When a PC successfully makes a knowledge check or notices something with perception... do you tell that player privately, or announce it to the entire table? Is it assumed that everyone knows because the PC is assumed to tell everyone, or do you leave it to the PC in question to disseminate that info?

Both have their pros and cons -- leaving it all in the PCs hands is more immersive, especially if the player was the only one told the info and can relay it to others. But we've all been there when someone misinterprets a crucial detail or does not relay it properly or just decides to inexplicably hide key information from everyone else. Is it worth it?

It depends.  If it is something that the PC would announce to the party anyway, if it's not critical that the info remain privy, or if my players are savvy enough to separate character and player knowledge, then it speeds play to announce the info publicly. I find that about 10-20% of info from such checks requires some discretion or private conversation.

If it is somthing that other characters wouldn't know, and should be kept back from the other players then I will slip a note, but generally I just announce it openly. If the player calls for a check openly then the results are given openly.  If it is a check the player requested via note or something they know passively (the player didn't ask, I rolled a secret check) then I pass a note.

So the answer is "it varies".

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015218It depends.  If it is something that the PC would announce to the party anyway, if it's not critical that the info remain privy, or if my players are savvy enough to separate character and player knowledge, then it speeds play to announce the info publicly. I find that about 10-20% of info from such checks requires some discretion or private conversation.

Why not just announce it and let the players handle private knowledge? Or do you think the risk of metagaming is too high?

Depends a lot on setting, type of campaign and rules, which faction(s) one represents, and personal agenda.

As example, a Pathfinder Society (global) campaign assumes you all cooperate no matter what, it doesn't even let you pick evil alignment due to this and information is meant to be shared among all players. I assume a Star Trek campaign would be similar if all characters are from the Federation, to a lesser degree also in Star Wars if all are rebels or Jedi.

In Vampire: The Masquerade all characters (especially if from different clans/groups) are likely to have their own secrets and goals, often opposite of what the other ones want. They might be rivals or secretly enemies and sharing information would be done after deliberation, if at all. Perhaps one of them even wishes to spread disinformation

Even in a mostly friendly campaign characters could have competitive cooperation. Think medieval nobles from  the same realm who might fight alongside in a war for their king and country, but at the same time strive for the best lands/titles, trade agreements & routes, troops, ect they can get. Here some, but not full information sharing is once again likely.

A different setting, like from GRRM would see almost no info sharing even among members of the same family.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015215Is it worth it?

Sometimes.

Sometimes I've prepped notes ahead of time to hand to players to cover PC knowledge. If I do that, I will often prep multiple notes to hand out so it isn't obvious which player has what information since handing just one player a note tends to focus everyone else's attention on that player/PC. For short notes (prepped or impromptu) post-it notes are nice. I can stick them to my notes so they act as a reminder and when the player get's them they can stick the note to their notes so the note doesn't get lost. For longer information transfers I may take one player aside for a quick conversation.

Although in a perfect gaming world, I'd prefer to keep character knowledge separate, often times it just doesn't seem worth the effort and the time delay.

I very rarely keep such information private.  The players are there in two capacities:

A. Participants
B. Audience

For participants, hiding such information at times can give a big payoff, at the expense of slowing down the game.  If the payoff is big enough, I might go for it.  However, I highly value players that separate character and player knowledge, and don't mind opportunities for new players to practice that skill.

For audience, it takes a lot of work to make hidden information payoff in any way--typically by revealing it sometime later when circumstances give it more punch.  And you usually need some help from the players that get the information early to even have a shot at making that work.

Of course, it very much depends on the particular players and the type of information.  Some players naturally gravitate towards cultivating hidden information in ways that drive a good game, but I think the type is relatively rare.

My default is public information. The only time I'll keep Knowledge-type info private is if there's a potential PvP situation within the party. Occasionally, I also deliver information privately if it seems more dramatic for the player to divulge it themselves, in-character to their fellow players.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1015278I very rarely keep such information private.  The players are there in two capacities:

A. Participants
B. Audience

That's a good analysis.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015241Why not just announce it and let the players handle private knowledge? Or do you think the risk of metagaming is too high?

Players in my sessions have no problem handling private knowledge that's announced. I don't want to deal with halting role-play to pass notes around. If a player does metagame knowing such info that their character doesn't know, that person is banned from future sessions. They ignored the social contract they agreed to.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1015294If a player does metagame knowing such info that their character doesn't know, that person is banned from future sessions. They ignored the social contract they agreed to.

Isn't that a bit harsh? Sometimes it can be difficult keeping metagame knowledge separate when Knowledge lore is shared openly. Are your players required to specifically announce that their characters are sharing information with the others, or can it ever just be assumed that they do? Do you keep track of who's shared info with who?

Generally I announce it publicly; Steven's cogent observation covers why.

Sometimes -- not often -- I'll slip a note if I think that's the right way, especially if the player's asked me secretly for a check.  As far as "halting roleplay" to do so, sheesh, I halt it for a lot longer than it takes to write a note to hit the bathroom or put the kettle back on, so I'm not seeing where that's an onerous thing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015215But we've all been there when someone misinterprets a crucial detail or does not relay it properly or just decides to inexplicably hide key information from everyone else.

Part of the price of doing business, don't you think?  If a player chooses to withhold information to which his PC is solely privy, that's his privilege.  If he misinterprets it or doesn't relay it properly, then he does.  These shouldn't be any more correctable through metagaming than any other facet of information.

Every group is different and what works for one may fail miserably for another. And that can even change depending on the style of campaign or even the tone desired.

Its up to the individual DM to judge if the players can handle it or not.

Personally if its something only a single player would know at the moment and its not something the PC would naturally warn everyone about then I hand them a note and let them decide to divulge or not rather than taking that decision and role play option away from them.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1015321Generally I announce it publicly; Steven's cogent observation covers why.

Sometimes -- not often -- I'll slip a note if I think that's the right way, especially if the player's asked me secretly for a check.  As far as "halting roleplay" to do so, sheesh, I halt it for a lot longer than it takes to write a note to hit the bathroom or put the kettle back on, so I'm not seeing where that's an onerous thing.

Part of the price of doing business, don't you think?  If a player chooses to withhold information to which his PC is solely privy, that's his privilege.  If he misinterprets it or doesn't relay it properly, then he does.  These shouldn't be any more correctable through metagaming than any other facet of information.

Well, re: halting roleplay, I mean the scenarios where the player in question has a tone of private things to ask or wants to follow up, and then it turns into a long back and forth. That or you can't give them the info they need.

Generally open. Rarely, in private if it's possible that not knowing is likely to make the situation more interesting/entertaining.