Recently I have been gaming with complete newcomers to the hobby. Mostly, short pick up games, nothing serious. The common trend with all these groups is that they don't separate player and character knowledge. I don't really mind as sometimes it produces some interesting in game moments (and I don't think these people will ever become gamers much less my regular players) but I was wondering, how important is the separation of player and character knowledge in your games? (Note: In my regular games it's very important)
Also, as a GM, do you (often ?) use things you know of your players in your games?
Regads,
David R
I touched on player knowledge as I was laying out the basics for the middle school game club. One very prim little girl's hand shot up, and she said, "That would be breaking the fourth wall," very pleased with herself.
But yeah--kids tend to have a sort of boardgamey style. But I've noticed that when I give them character secrets to keep or exploit, it becomes really important to them to figure out which character and which player might know what.
It's kind of important to me, I like immersion and mystery...
As a player I try really hard to not act on player-knowledge, which is always fun when you're PC is up to something that you KNOW is gonna bite him in the ass.
As a GM I try to assert the separation but not be too uptight when it doesn't happen... usually other players will point it out before I have to. Some people just don't enjoy playing that way though.
Quote from: David R;493675..but I was wondering, how important is the separation of player and character knowledge in your games? (Note: In my regular games it's very important)
Personally, I think it's important at all times, regardless of the players being regulars or walk-on's. I do not allow characters to express knowledge that "they" don't know (but the player does). It causes too many problems in my experience.
One of the problems I've seen is a player who has read all the books (especially monster manual type books) and they already know all the defenses and attacks of an enemy. So when their character runs into a monster, gang, enemy, robot, etc, the player has their character make precise and special attacks against the weakness of the enemy or such.
In the old days of D&D modules, players would buy the modules and already know where all the traps were, where the treasure was, etc.
To me, this constitutes 'cheating'.
QuoteAlso, as a GM, do you (often ?) use things you know of your players in your games?
I only do this in the most superficial way. For example, I know a player likes complex puzzles, I will try to make them available. Or if a player really likes to haggle with traders, I will give them opportunites to do so.
I ask for player feedback after
every game session and find out what players liked or didn't like and then adjust future games accordingly.
I find that illustrative of how weird and counter-intuitive the whole IC/OOC divide is. I can understand that people can consider it important, but I think that it's definitely learned behaviour, so to speak. There's a lot of aspects to it. Some things bother me more than others. Some things don't bother me at all. Something like character secrets, I think it's better when those are on the table, for everyone to play with. But then this requires a table willing to play with it the "right" way and not just exploit it to win. Buying the module and reading it ahead of time? Yeah, that's just cheating. But on the other hand, a DM who disallows actions on the basis of meta-gaming, that drives me bugshit.
Well this is why I started this thread. Playing with these new folks and their inability to separate player/character knowledge made the game "organic" in a way that kinda of seems missing in my regular games. I've not had a titanic shift of thinking or anything and this certainly wasn't "cheating" in the sense BD is talking about but I did find it interesting as to how they were "living the moment" so to speak. Of course the in game reality slowly dawned on them, "like how would you know this" or "but you're playing a...." but it did create some unusual dramatic situations.
Regards,
David R
I've come full circle on this one. Not that long ago I'd would have said ic/ooc separation was essential and that using ooc knowledge in play was a crass form of cheating.
But if there is one thing I've taken from the new wave of indie games of the past decade is that is that there is nothing to fear from sharing ooc information with the players and lot to gain. I get the elegance of the purist, let's keep the mystery alive approach, but I've discovered that, for instance, putting the player characters in jeopardy isn't all that interesting unless that the players know they are in jeopardy.
Using a bit of ooc information can also help player play their characters more authentically. No matter what the characters will have experience and
instincts the player doesn't. A bit help through ooc information can bridge that gap.
Finally, being very open both with information and dice rolls helps foster a atmosphere of trust. And no matter what, the more trust around the table the better the game runs, or at least that's what it seems to me. Note that most of the people I run games for are also GMs in their own right, some even more experience than I. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that changes the dynamics around the table somewhat from groups where there is really only one primary GM.
IC/OOC separation is a matter of degree, and I find that most roleplayers do it on some level regardless of how much experience they have. I consider it important, but not as important as not having to consciously
think about it during play, which is exactly what I do if I have to actively hold information my character would want to act on.
It's the same mindset you need when trying to avoid slipping up while being questioned about a crime you committed, which is extremely distracting and difficult to maintain consistently even when you're good at it. Also see 'Simon Says'.
Quote from: Soylent Green;493765Finally, being very open both with information and dice rolls helps foster a atmosphere of trust. And no matter what, the more trust around the table the better the game runs, or at least that's what it seems to me.
This is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing at the table. I don't even particularly care how this is achieved, and while it's not perfect, I'm willing to compromise on other play goals (such as Immersion) to achieve it if necessary.