What degree of disclosure does your group have between characters?

[MerakSpielman]

How "insane" is your character for trusting someone who will not tell you he's recently learned how to cast magic missile?

Who said anything about trust? I'm guessing that those who posted the scenarios you mentioned do not have parties who are together on the basis of trust, but rather mutual need or habit.

Indeed. So many people see D&D as a game where a trusting, tight-knit team goes off seeking adventure in a hostile world. Fighting evil and all that.

Half the fun of our game is the constantly shifting intra-party dynamics. We never know who to trust, or when. The main thing that keeps us together is the old adage "My enemies' enemy is my friend." We have enough mutual enemies to join forces - for the time being at least.

Often half the game goes by with the DM in another room with one or two players who are doing something secret.

We've gone at least two sessions in a row before without any combat at all - just roleplaying.

Last session my bard (Bilune) attempted to join forces with the "enemy" wizard behind the parties' back. He told them he was going to go pretend to join forces with the wizard. The wizard has a feud with a party member, and so do I, though I've been pretending to go along with his plans recently for reasons of my own (he's bringing me closer to the suspected murderers of my family), but he's outliving his usefulness. Unfortunately, the wizard was a tough nut to crack, and probably suspected I was only pretending to want to work with him. I was actually going to work with him, at least insomuch as I could eliminate the other party member.

This wizard has secretly been training the sons of a local noble as wizards, I assume to further his own nefarious political machinations. One of these sons is the one who killed my family, and only by infiltrating the trust of their little group can I figure out which one. However, the other party member I have mentioned has a past history with this family, and simply wants to exterminate them all, without me getting the proof I need for proper closure. His plans must be put on hold. Somehow.

My wife (who also plays) and I can have hours of conversation after a game, trying to unravel the motives of different characters. We have a real blast, and have somehow managed to survive without killing each other up to 9th level.

 

[hong]

Often half the game goes by with the DM in another room with one or two players who are doing something secret.

Hmmm.


Hong "hmmmmm" Ooi

 

[MerakSpielman]

You know what I mean!


Merak "hong needs to clean out his mind with ivory soap" Spielman

 

[Mercule]

Could those who prefer a closed game (as I'll call it) please post how often/long you play each session and how many players you have in the game?

We play every Monday from 7:00 to 10:00 and there are 6 of us.

Honestly, I think it'd slow down the game to talk stats all the time. We just stay in character and do what we do. Everyone has a pretty good idea of what everyone else can do, just no numbers. That's pretty much how the characters would have to relate to each other, so I don't exactly see it as foolish of them to work together.

Everyone knows that the barbarian is the strongest and that I'm next. The bard and the swashbuckler are lowest on the list, being about average. I'm the best at athletics (jump, tumble, climb and swim), with the swashbuckler and monk being distant seconds (depending on the exact skill).

The wizard, of course, has some spells. Among them are GMW, Darkvision (our favorite), Cat's Grace, and Lightning Bolt. Likewise, the bard knows some healing, some summoning, and Invisibility. My dabbling gives me a couple of 1st level buff spells (Jump, Expeditious Retreat). What more does anyone need to know?

I'm sure everyone has a few things that they aren't sharing, but it's most likely along the lines of "it never came up" than being secretive. Hey, I even helped my wife get her character into the computer and I don't know everything about it.

Personally, I view completely open character sheets about the as I would a player whipping out the Monster Manual in the middle of the game ("It says the bodak's gaze only works to a 30' range. Everyone pull out your bows."). It pushes things more to a meta-game standing.

Some people like more of a wargame feel, but I'll stick to in-character actions, thanks anyway.

 

[jmucchiello]

Indeed. So many people see D&D as a game where a trusting, tight-knit team goes off seeking adventure in a hostile world. Fighting evil and all that.

Half the fun of our game is the constantly shifting intra-party dynamics. We never know who to trust, or when. The main thing that keeps us together is the old adage "My enemies' enemy is my friend." We have enough mutual enemies to join forces - for the time being at least.

How does that work after defeating the one enemy? Why does the group stay together after the mutual enemy is defeated? Sure, a one-shot adventure can have 6 people with different motives, no problem. But a 1st-20th level game without a core of motives seems forced and just as "meta-gamish" as asking someone their strength score to me.

Often half the game goes by with the DM in another room with one or two players who are doing something secret.

This goes back to my question of how often do you play.

Unfortunately, the wizard was a tough nut to crack, and probably suspected I was only pretending to want to work with him. I was actually going to work with him, at least insomuch as I could eliminate the other party member.

I certainly do not play in such games. How is he a "party member" if you are attempting to eliminate him? You don't have a party if they are at one another's throats. He doesn't realize how much you hate him? If so, why does he hang out with you at all? Sounds like two people who should have gone their separate ways a long time ago but are still working together for meta-game reasons, i.e. they are players in the same game.

