D&D General Character Swapping - How Much Player Agency

[Lanefan]

To address the one point that is less opinion, if someone is acting mysteriously, other players are rather incentivized to figure out what's going on. Secrets, at best, hold a decent chance of bringing complications and problems to the party, even if they are not so far as to be actively at cross purposes. If you are worried about party success and health, you shouldn't ignore them. However, because the other players lack any context for which possible direction it is going, they stand a terribly good chance of interacting with it in ways that are actively detrimental to the desired outcome and/or the enjoyment of the player.

That's a risk someone with secrets has to take, that those secrets might be acted on in ways unintended because they are secrets and others are acting in ignorance. Seems fairly realistic to me.

For example, if one of the PCs is actually a spy for the opposing faction then there's no way the other players should know that. In character they might get hints and clues that something is amiss if the spy character doesn't keep good cover, and out-of-character they might see the spy's player passing notes to the DM now and then (but we all do that anyway, a lot of the time), but that's it.

The idea of a "desired outcome" is IMO flawed from the start, particularly when different desired outcomes are in direct conflict. This is where the phrase "play to find out what happens" holds water, because as play develops there's no way of knowing who - if anyone - will get their desired outcome or anythng even close.

Intrigue will for the most part only last as long as the other players leave it alone, which is far more likely if they are aware OOC of what the general arc of it is.

I've found it can last for ages sometimes, until the other players learn about it at which point there's no intrigue any more.

You're also assuming the intrigue has an arc, which it doesn't always. One in-character secret I've seen done numerous times (and have done myself) is a character coming in as one class when in fact it is another, or has a second, hidden class. I once played a Druid-Thief as a Ranger and nobody ever caught on, even when I did things a Ranger in theory couldn't do.

Another one I've done as DM - long story as to why - is bring in a player's character as an NPC while the player brought in an NPC as if it was hers. That one was fun, went on for a year or so; and the reveal sure caused some jaws to drop around the table.

 

[Umbran]

That's a risk someone with secrets has to take, that those secrets might be acted on in ways unintended because they are secrets and others are acting in ignorance. Seems fairly realistic to me.

For example, if one of the PCs is actually a spy for the opposing faction then there's no way the other players should know that. In character they might get hints and clues that something is amiss if the spy character doesn't keep good cover, and out-of-character they might see the spy's player passing notes to the DM now and then (but we all do that anyway, a lot of the time), but that's it.

The idea of a "desired outcome" is IMO flawed from the start...

(..."you" in this post is generic, not directed at Lanefan...)

Personal opinion...

There should be one desired outcome for PC secrets - that they come out! Secrets are for revealing, in dramatic fashion.

If your character has a secret, and it never comes out, you know what you win? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! You win a participation trophy for being boring! There is no award given for coming up with a cool and interesting element to your character that nobody gets to interact with! If a secret is revealed in a forest, and there's nobody there to hear it - NOBODY CARES!

Unless you are specifically in a PvP game, then you should not be setting up the other players as antagonists - you cannot "win" by them not finding out your secrets. It does not make you clever or special to have toys you do not share with the rest of the class.

 

[Xamnam]

That's a risk someone with secrets has to take, that those secrets might be acted on in ways unintended because they are secrets and others are acting in ignorance. Seems fairly realistic to me.

For example, if one of the PCs is actually a spy for the opposing faction then there's no way the other players should know that. In character they might get hints and clues that something is amiss if the spy character doesn't keep good cover, and out-of-character they might see the spy's player passing notes to the DM now and then (but we all do that anyway, a lot of the time), but that's it.

The idea of a "desired outcome" is IMO flawed from the start, particularly when different desired outcomes are in direct conflict. This is where the phrase "play to find out what happens" holds water, because as play develops there's no way of knowing who - if anyone - will get their desired outcome or anythng even close.

Yep, to me, that sounds like a rather plausible path to potentially one or more or all players not having fun.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

It's utterly impossible to ignore something you know, when that something holds any relevance to anything. Once you know it, you can't un-know it.

It's amazing how often I get in an ENworld conversation and find out that I and a lot of people I've games with have actually been doing something impossible for years without thinking it was something special. Truly I must have encountered a plethora of miracle workers, who manage to keep IC and OOC knowledge separate even though it cannot be done.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's amazing how often I get in an ENworld conversation and find out that I and a lot of people I've games with have actually been doing something impossible for years without thinking it was something special. Truly I must have encountered a plethora of miracle workers, who manage to keep IC and OOC knowledge separate even though it cannot be done.

Not to interject, but I believe @Lanefan means on a subconscious level. Meaning, it can cause a bias in your thinking regarding player actions. I think taking his statement to the extreme doesn't help when trying to understand each other's sides.

