Sharing Information

[Tun Kai Poh]

I have seen it happen a lot. If the group is cool with secrets, then go about the secret keeping (detailed notes help). But it should be part of your group's social contract and it's worth taking a moment to discuss. The GM taking aside a player can then be a really dramatic and memorable moment.

Amen. Consensual PVP and intrigue can work really well. Everyone just has to be on the same page ahead of time.

 

[RolemasterBlog]

I have had this happen once and the characters being completely stymied in which way to go resorted to employing outside spell casters to try and learn something about how to progress. I then used that to get hints and suggestions to the party.

 

[GMMichael]

...the next phase of the campaign assumes...

You know what happens when you assume. Especially when players are involved.

It's not a problem, though. If a PC knows it, an(other) NPC can know it too. If you're a student of J. J. Abrams, you can make any plot twist happen.

 

[iserith]

If you absolutely need information to get into the player's hands to make your plot work, leaving it up to chance or to a player to disseminate is folly in my view. Another good reason to avoid plot-based games like this if you can.

 

[Shiroiken]

Both?

There have been times when I communicated information that the PC only would know, and it fit his character's overall plans not to fully share the information. But that was unusual, in that in that game every character had secrets from each other to see how that kind of game worked for us. It was both fun, and sometimes not.

Mostly my players have shared all the info they had. And, while I feel that one of the biggest issues with fiction is how stupid the characters are for not sharing stuff they should, there are probably times when it makes sense in the fiction not to.

Agreed. It really depends on the players and the campaign. I've run a political game where the party had split loyalties (plus one guy out for himself), and secret information and backstabbing was common. This was an experienced group that could handle that kind of play. The only thing that went bad was the one time the backstabbing wasn't metaphorical (I had zero method of introducing a new PC, because there wasn't supposed to be ANY chance of death...), and I had the bring the campaign to a conclusion.

In most campaigns, my players will share relevant plot information with each other willingly. We seldom, if ever, have hidden information away from the group. Those who do not know something will not act on that information until they're informed. If plot point information hasn't been shared, and is suddenly relevant, people usually point it out to the player (who then shares the information).

 

[pemerton]

I've played games in which PCs keep secrets and so do players. And games like @Razjah describes where the PCs keep secrets but the players are in the know. And games, like my current Traveller game, where there are no real secrets because the play doesn't focus on individual characters very much.

Another permutation of this, less often discussed, is players (one or more) keeping secrets from the GM. I always find this amusing when it eventually comes to light!

 

[aramis erak]

Have you ever seen a player refuse to share plot-relevant information? Like, their PC is the only one who witnessed the thing, the next phase of the campaign assumes that the party acts on that information, but the PC chooses to sit on the info?

Yes, Yes,

Is it a mistake on a GM's part to give that kind of insight to a single player rather than the whole group, or is it good form for a player to share knowledge?

Yes, it's a GM's mistake. Yes, it's good form for a player to share knowledge... as long as the character isn't clearly written as one who wouldn't.

I don't hide information from the players, but will remind when their Character doesn't know but acts upon that known unknown.

 

[Ulfgeir]

Depends on why they are doing it.

Sometimes it is the player being a jerk, but it can also be that their character has motives of their own, for how they deal with that information. The latter part will often lead to more drama and more interesting stories.

Example: in the Dresden File campaign I played in. my character became romantically involved with what was planned as the campaigns Big Bad. She learned through a soulgaze (and subsequent talk) that her girlfriend was an 700 year old witch who took over other bodies (and gained memories from said person). She obviously did not mention that to the other characters, as she didn't want anything bad to happen to her girlfriend (yes, my character might have subtly been enthralled). I even helped her acquire a new body when her family started hunting her for leaving them. All the players were aware of these and other things, but their characters were not.

So if it is vital for the campaign that the players act on said information, have more than one person witness it, or have an npc that they trust come to them for help, and bring it up that way.

 

[Blue]

I've had players not realize information was important, so they didn't give it to other players. I've rarely had one keep it secret on purpose. But something that is "obviously" important with the omniscience of the DM isn't always to the players.

It's natural (and not a DM mistake) that sometimes characters will be doing different things and one or a subset of characters is privy to something. Or even that only the high-Insight cleric notices that an NPC gets anxious when a different NPC is mentioned in a group conversation, but doesn't remember to mention it to the others when they later have a chance to speak privately.

Now, I try to go for three clues for anything important, so that doesn't stop things. But I'm failable, and the idea behind the three clues is that the players may not realize what they have with it just coming up once - so they may still not notice if for some characters it only comes up once.

shrug We work with it.

 

[jasper]

Well, we should probably consider why the player is being a jackass...

I.....

Nope. Nope. Nope. If player isn't sharing info, I just tell the rest of group that Umbran let slip the information. Or give the information to the other members. If Umbran gets tick off and leaves the group good.
Repeat after me gamers.
Life is too short to play with jerks.
Life is too short to have jerks ruin our fun.
I will not play with jerks.