to withhold.
But that also takes time, and usually there is an agreement (which with the people I've played with often goes without saying) that everyone roleplays the limited knowledge that their character has, which enables the GM to say a lot of things that not everyone would know about, without the other players acting on things their characters don't know.
In rare cases where someone does do something taking advantage of what they know that their PC doesn't, the GM can intervene to veto a move/action that's clearly using OOC information.
I have been fortunate lately and have been playing with people who do well at separating player knowledge from character knowledge, even to their character's detriment. Once in a while I might have to remind someone that her character wasn't present and wouldn't know something unless/until someone informs her. They take it graciously and we just rewind a second and move on from there. So passing notes back and forth is a waste of my time for the nonce. Even in Flashing Blades where the PCs might have skeletons in their closets from character generartion, players knowing other PCs' secrets was never a problem. I would use note-passing or talking in another room if I had a good reason to do so, but I'd prefer not to do so if it is at all avoidable.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015330Well, re: halting roleplay, I mean the scenarios where the player in question has a tone of private things to ask or wants to follow up, and then it turns into a long back and forth. That or you can't give them the info they need.
Mmm, but in the first instance, how would that differ from any other situation where a player seeks to monopolize the GM's time, and why wouldn't the GM use the same methods to prevent that as any other? In the second instance, again, how would that differ from a publicly revealed information check? If I didn't have the info to hand to write onto a note, I wouldn't have it to speak out loud either.
Quote from: Ravenswing;1015371Mmm, but in the first instance, how would that differ from any other situation where a player seeks to monopolize the GM's time, and why wouldn't the GM use the same methods to prevent that as any other? In the second instance, again, how would that differ from a publicly revealed information check? If I didn't have the info to hand to write onto a note, I wouldn't have it to speak out loud either.
Because in public it's OK since the entire table is at least getting something out of it.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015382Because in public it's OK since the entire table is at least getting something out of it.
If I have no information to give out, then they aren't in fact getting anything out of it.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;1015317Isn't that a bit harsh? Sometimes it can be difficult keeping metagame knowledge separate when Knowledge lore is shared openly. Are your players required to specifically announce that their characters are sharing information with the others, or can it ever just be assumed that they do? Do you keep track of who's shared info with who?
Shawn is so anti-social I doubt his statements reflect RL play, unless they are allowed to play D&D in maximum security prison. :eek:
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015215When a PC successfully makes a knowledge check or notices something with perception... do you tell that player privately, or announce it to the entire table? Is it assumed that everyone knows because the PC is assumed to tell everyone, or do you leave it to the PC in question to disseminate that info?
Both have their pros and cons -- leaving it all in the PCs hands is more immersive, especially if the player was the only one told the info and can relay it to others. But we've all been there when someone misinterprets a crucial detail or does not relay it properly or just decides to inexplicably hide key information from everyone else. Is it worth it?
I pass around secret IC info in emails. Very effective, means I can deal quick notes from my laptop with minimal effort. Many times, I'll simply take my own notes and CC the players I want to have the info. Of course, there's traditional post-it notes and napkin scrawlings but other than that, totally down for it.
You know what? I had a situation in my NYC-based Requiem campaign years back where one of the players (who actually ended up creating a total man-child char for Promethean later on -- uuurrghhh...) used metainfo to stop an elevator ride for another PC who was supposed to ride it up to a given floor. They'd taken info from another players IC scene and metagamed to stop the elevator. When they got confronted (during the fucking game...), they played it of as "oh, I have a feeling about it. Like really, a feeling". Affected player was pissssssed. And it's not like it would have ended well for her PC had she made it to that floor but it was fact that she was denied that opportunity -- that
experience -- to roleplay that rightly caused her to be pissed. I had to do a fucking intervention "talk" with my players the very next session to squash all the feelings from it. That taught me another valuable lesson about players.
Quote from: joriandrake;1015247Depends a lot on setting, type of campaign and rules, which faction(s) one represents, and personal agenda.
As example, a Pathfinder Society (global) campaign assumes you all cooperate no matter what, it doesn't even let you pick evil alignment due to this and information is meant to be shared among all players. I assume a Star Trek campaign would be similar if all characters are from the Federation, to a lesser degree also in Star Wars if all are rebels or Jedi.
In Vampire: The Masquerade all characters (especially if from different clans/groups) are likely to have their own secrets and goals, often opposite of what the other ones want. They might be rivals or secretly enemies and sharing information would be done after deliberation, if at all. Perhaps one of them even wishes to spread disinformation
Even in a mostly friendly campaign characters could have competitive cooperation. Think medieval nobles from the same realm who might fight alongside in a war for their king and country, but at the same time strive for the best lands/titles, trade agreements & routes, troops, ect they can get. Here some, but not full information sharing is once again likely.
