Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5611061" data-attributes="member: 23240">I handled this matter in various ways - each game has its own style and approach. When we play with a strong simulationist focus, the main determinant is a reasonable level of in-character knowledge. There are things characters should know, being who they are, even if players do not. There is no sense and no reason for denying this knowledge to players - they need it to make sensible choices. It is not possible to predict and determine everything that should be known at the beginning, so a big part of the information is provided when it becomes important.In a game with a strong gamist focus, some knowledge will be made available and some kept secret. Various surprises on one hand, and brilliant player deductions on the other are a part of the fun. So, while there is no sense in using auto-defeat gotchas, keeping players on their toes is something the GM should do - presenting challenges is his job, after all.In a game with narrativist focus, there will probably be more metagame knowledge, available to the player, but not the PC. Many such games use conflict resolution - and setting the stakes is explicitly discussing with players something that is outside of character knowledge. Some games use metagame resources, negotiation or other kinds of mechanics that require players to consider OOC things in their decisions. Finally, even if the system itself does not use metagame techniques, a narrativist play focuses on players' choices, so it is crucial to make those choices meaningful. Without knowledge, a choice is not meaningful, it is random.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steenan, post: 5611061, member: 23240"] I handled this matter in various ways - each game has its own style and approach. When we play with a strong simulationist focus, the main determinant is a reasonable level of in-character knowledge. There are things characters should know, being who they are, even if players do not. There is no sense and no reason for denying this knowledge to players - they need it to make sensible choices. It is not possible to predict and determine everything that should be known at the beginning, so a big part of the information is provided when it becomes important. In a game with a strong gamist focus, some knowledge will be made available and some kept secret. Various surprises on one hand, and brilliant player deductions on the other are a part of the fun. So, while there is no sense in using auto-defeat gotchas, keeping players on their toes is something the GM should do - presenting challenges is his job, after all. In a game with narrativist focus, there will probably be more metagame knowledge, available to the player, but not the PC. Many such games use conflict resolution - and setting the stakes is explicitly discussing with players something that is outside of character knowledge. Some games use metagame resources, negotiation or other kinds of mechanics that require players to consider OOC things in their decisions. Finally, even if the system itself does not use metagame techniques, a narrativist play focuses on players' choices, so it is crucial to make those choices meaningful. Without knowledge, a choice is not meaningful, it is random. [/QUOTE]

Verification