-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Metagame Collusion
- Thread starter Thasmodious
- Start date
Thasmodious
First Post
That's interesting. Even any PCs with hidden identities and secret agendas that run contrary to those of the party at large? Do you find that the added fun of letting everyone in on it from the beginning outweighs the loss of the "big reveal" scene or the surprise for the others as the truth unfolds?
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I share pemerton's preferences on keeping it mainly open. I like it better for two reasons:
1. The player knowing things that the character does not makes roleplaying easier, at least at our table. No big reveal can possibly compete with spiced up roleplaying, for each player, compounded over the life of the story arc.
2. On the other hand, the big reveals that remain are even better! First, they aren't necessarily expected. In a normal "secret" game, people are sometimes surpised by the details of the reveal, but they aren't surprised that there is a reveal. Second, I can leave, say, 5 or 6 potential big reveals out on the table, like the Purloined letter. The players will catch onto some right away, which makes them feel clever. And then the ones that last until the "reveal" seems "big" pack an even bigger punch.
I like to run with a lot of "secrets", but the idea is that they will be uncovered. The practice is that some of them will not. That is enough to manage without handling what the players hide from each other. I can be clever and work really hard, and get a surprise. Or I can use lots of stuff, some of which will surprise, and let human nature of the players do all the work.
Using the latter techniques are the only times I have rendered players practically speechless. "Waah ... (mouth open) ... (quite voice) ... but it was laying out there all that time, and you never gave it away ... how ..." Easy, I just let you guys distract yourself with all that other stuff that you knew about but the characters did not.
All that said, if a player requests that something be kept secret about their character so that they can do a big reveal--or a gradual one--or just seem mysterious, then I'll work with them. This happens infrequently enough to not be a hassle, and the atmosphere described above makes it not stand out too much. I'll sometimes pass secret notes to a player that says something like, "Do not reveal the contents of this note. Look nervous."
For me, it's partially to do with the content of the "secret agendas". Rarely are these of the planted-here-by-the-evil-overlord-to-spy-on-the-party variety. More often, they're competing allegiances and interests which from time to time create intraparty tensions about how to make particular decisions, while also creating a longer-term threat (and often the threat is more interesting, for play, than its realisation) of more radically conflicting goals.
One of the more extreme examples, from years ago now, was when one PC hired a half-dozen crossbowmen to ambush another group of PCs while they were returning from town to the villa where the party was staying. That was a fairly dramatic event - and cause not only intraparty friction but friction between players - but I didn't feel any urge to keep it secret. In fact, by having the hiring of the assassins be open at the table, I think it helped manage the social dynamics a bit better, by letting everyone in on the "joke" that the hiring of the assassins was.
In practice, I find that table dynamics will often work to keep things semi-secret in any event - if one player is telling me about a PC's background or goals, it's pretty natural for the other players to switch off or talk among themselves about something else in the game. So they might have a general sense of something being up, but only switch onto the details when it becomes salient.
And every now and then, when a secret involves something that I've introduced into the game as a GM, then I will take the relevant player aside and mention to them what their PC notices/realises. It's then up to them how much they want to share. And if any player told me that they wanted their secret to be treated in a similar fashion I'd be happy to. But most of the time that doesn't come up.
The effect of this approach is to increase the influence of metagaming on play - for example, every now and then the players will push events in a direction that is more likely to provoke another player's PC's secret agenda. But for me that's a good thing - it means the game stays more focused on what's relevant for those at the table. And I do this sort of pushing as well - and it's much easier and fun for me to just be able to do this at the table, pushing the player of the demonskin adept or the emerging Vecna worshipper without feeling that I'm doing the wrong thing in not keeping the PC's secret a secret from the players.
For those who hate metagaming, or want a stricter in-character immsersive game, then probably this approach wouldn't work as well.
One of the more extreme examples, from years ago now, was when one PC hired a half-dozen crossbowmen to ambush another group of PCs while they were returning from town to the villa where the party was staying. That was a fairly dramatic event - and cause not only intraparty friction but friction between players - but I didn't feel any urge to keep it secret. In fact, by having the hiring of the assassins be open at the table, I think it helped manage the social dynamics a bit better, by letting everyone in on the "joke" that the hiring of the assassins was.
In practice, I find that table dynamics will often work to keep things semi-secret in any event - if one player is telling me about a PC's background or goals, it's pretty natural for the other players to switch off or talk among themselves about something else in the game. So they might have a general sense of something being up, but only switch onto the details when it becomes salient.
