RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Lanefan]

As I understand it the question relates how to deliver this information as in-character information. A NPC might tell the characters the will is there, but if that is all that is established, that doesn't guarantee that the will actually is there. The NPC could be mistaken/lying.

Indeed; and if that perhaps-erroneous information is all the characters (and thus, players) have to work with, then that info isn't necessarily setting or over-writing the binding myth which is and yet remains in the GM's notes.

But of course if we are fine with the GM delivering meta information and the players acting on it, then such an issue is easily averted.

And there's where this whole thing completely falls apart for me as a way to run/play an immersive game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Indeed; and if that perhaps-erroneous information is all the characters (and thus, players) have to work with, then that info isn't necessarily setting or over-writing the binding myth which is and yet remains in the GM's notes.

And there's where this whole thing completely falls apart for me as a way to run/play an immersive game.

It cuts the opposite way for me. I find the web of non-information, and even lack of meta-information, to be the immersion killer. Like, the trad sort of definition of immersion to me is nice in theory, but it never exists in practice IME.

 

[clearstream]

Careful though! If a player 'wins' some piece of knowledge like this, and doesn't put it at stake (IE see @pemerton's example from BW play earlier) then 'yanking away' their fairly won gains is not really fair play. So, for instance, you COULD subvert something in DW as a hard move, but that assumes the players open themselves up to such a move, and at least implies that there's some linkage between their actions and the thing being subverted.

A hard version of Reveal an Unwelcome Truth say.

 

[Lanefan]

Thoth had failed his careful surgery test to heal the Lady Mina. No one at the table particularly cared about Mina, who was just a plot device to bring Thoth out of his workshop, and into the same scene as Father Simon. So I didn't establish a consequence that pertained to her; rather, I established a consequence that pertained to Thoth's prolonged absence from his workshop: his captive, George, had regained consciousness and escaped.

In the fiction, of course, Thoth does not know that George has escaped. So it would be poor play for Thoth's player to declare actions that would only make sense if his fictional position included Thoth knows that George has escaped the workshop.

On this we agree.

There is no formal process to "enforce" this - it's about etiquette and good taste.

Well, there is a way to enforce this, and that's not to give the players information their characters cannot know. This saves the players both from having to worry about whether they're violating that good taste/etiquette piece or not and from having to compartmentalize player knowledge and character knowledge, the latter of which IME a great many (often-casual) players simply can't - or in some cases won't - do.

On the other hand, it would be excellent play for Thoth's player to declare actions, or suggest consequences, that ironically play upon George's escape, or that create the potential for cascading consequences down the line. This makes the fiction more amusing and more compelling for everyone.

If he does this intentionally he's still (ab)using player knowledge that the character doesn't have. Even though the end result is a greater level of entertainment at the table, IMO those ends don't justify the means.

Two discussions of this that I know of in RPG books are from Over the Edge and Maelstrom Storytelling:

From "The Literary Edge" (an essay by Robin Laws, on p 193 of my 20th anniversary edition):​

​

Think of all your actions as GM as literary devices. . . . When viewing role-playing as an art-form, rather than a game, it becomes less important to keep from the players things their characters wouldn't know. When characters separate, you can "cut" back and forth between scenes involving different characters, making each PC the focus of his own individual sub-plot. This technique has several benefits. First, it allows players to develop characters toward their goals without having to subsume them to the demands of the "party" as a whole. Secondly, it quickens the pace, allowing players to think while their characters are "off-screen", cutting down on dead time in which players thrash over decisions. When a character reaches an impasse, or an important climax, the GM can then "cut" to another character, giving the first player a chance to mentally regroup. Finally, the device is entertaining for players out of the spotlight, allowing them to sit back and enjoy the adventures of the others' characters.​

​

The price of this is allowing players access to information known to PCs other than their own. But it's simple enough to rule out of play any actions they attempt based on forbidden knowledge. This doesn't mean there will be a shortage of mystery. Any OTE GM will still have secrets to spare. In fact, by allowing the number of sub-plots to increase, the GM is introducing even more questions the players will look forward to seeing answered.​

It's too bad Robin Laws doesn't post here, as I'd like to raise a lot of issues with this passage; mostly revolving around his underlying (and IMO/IME erroneous) assumption that players both can and will consistently separate and compartmemtalize player knowledge and character knowledge when those knowledges differ.

And sure, some players can do this, and do it very well. Those players are, however, greatly in the minority; which makes it seem rather odd that anyone would design games based on this premise.

 

[FrogReaver]

The GM can simply convey the information without any resolution mechanics being engaged. "You see the building is on fire!" This seems pretty binding, and generally it would be pretty weird for the GM to deceive a player with such an utterance. I suppose an illusion spell might be such an instance, but then there probably WOULD be some mechanics involved in that.