A different setting, like from GRRM would see almost no info sharing even among members of the same family.
Just wanted to say "awwwh cut sig!"
Also, Vampire campaigns (Requiem, no idea about Masquerade) NEVER work out like that with small groups (say "standard" 3-5). It always ends up being dark super friends. Its really crazy when you get 10+ people at a table, though. Then that clique-y aspect of people kicks in and then you start having 2-3 sides on your godamm table and then there's really a reason for them to withhold info, especially once the PCs are roughly halfway through the EXP double digits. It's fantastic. Shit is cutthroat, you have to reel it in with dice rolls for players who aren't naturally checking for interpersonal politics like that.
Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;1015284My default is public information. The only time I'll keep Knowledge-type info private is if there's a potential PvP situation within the party. Occasionally, I also deliver information privately if it seems more dramatic for the player to divulge it themselves, in-character to their fellow players.
I've had actual raging arguments break out over this shit. And I absolutely condone it, especially RP-wise.
Quote from: Voros;1015416Shawn is so anti-social I doubt his statements reflect RL play, unless they are allowed to play D&D in maximum security prison. :eek:
Some of these people on this forum I swear have only ever dealt with like one circle of players. I just cannot understand some of these opinions:they are not based in
any objective reality of how players are in aggregate.
Quote from: Ravenswing;1015321As far as "halting roleplay" to do so, sheesh, I halt it for a lot longer than it takes to write a note to hit the bathroom or put the kettle back on, so I'm not seeing where that's an onerous thing.
Depends on how many trips it takes and how long each trip is, not so? :D
Quote from: Ravenswing;1015385If I have no information to give out, then they aren't in fact getting anything out of it.
I'm talking about when someone wants info, and you answer, then they want more info, and you answer, then they have a question about something they can do with that info, and you answer, etc.
If it's a public piece of knowledge, at least it's something the entire party can use.
If it's private and you have to stop GMing the game to write out a note for like 2 minutes back and forth it makes everyone else sit there and wait and kills momentum.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1015433You know what? I had a situation in my NYC-based Requiem campaign years back where one of the players (who actually ended up creating a total man-child char for Promethean later on -- uuurrghhh...) used metainfo to stop an elevator ride for another PC who was supposed to ride it up to a given floor. They'd taken info from another players IC scene and metagamed to stop the elevator. When they got confronted (during the fucking game...), they played it of as "oh, I have a feeling about it. Like really, a feeling". Affected player was pissssssed. And it's not like it would have ended well for her PC had she made it to that floor but it was fact that she was denied that opportunity -- that experience -- to roleplay that rightly caused her to be pissed. I had to do a fucking intervention "talk" with my players the very next session to squash all the feelings from it. That taught me another valuable lesson about players.
What did you learn? How did you deal with that going forward? Because it's happened to me before too.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015445What did you learn? How did you deal with that going forward? Because it's happened to me before too.
My lesson was these two profound words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnbabIIPbNU&t=38m19s
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015444If it's private and you have to stop GMing the game to write out a note for like 2 minutes back and forth it makes everyone else sit there and wait and kills momentum.
Hrm. Sorry if a two minute pause in continual narrative destroys your momentum. It doesn't for me. (Which given the aforementioned bathroom and tea-making breaks, never mind
lunch break, is just as well.)
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015215When a PC successfully makes a knowledge check or notices something with perception... do you tell that player privately, or announce it to the entire table? Is it assumed that everyone knows because the PC is assumed to tell everyone, or do you leave it to the PC in question to disseminate that info?
Normally, I just announce it to the group.
However, if the player has mentioned to me that their PC is looking for something particular and wants to keep it from the party, then I mention it in secret. Similarly, if I know the PC has a hidden/secret agenda, then I might mention something in secret.
I'm OK with secrets within reason, but generally it's better for tablegame flow to announce most things openly. One can waste a lot of time say passing notes about essentially trivial information. It's boring. Those two minutes per note really adds up to an impressive sum total of wasted time.
Depends on the nature of the information and the trust levels I have with the table. I have no reason to sabotage my players with needless temptation when I know from experience some cannot handle it. But sometimes the stakes are so low it's good practice to learn restraint.
Also relying on another player to relay information is a great method to encourage paying attention, taking notes, and communicating effectively (IC or OOC). Not for every bit of information, but a good skill to build up in general. It even has massive dividends in real life. :D
In most games I'll tell the information publicly, to the player. My other players being mature enough to handle it and not metagame if the Player's Character doesn't share that information.
The exception is games like Amber or Lords Of Olympus where the PCs might be antagonistic to each other, and secrets are a very important part of the campaign.