Distributing Disinformation

[Klaus]

A situation is coming up in a game I'm involved in and neither I nor the GM have a really good idea how to handle it. Character A is pretending to perform some activities in secret. In reality, he wants character B to find out about these activities, while making it look like character A is trying to keep them a secret. But character A has a higher Warfare than character B. If character A 'slips up' in front of character B, or allows word to leak out through minions, the player of B would know that the Warfare of A is much higher, and therefore A would never actually make that mistake, ergo the 'slip' must be deliberate, and the information is obviously false. If it was real information, A's higher warfare means the GM would either have warned A not to do that, or simply assumed that A had taken the appropriate precautions.

So, how do you handle a higher Warfare character tricking a lower Warfare character into thinking they made a mistake without making it obvious to the player that it's all fake?

[jibbajibba]

A situation is coming up in a game I'm involved in and neither I nor the GM have a really good idea how to handle it. Character A is pretending to perform some activities in secret. In reality, he wants character B to find out about these activities, while making it look like character A is trying to keep them a secret. But character A has a higher Warfare than character B. If character A 'slips up' in front of character B, or allows word to leak out through minions, the player of B would know that the Warfare of A is much higher, and therefore A would never actually make that mistake, ergo the 'slip' must be deliberate, and the information is obviously false. If it was real information, A's higher warfare means the GM would either have warned A not to do that, or simply assumed that A had taken the appropriate precautions.

So, how do you handle a higher Warfare character tricking a lower Warfare character into thinking they made a mistake without making it obvious to the player that it's all fake?

I would never use Warfare in this sort of situation. I would just role play it and use skills (I have a skill system) around specific details, a disguise, a false trail, the autopsy of the victim etc.... Warfare in the rule book is stretched to such a limit (from con men to spies to creating a cypher you could even use it as the attribute to govern if the fetters you bound your captive in would be possible for him to escape from) that to me it almost becomes embarassing and worst of all compare it to the actual novels and it simply doesn't stand up. Benedict the epitome of Warfare is actually fairly naive and prone to being tricked. Of all the siblings, bar possibly Corwin himself, Benedict is fooled the most often, from siring a child that leads to Dara, to the death of his servants, to the subsequent fight with Corwin and the black grass, to Brand's hypnosis or whatever. It is even Benedict that Oberon chooses to embue with the arm. Is that because of his skill at warfare or because only Benedict would be naive to actually put the thing on in the first place. Caine or Bleys would have chucked the thing in the sea ( the fact that is an arm and that benedict lost an arm is actually superfluous as it could easily have been a glove or a suit of mail or whatever...)

As for a situation where I would use warfare say on a battlefield and player A wanted to pretend to throw an obvious blind at player B in the hope that player B would then act upon it. I would simply include a note with the information that outlined something player A missed. The troops involved in the blind action are incorrectly equiped, or the wagons leaving the seige encirclement that look like they are loaded with rations are infact not sitting heavily enough on the ground, or too heavy and the sacks are full of rocks or whatever ... and this of course would be deliberate by player A. But then in my game player A really wouldn't know player B's warfare anyway unless they had actually been involved in a conflict so ...

Of course its hard for you to give details and if that's a live campaign you might already of blown it Unless this is the double blind and you are player A but want to cover up mistake you made by making it look like a deliberate error so to inveigle the point from player B you posted here as he reads these forums on occassion

[Klaus]

I would never use Warfare in this sort of situation.

I didn't mention it for simplicity, but our campaign uses a split-stat system, with Warfare divided into "Weapons" and "Tactics." I was expecting to use Tactics for this. Resolving it without stats would be good, but Tactics would probably need to be redefined, and become much weaker.

[jibbajibba]

Okay so I assume Weapons is armed combat (fencing, shooting etc), you use Strength for muscle power and unarmed combat (or unarmed combat and muscle and one split and 'ammount of damage you can take' as the other)
It all depends on the actual event. Even with 'tactics' as a split skill I still wouldn't use it for subdefuge and misdirection. I don't think the ability to lead armies, fight battles etc is weak at all. As I refer back to the books again. You would make Caine your spymaster but Benedict would still be determining tactics and strategy on the battlefield

[jibbajibba]

Having said that I am not being particularly constructive.

So few questions
i) Are the players aware that the GM will decide such subjects based on warfare? May sound daft but even though the GM and you think its a warfare call it might not be obvious and so maybe you can just get away with it.
ii) Are all relative ranks known? I assume you had an open auction so this is the case. Again if not ...

iii) (This is probably the most likely option...) The GM could introduce the information not by saying its a mistake but making it seem like action from a third party maybe an informant with a grudge something that takes the issue away from A's error and makes it more of a third party action. In meta game terms you are making it look more like a GM plot device or an expression of player A's bad stuff (which i hope is hidden from player B) than a warfare slip up.

[Klaus]

Having said that I am not being particularly constructive.

So few questions
i) Are the players aware that the GM will decide such subjects based on warfare? May sound daft but even though the GM and you think its a warfare call it might not be obvious and so maybe you can just get away with it.

Actually, that's a very good point. I'm not sure the other players would make that connection.

ii) Are all relative ranks known? I assume you had an open auction so this is the case. Again if not ...

Yes, standard auction with known ranks.

iii) (This is probably the most likely option...) The GM could introduce the information not by saying its a mistake but making it seem like action from a third party maybe an informant with a grudge something that takes the issue away from A's error and makes it more of a third party action. In meta game terms you are making it look more like a GM plot device or an expression of player A's bad stuff (which i hope is hidden from player B) than a warfare slip up.

Yes, stuff levels are hidden. Making it seem like Bad Stuff might work though.:hmm:

[Croaker]

I was about to reply, but... As jibbajibba said, and well said. Warfare is not the be-all and end-all, there's also roleplay And even then, if a player invests time and efforts into something governed by warfare, he may still win. Time and Trickery do better than younth and flame

If, say, a great general takes some untrained, cowardly and undisciplined peasans and put them naked in front of a novice with a skilled and trained army, trusting his superior strategy to win, he deserves a spanking.

But then in my game player A really wouldn't know player B's warfare anyway unless they had actually been involved in a conflict so ...

In my games, only the first knew that he was better than any other PC. Even then, another PC could buy up, and beat him just by being a little stronger, having better equipment... And he could always be surpassed later, if other players improved their attributes.

But, and there's the trick, one could always fake. So, if player A fought player B and win, player B could have had a better warfare, or he just could have chosen to lose. And player A would never had known.
This is almost the reverse of the case there, btw

Yes, standard auction with known ranks.

Don't forget, then, that you can increase your attributes AFTER the auction, thus ending up in a situation very similar to what I have in my games.

So, if player A ended up 2nd, player B 4rd, player B could very well have bought up to 1,5 and be better than A, without A knowing it

[Klaus]

So, if player A ended up 2nd, player B 4rd, player B could very well have bought up to 1,5 and be better than A, without A knowing it

The problem isn't that A knows, it's that B knows, and B would certainly know if he had bought his own Warfare up to a level competitive with A's.

[Croaker]

Ok. Then, simple. A may be better, but he rushed things up, and thus made mistakes. See my "great general" exemple above. This also goes with warfare: If the second attacks with a spoon the fourth with invulnerable armor and a deadly dammage sword, he deserves to lose, second or not. Even the ADRPG uber-benedict won't throw himself naked in an open field before a dozen of goons with gatling guns