And every now and then, when a secret involves something that I've introduced into the game as a GM, then I will take the relevant player aside and mention to them what their PC notices/realises. It's then up to them how much they want to share. And if any player told me that they wanted their secret to be treated in a similar fashion I'd be happy to. But most of the time that doesn't come up.
The effect of this approach is to increase the influence of metagaming on play - for example, every now and then the players will push events in a direction that is more likely to provoke another player's PC's secret agenda. But for me that's a good thing - it means the game stays more focused on what's relevant for those at the table. And I do this sort of pushing as well - and it's much easier and fun for me to just be able to do this at the table, pushing the player of the demonskin adept or the emerging Vecna worshipper without feeling that I'm doing the wrong thing in not keeping the PC's secret a secret from the players.
For those who hate metagaming, or want a stricter in-character immsersive game, then probably this approach wouldn't work as well.
nedjer
Adventurer
The collusions that tend to stick for me are usually more PvE than PvP. Mainly used to collaborate/ gain a possible advantage over opponents. PvP is typically high risk, as fellow PCs are, notionally, a bit more trustworthy than most NPCs - on grounds of familiarity and it being reasonable to question a PC who behaves completely differently from the PC played over the last six months.
Collusion, collaboration, and secret goals. Each are different though overlapping ideas and means may be apparent.
Back when I used to have the time and inclination I loved colluding with the DM. In fact, my screen name is taken from the most successful colluding and secret plotting character ever, Wycen. While playing the Temple of Elemental Evil, I colluded with the DM to acquire hereditary rights to the village of Hommlet and the surrounding environs. And I outlawed druids. The druid bit was easy because we had a member of our group who'd only play druids and we got sick of them.
Secret plotting is difficult to adjucate because of the potential to screw the party. Screwing the party over is perhaps the real crux of the issue.
Some people might be pissed and others will take it in stride. The level of screwage might be important. Stealing a magic ring of protection is one thing. Backstabbing the party in the middle of a battle is in my opinion different.
Collaboration seems to be the new "in" thing for indie games. Try Apocalypse World. The GM is encouraged to not plan anything and ask lots of questions. Simply by conversing out loud, we've discovered our world has zombies, an enemy city with a non-functional battle tank, a problem with dysentary, and a giant hill made of junk. But you can try this in standard games too. I played in a 3E game where the DM asked us each to create a business he would put into the main city. Of course, once that was over we did very little with it, maybe because we were adventuring outside the city, but it was initially an interesting twist. I suspect there are minor incidents of collaboration in many games. What's the name of your favorite drink at the bar? What's the wench's name? Do you say goodbye to your mom and dad when you leave for the big city?
That all is world building, not necessarily working with the DM to help narrate a story or create encounters. Story collaboration might annoy other players who think favoratism is involved, but hopefully everyone is doing it and getting something extra out of the game.
Back when I used to have the time and inclination I loved colluding with the DM. In fact, my screen name is taken from the most successful colluding and secret plotting character ever, Wycen. While playing the Temple of Elemental Evil, I colluded with the DM to acquire hereditary rights to the village of Hommlet and the surrounding environs. And I outlawed druids. The druid bit was easy because we had a member of our group who'd only play druids and we got sick of them.
Secret plotting is difficult to adjucate because of the potential to screw the party. Screwing the party over is perhaps the real crux of the issue.
Some people might be pissed and others will take it in stride. The level of screwage might be important. Stealing a magic ring of protection is one thing. Backstabbing the party in the middle of a battle is in my opinion different.
Collaboration seems to be the new "in" thing for indie games. Try Apocalypse World. The GM is encouraged to not plan anything and ask lots of questions. Simply by conversing out loud, we've discovered our world has zombies, an enemy city with a non-functional battle tank, a problem with dysentary, and a giant hill made of junk. But you can try this in standard games too. I played in a 3E game where the DM asked us each to create a business he would put into the main city. Of course, once that was over we did very little with it, maybe because we were adventuring outside the city, but it was initially an interesting twist. I suspect there are minor incidents of collaboration in many games. What's the name of your favorite drink at the bar? What's the wench's name? Do you say goodbye to your mom and dad when you leave for the big city?
That all is world building, not necessarily working with the DM to help narrate a story or create encounters. Story collaboration might annoy other players who think favoratism is involved, but hopefully everyone is doing it and getting something extra out of the game.
Similar Threads