My wife (who also plays) and I can have hours of conversation after a game, trying to unravel the motives of different characters. We have a real blast, and have somehow managed to survive without killing each other up to 9th level.

And not that it's my business but that sounds unfair to the other players. Since intrigue is such a part of the game, using an out of game alliance to analyze the intrigue seems wrong to me, unless your wife plays a character fully allied with yours.

 

[jmucchiello]

Some people like more of a wargame feel, but I'll stick to in-character actions, thanks anyway.

I didn't say learning about the other characters (has to) takes place out of character. I'm saying that it takes "meta-gaming" to keep a group of strangers dungeon diving with one another for more than one mission. Snear and turn your nose up at the "metagaming" potential that open gaming allows but at least an open group, without secret abilities, logically could adventure together for while.

We've had campaigns fall apart because the players of a few characters would wave good bye to the other party members as the DM tried to start the next senario because they didn't trust some of the party. ("I will not go back into the woods with him and nothing you can say will change my mind. If you want to wake up with a knife against your throat, you go with him.") This, to me, is more rational than "Well, I don't trust him but I'll join him for one more adventure, I guess."

 

[MerakSpielman]

How does that work after defeating the one enemy? Why does the group stay together after the mutual enemy is defeated? Sure, a one-shot adventure can have 6 people with different motives, no problem. But a 1st-20th level game without a core of motives seems forced and just as "meta-gamish" as asking someone their strength score to me.

This goes back to my question of how often do you play.

I certainly do not play in such games. How is he a "party member" if you are attempting to eliminate him? You don't have a party if they are at one another's throats. He doesn't realize how much you hate him? If so, why does he hang out with you at all? Sounds like two people who should have gone their separate ways a long time ago but are still working together for meta-game reasons, i.e. they are players in the same game.

And not that it's my business but that sounds unfair to the other players. Since intrigue is such a part of the game, using an out of game alliance to analyze the intrigue seems wrong to me, unless your wife plays a character fully allied with yours.

We often don't stay together. Our party is fully "together" only about 1/3 of the time. So far, there has been reason to stay together, however loosly. Our party as a whole has formed rough alliances with certain factions, and if the party were to break up, we would no longer be of any use to them. Bad people don't last long solo, and we're smart enough to know that. Just 'cause you're evil (or chaotic neutral in my case) doesn't mean you're stupid. You'll stay with people even if you hate them with every fiber of your body if you know it'll be a long-term benefit.

We rotate between three (well, two now that mine ended) campaigns. We play this one every third week. They are respectively: an evil-heavy party (the one we're talking about), a neutral-heavy party, and a good-heavy party.

Of course he (Khan) knows my character (Bilune) hates him! I once "accidentally-on-purpose" tried to eliminate him in combat, but was discovered. Now he's trying to get us (the rest of the party) to help him get rid of some of his enemies (the wizard and the 2 sons). I'm going along with it becasue of a personal vendetta against one of the sons, but he doesn't know that. He is damn suspicious of my recent "I'll let our difference slide and start helping you" attitude. And he should be. He hasn't killed me yet because he pendulums between "that bard isn't worth my time to kill" and "wow! Bilune just pulled off something that would have taken us weeks! He's too useful to kill." If I ever end up in the middle of that spectrum for too long, I'm toast, and I know it.

Oh, and six of the seven people in the our group are married couples. We all (I am sure) discuss the game afterwards. This is not a problem. Our group aversion to the evil metagaming is such that you would never hear the end of it if we played our characters any differently based on information they can't possibly have. People have avoided metagaming almost to self-destructive levels before, even refusing to go along with blatent DM hints because their characters "wouldn't know to do that."

 

[D'karr]

My players all sign Non-Disclosure Agreements to play.

"First rule of The Game, there is no game."

All kidding aside, it actually depends. Sometimes a PC with an incredible amount of intelligence should be able to come up with a creative solution to a problem. Well, if the player who is playing this character actually has the IQ of an amoeba it might be very hard for him to come up with anything really creative. So if someone suggest for him to do something I allow it.

After all this is a game, not a matter of national security.

 

[Skade]

After all this is a game, not a matter of national security.

Unless, we are in the NSA and this is a simulation.

 

[diaglo]

i could care less what my fellow players have as stats while i'm playing. as long as it isn't effecting the gaming.

when things happen in game that make the hair standup on the back of my neck, though, i do want to know.

most of it being metagaming crap.

but i file my complaints with the DM. and let him deal with it. if he doesn't. i find a new group. this is my 6th attempt at this edition. the previous 5 were shall we say not encouraging.