 

[Umbran]

Not to interject, but I believe @Lanefan means on a subconscious level. Meaning, it can cause a bias in your thinking regarding player actions. I think taking his statement to the extreme doesn't help when trying to understand each other's sides.

So, the number of things that might be consciously or sub-consciously impacting the player away from acting strctly from teh character's vewpoint is... staggering.

So, the question is, among all that noise, how sure are we that the subconscious effect Lanefan refers to there is meaningful, in the context of all the stuff going on in the player.

And, how much is trying to stop is making perfect the enemy of good?

 

[AlViking]

The knowledge and skills that I have as a player are different than the knowledge and skills my PC has, and everyone I play with acknowledges that. I have no clue how to pick a lock, my rogue does. My rogue would have no idea what to do with a computer and occasionally in rare instances, I do. Since I DM and have for a long time I know the strengths and weaknesses of a lot of monsters yet I try to not let that change the decisions my PC makes, I may sometimes ask the DM what my PC knows.

So this idea that we "can't" separate out knowledge? I disagree. It will never be perfect of course but we all separate character knowledge and skills to some extent. In my game there are times when one player will have knowledge that other players do not but it's pretty rare. Sometimes it's appropriate and fun to give individual players secrets - we use discord for sharing images so I can also send secret texts - if for example they're in a haunted house and potentially possessed by a ghost. Last time I did it I sent a message to everyone telling them either that they had seen something out of the corner of their eyes and suspected someone could have been possessed or that they I had secretly rolled for them and indeed were possessed along with what to do. I was tempted to send the first one to everyone but I had already done something like that a while back.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I once read in Dragon magazine that the role of the Dungeon Master is to master "the careful dissemination of information."

At a convention game I had a Dungeon Master who decided to run an experiment addressing Out of Character knowledge. He started the game by laying out on the table the entire dungeon. We could see everything! Every secret door, hidden passage, and all entrances and exits.

I didn't like it. I don't think he did either. It's so funny to watch grown men dance and dally around a secret door they don't know is there, trying to come up with a plausible excuse as to why they would search that particular section of wall. Or, why they would search at all.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I once read in Dragon magazine that the role of the Dungeon Master is to master "the careful dissemination of information."

At a convention game I had a Dungeon Master who decided to run an experiment addressing Out of Character knowledge. He started the game by laying out on the table the entire dungeon. We could see everything! Every secret door, hidden passage, and all entrances and exits.

I didn't like it. I don't think he did either. It's so funny to watch grown men dance and dally around a secret door they don't know is there, trying to come up with a plausible excuse as to why they would search that particular section of wall. Or, why they would search at all.

Another extreme would be the time two of my Players' Characters decided to sneak out one night while the others were sleeping. We handled it online through a Play by Post.

It was a lot of fun and cool things happened, but man I sure wish the rest of the group got to experience it.

It happened again in the same campaign with a different Player's Character, but that time I insisted on sharing the transcripts with the rest of the group.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, the number of things that might be consciously or sub-consciously impacting the player away from acting strctly from teh character's vewpoint is... staggering.

So, the question is, among all that noise, how sure are we that the subconscious effect Lanefan refers to there is meaningful, in the context of all the stuff going on in the player.

And, how much is trying to stop is making perfect the enemy of good?

We aren't sure. But, we are sure it would be there if the player knew the information. And if the player doesn't know the information, then there is a better chance they will respond how they think their character would. It's not a crazy idea.

It goes back to the argument of whether a player should use their knowledge of the Monster Manual to increase the efficiency of their attacks. There are always three or four sides.

• No, they shouldn't.
• No, they shouldn't... unless of course it would be common knowledge throughout the world. (ex. Don't attack frost giants with cold.)
• Yes, but only if the DM agrees their character would know it from the world or their background or their culture/species.
• Yes.

Yet, what we are discussing is a bit more subtle, no? The fact that a player cannot be surprised if they know the secret. And yes, it can go all sorts of ways depending on the circumstances. We played a drow campaign years and years ago. Just three months, and for five levels. For the entire campaign I never used my magic missile, and it bothered the people in my group. I even allowed some baddies to escape. But when we got to the final fight against the drow faction we were trying to undermine, I switched sides. I explained everything I did to help them out and about letting them go and not killing them. This was a surprise to the players and the DM. Then, I sued my magic missile to kill the last player in the group, declaring, this is what it's used for. Everyone in the group still talks about it today, even though it was during the 4th edition era. They all were surprised, so it was a secret worth hiding - even from the DM.

That is an extreme example, and it is not one I would ever replicate for a long-term campaign. It was campaign specific (duh, drow), and it was with a group of friends who would love it. The same type of thing can be said of a DM holding a secret.