To see the building on fire the players had to have their pc’s physically go to the location to see it. Thats what you all call map and key play and its not something the DM can actively control.

Seems a stretch to call this ‘actively revealing’. Or if it is then basically all of d&d play functions by actively revealing.

 

[clearstream]

It cuts the opposite way for me. I find the web of non-information, and even lack of meta-information, to be the immersion killer. Like, the trad sort of definition of immersion to me is nice in theory, but it never exists in practice IME.

I've heard TTRPGers testify to a difference in the feeling of immersion. It's possible that picking up the habits is training the brain to new things, leading to greater self-consciousness in the moment. Or it might be that seamless time in character produces a different quality of experience than anything involving framing, flashbacks or cuts. (By quality I refer to nature, not superiority.)

Perhaps the better point is - it's reasonable to suppose there's something folk value that differentiates their preferred play for them. That's not really answered by testifying to one's own preferences.

 

[Lanefan]

Commitments attach to diegetic disclosures such that asserting X sans caveats justifies reliance on X.

GM: "Tommy tells you they straight-up saw the Supervillain put the Will into the safe before they left for Frankfurt last night."​

​

The right person said the right thing at the right time, so it's added to fiction without further negotiation. By contrast

GM: "Tommy kind of squirms and tells you they saw the Supervillain put the Will into the safe... just before they left for Frankfurt. Umm, that's right... must have been last night. Yeah, last night. For sure."​

​

It is (in whatever way is effective at your table) squarely signalled that Tommy's testimony is unreliable, an effective caveat. This could be reasonable where locating the Will was going to be interesting. Such as - the Supervillains MO is traps and ambushes, set up by dupes. Are you really going to walk into one for the Nth time?

Absence of caveats up front doesn't necessarily prevent twists between now and cracking the safe, but such twists will themselves be disclosed. Not hidden. So the way in which it is "binding" is, provided nothing changes it between now and such time as player puts it at stake. Given nothing changed it, it's still reliable. And hidden changes are not permitted. (Intuitively, exceptions are always going to be possible, given the boundless scope and versality of imagination. Maybe a special circumstance comes up where it works out for information to be hidden?! If it did, we could probably analyse it to derive a principle.)

There's also the factor of time. Yes Tommy might legitimately have seen the Supervillain put the Will into the safe before leaving for Frankfurt and thus is telling the complete truth as he knows it, but in-game that was three days ago. There's no way of knowing whether the Will is still there now, or who else might have had access - legitimate or otherwise! - to that safe in the meantime; and this leaves the door open for the GM to introduce complications later if-when the Will isn't found there (e.g. someone has taken the Will to a lawyer's office for notarizing and copying, or someone else has stolen it before the PCs got there, etc.).

 

[clearstream]

There's also the factor of time. Yes Tommy might legitimately have seen the Supervillain put the Will into the safe before leaving for Frankfurt and thus is telling the complete truth as he knows it, but in-game that was three days ago. There's no way of knowing whether the Will is still there now, or who else might have had access - legitimate or otherwise! - to that safe in the meantime; and this leaves the door open for the GM to introduce complications later if-when the Will isn't found there (e.g. someone has taken the Will to a lawyer's office for notarizing and copying, or someone else has stolen it before the PCs got there, etc.).

You can read it that way, but that's taking the examples in rather bad faith. In the first, GM conveys honesty. In the second, duplicity. In neither is GM deceiving the players around the table.

OTOH I agree the door to amendments cannot be closed. I've said that a few times now. Commitments may be stronger or weaker, but none are irrevocably binding.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's too bad Robin Laws doesn't post here, as I'd like to raise a lot of issues with this passage; mostly revolving around his underlying (and IMO/IME erroneous) assumption that players both can and will consistently separate and compartmemtalize player knowledge and character knowledge when those knowledges differ.

And sure, some players can do this, and do it very well. Those players are, however, greatly in the minority; which makes it seem rather odd that anyone would design games based on this premise.

We clearly have different experience. I think the problem is when you have a player/GM structure where the GM curates and the players exercise purely in character knowledge and authority, then the players will habitually push to occupy every bit of authority space they can get, but the same players actually, IME, can easily exercise narrative authority for ends other than simply exploiting every situation. I mean, I'm sure there are SOME players who might not do well in this different role of course, but most will be fine.

 

[pemerton]

@FrogReaver

I am still puzzled by your questions and puzzlement. I posted a list of examples from BW play not very far upthread; I'm not sure if you read that post.

If the game includes principles such as drive toward conflict and actively reveal your prepped fiction in play and if the players want information, and nothing is at stake, then give it to them, then the players learn their fictional position by the GM telling them things in the various sorts of ways that I described upthread.

If you want to call the players' knowledge that those principles apply a meta-channel, well that's up to you. I don't see it as being very "meta" for the GM to (eg) tell a player what a NPC says to them, and to refrain from providing any cues that that information is false.