Yes I think it's good when players try to draw other players and their characters into the action.

I think one way the GM can encourage players to do this is to get them to create characters who have different goals and beliefs. Not entirely contradictory, like Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, but just clashing a bit.

For example, in my current campaign - postapocalyptic Australia - one player gave his character a trait, "law abiding." Obviously believing in the rule of law in a world which is by definition lawless, that's a difficult thing, and is going to generate further events. Another player asked, "why do you always play flawed characters?" and this one replied, "because they're more interesting, their flaws lead to interesting situations and make things happen."

So, his "law-abiding" trait has made things happen. They visited a farm that got raided in the night by a skinhead gang, trying to take some cattle away. The farmer woke them up, and went out firing at the raiders with his shotgun. They drove off the raiders and captured one. Since the raiders killed the farmer's beloved dog, the PCs think the farmer might just gut the prisoner. This is okay by most of the party, but the law-abiding guy isn't keen on it for obvious reasons. However, what can he do? Not like there are any courts to take him to... set up a court? A prison? But who'd be the judge?

The player involved has contacted the group by email, saying, "what will we do?" The extremes are that his character ends up away from the group, or that his character tells them what to do; he's choosing a middle path, and talking to the rest of the group. So that rather than watching the gutting of the skinhead with amused indifference, the party becomes involved in the law-abiding guy's dilemma.

That's why I say that if the GM encourages players to give their characters traits which will clash a bit with other PCs' traits, or with the game world, then that helps bring the group together, getting everyone involved in the action. Of course, it can also drive the group apart, but that's where the GM steps in with the role of mediator. Sometimes the players won't be able to think of how to reconcile their different traits into one course of action; the GM can make suggestions.

In the particular case I mentioned, the other PCs don't have any traits which prevent their co-operation with the law-abiding guy; the clash is not between one PC's traits and another's, but between the PC's traits and the state of the world...

I love it when players are discussing the game outside the session, it shows they're interested, which is very flattering, and it also builds anticipation for the next session!

Quote from: blakkieP.S.  I will also say that I've found table secrets more damaging than PvP.

Table secrets? I've also saw you commenting on "secret rules" in another thread, could I get an explanation or a few examples? I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Quote from: NazgulTable secrets? I've also saw you commenting on "secret rules" in another thread, could I get an explanation or a few examples? I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Secret rules are rules that only the GM knows about. This isn't knowledge like "the Earl of Glochester wears his mother's bloomers to bed" but something fundemental about how the physics of the world work that isn't apparent like "if you cast any same spell 3 times within a 24-hour period you permenently turn into a chicken".

"Table secret", and I can't remember hearing any other name for it besides "secret" or the portion of it as "note passing", is more secret knowledge like the first. But it is where one or more players know it but others don't. What I've found is that with PC to PC tension in the picture there is more player paranoia. With a lot of these table secrets, passing of notes for secret for actions or separate room discussions and such, people that are prone to be carried away by the paranioa will interpret these, even if innocent, as acts of provacation then metagame (yeah, another piece of the puzzle) and pull the trigger on the other PC. I've seen it and I've been on the receiving end of it. Had my PC totally blindside attacked and was told this was because "well you were talking to the GM secretly". :confused: Well yeah, because your PC and all the others had refused to talk to some NPC that was providing important info and equipment for us...all of us. You know, all that good stuff my PC provided your PC with? *sigh*

At one point I was all for them. But as a result of the above and a number of other events I personally have totally flipped my view and strongly discourage and generally do what I can to remove the totally blind secrets at any game I'm involved in, especially if PvP isn't ruled out. Like secret rules the payout in the end is usually not worth the hassle and risk, especially when you can have cool "WOW" surprises and twists using much safer techniques.  EDIT: Even just giving an good outline of what a secret is about is a big step to alleviating the strain it causes while keeping an air of mystery if not actually enhancing the sense of coolness of the mystery.  Secret rules, not even that saves them. IMO always replace them by the nearly identical dice + a little secret knowledge (typically the die roll results), just a bit of secret knowledge, or something that doesn't need to be secret at all to have the effect.

@Tony: BTW I think your question was totally fair and highlights a really good point. The difference between "jerk screwing up a game" and the other is a blurry, subjective line and certainly difficult to discern from a quick secondhand description.

Quote from: blakkie@Tony: BTW I think your question was totally fair and highlights a really good point. The difference between "jerk screwing up a game" and the other is a blurry, subjective line and certainly difficult to discern from a quick secondhand description.

Well ... it may be hard to discern from a secondhand description, but I actually don't think that it is a particularly blurry line.

If I add an element that draws another player into scenes and confrontations that only they want then I'm selflessly helping the game, which can be fine as long as I'm not a passive-aggressive martyr about it.

If I add an element that draws another player into scenes and confrontations that only I want then I'm probably being a jerk.

If I add an element that draws another player into scenes and confrontations that we both want then I rock.

Sometimes you think another player will want a particular scene and it turns out you were wrong, but it's usually not blurry.  Either they're happy about the scene or they're not.

Quote from: TonyLBSometimes you think another player will want a particular scene and it turns out you were wrong, but it's usually not blurry.  Either they're happy about the scene or they're not.

The blurry part is here I am decribing their feelings...or not describing them as was the case in the first post. The other blurry part is just like when describing without detailing the other player's reactions is that one looks a lot like the other until it goes into motion. Even if your intentions are good it can come out bad....or fabulous.

EDIT: Also, and I saw this a lot of this form a decade back in Ultima Online, the immersion can be deep enough that bad becomes compellingly good. A wierd effect to be sure.

Of course there are the bystanders and the GM who's worried about their stuff (like the dungeon in this case). But that gets into more than I want to type this morning.