trapcast.com

Vincent took my challenge to post about secrets.

I've complained in the past about secrets that players keep, not only from the other players, but also from the GM. I just can't remember if I've complained about it here or not.
Anyway, the short version is that one of the PCs in Cold Blood had a mysterious background, which was opaque even to me. I made several attempts to find things out so I could USE them in the campaign - you know, like I was doing with the backstories and "public secrets" of the other PCs - but to no avail. I didn't think the player was being coy; she just hadn't worked it all out yet. The end result was the same; the ranger only got the spotlight in the wild, and I didn't get to do anything with his backstory until the very last session.

All I know is double teaming Krzysztof = best episode ever.

i should rephrase what i said a little. When i mean the traitor pc should fail i mean he should ULTIMATELY fail. Let him succeed in his betrayal should it come out that way. If the PC's come out swinging at the traitor PC and the traitor PC loses or dies he should not start crying about it. The traitor is going against a larger group of PC's which puts the odds against him and the player of the traitor should be aware of his high likelihood of failure.

Also letting one player sabotage the campaign of a bunch of other people whom are equally invested isn't particularly fair. I think the gm has a right to go tough on the solo traitor or reign him in to a degree.

The "I unite the world against your empire and the pc's" example previously posted is a situation where the gm probably should have stepped in and at least questioned not only the right but the logic of one pc being able to unite an entire world against the empire. A diplomatic effort of that magnitude should just be played out openly at table for the enjoyment of everyone. Secondly, how the hell does he unite the world without the PC's noticing? That has to be a huge feat. Thirdly, what he hell is keeping these countries together, is the empire a sufficient threat?

Sometimes the traitor player just has some weird inferiority complex and is trying to "win the game". If his plot involves destroying the game created so far by every other player at the table and he is clearly not doing this to elevate the intrigue and excitement of the game for the other players and the other players would DEFINITELY not be on board with what he is doing in any way, I have no problem with the gm giving him some extremely stiff roadblocks.

I like Jenns example, everyone had fun and came away with a good experience. The other pc's were on board with the situation. This makes me think the definition of success should be put in. The traitor should be allowed to play out their plot and if they do it right they should succeed. Success of the traitor's plot should just be determined by how it LOGICALLY plays out. However, success of the traitor character's life overall should be stymied. The traitor should get his come-uppins.

How often in a movie does the traitor actually achieve world domination? never. He/she usually manages to run away with the triforce, loot, etc., but down the road the pc realizes she has alienated herself. The traitor PC either gets double crossed or falls into a pit or some crap with a dinosaur happens(ex. Dennis Nedry Jurassic Park). Jenn succeeded in her plotting but then what? I don't think Jenn should have just been told "no you fail, you can't trick everybody" by the gm. Let her do her thing and let the events happen, should it all play out that way. However, the consequences of her actions should not be held back and she should receive her come-uppins and not piss and moan about it.

What if the players were characters from The Italian Job. In the Italian job Ed Norton's character is a thief in a group that pulled off a big caper (think of them as the PC's). Ed Norton (traitor pc) betrays everyone after the heist at the most vulnerable time and shoots Donald Sutherland (one of the PC's) dead and takes all the loot. In a game i would allow this to happen. However, like in the Italian job, when the thieves band together against Norton afterward, steal back the gold, and ruin his new gang; the player of Norton(traitor pc) should not get all pissy-faced. He screwed people over, there were more of them than him, and they got him backx2.

Party conflict is a real tightrope and has to be done just right with all the players' styles and goals in mind. In all my experiences it was done well, and everyone had fun. Even experiences i hear second hand go well with everyone having fun. The traitor's advantage of stealth shouldn't be taken to such extremes that he can hide Mount Rushmore under his ballsack. The shit he does makes waves and it would make sense if some things came back to the pcs' ears.

Also, when i peed on railroads i was peeing on the over-use of the term and the extreme broadening of its definition to mean "anything the gm puts in front of you to do during the game".

Thanks Runester! When you confided in me that someone was setting you up I was like OMG he has NO idea and when he finds out he is going to hate me (not just your character but you as a person). What happened was that i saw I was given the skill "rumor-wise" and I hate not getting to use skills so I was like hmm let's start a rumor. And then stuff kept happening and tresi would suggest that my character should be upset by the fact that the elves didn't bring a gift. SOOOOoooo......
I was like fuck this! I'm going ALL OUT. gonna do some attempted murder, blackmail, rumors ALL OF IT> I totally committed to my character knowing FULL well that I was going to go down in flames and either be put in jail but most likely get my head chopped off. My goal was to destroy the other three dwarves since they totally ruined the crown. I played my beliefs on the Burning Wheel Sheet it helped a lot.

I thought someone would have noticed me passing notes to various people and the GM. but i guess no one really picked up on that. which was cool.

I don't think I could keep a secret through a campaign game like i did in the gift. But i feel that if you are going to go ahead and be the traitor/villian/backstabber than live it up completely and realize that you are going to die at the end. or beat up. mostly die though cuz people get angry. just dont be a poopface about it all and whine like a pussy

Other than rules referee and moderator, the GM's job during The Gift is to keep the situation tense and make sure the players do something. Nothing can happen unless the players make it happen.

Hence reminding the Warden not to accept these blatant insults from those damn Elves at every opportunity.

For the rumor-making test, Jenn was warned that if she didn't achieve enough successes everyone would know that she tried to start this rumor. So either way, an interesting thread would develop!

Nothing wrong with the "GM Nudge"

I like when the GM nudges me where i pee

I knew i needed to do something but i was trying to figure out what to do. Things were going on but i hadn't gotten my bearings yet. And then i found rumor-wise. now i want to play burning wheel again so i can burn a character with some pretty sweet skills and use them all.

Hell no! First, you are almost painfully nice - very hard to hate. Second, and more importantly, I game primarily for those moments of surprise when something amazing happens. It can be a GM who pulls out some amazing 'fact' that we've all been staring at and suddenly see in a new light ("wait? The villains quest for an item of power was so he could cure is dying child, all along? I didn't see that coming!") or when the players cook up a crazy plan that ends up working anyway ("OK, first I jump on that thing, and then you cast Oil Slick and Fire Ball and then the ranger shoots the rope. Ready? Here we go!") or, finally, when the story itself goes in a new and unexpected direction which is both interesting as well as surprising - and that's what the Warden's betrayal was.

What really impressed me about Burning Wheel was not only how much fun a Dual of Wits turned out to be ... but how the Beliefs really drove the players. I've played with players who have large and complex back-stories full of motivations ... who still sat quietly at the table waiting for something to happen before they would react to it. I don't know what magic is in the BW Belief system, but it's almost like having that one sentence on your character sheet "gives permission" for the player to really start pushing and initiating actions instead of waiting passively and reactively for something to happen to him.

At least, that's what I saw. Further, I really wonder how much of that can be grafted onto other game systems. Honestly, if a D&D character had beliefs listed right on the sheet and the GM promised bonus XP every time the character acted consistent with those beliefs - wouldn't that have a similar effect? I think it would be worth trying.

It's a common impulse to graft Beliefs onto mainstream games. I don't think it'll work quite as well, but I can't explain why.