Information hiding

[Ryan Paddy]

How important to your larp is it that the players only know stuff that their characters know?

This issue is quite different in larp than tabletop. In tabletop, you have to make players leave the play area if you don't want them to hear something... or pass a note. In larp, if their character isn't there to hear it, the players usually isn't either. So it's possible to keep player and character knowledge separate more easily in larp, and many larps take advantage of this.

The UK larp Maelstrom has a policy that players should not discuss what's happened in the game out of character. Maelstrom is highly dependant on information hiding. Part of the enjoyment of the game is intended to be discovering information and hiding secreets from other player characters, and it's assumed that this works better if the players don't know either. This makes sense in the context of the game style.

In the NZ larp Mordavia we try to keep information somewhat secret among players whose characters don't know about it, but we don't stress it to much. The players continue play online somewhat between games in a public forum, and they often find things out this way that their characters wouldn't know. They also write fanfic that gives insight into each other's characters and reveals information. I think being able to see what's happening in the other character's lives gives the players a kind of vicarious enjoyment, which makes up for some loss of enjoyment from discovery.

At the complete other end of the spectrum is jeepform, which has a principle of transparency that means that alls players must know everything that's happening in the larp. This is much like improvisational drama, and allows for players to create dramatic situations that wouldn't be possible if the information was hidden from them. I posted a thread in this forum with stuff about jeepform, but the thread seems to have disappeared so I can't link it.

Where does your larp lie in this spectrum? How does it affect play?

[Levi]

Most of the LARPS I play in have the basic rule of "If you told them, your character told them.", though most don't codify it.

But, in more general terms...

If secrecy is "set too low", intrigue is impossible.

If too high, information hoarding can stall a line of action that matters.

[Peter Svensson]

One of the LARPs I'm in uses the "If you know out of character, you know in character." rule. It's quite effective at ensuring that secrets are kept. I'm about ready to explode because of a massive dirty secret I've got but can't tell anyone about.

Another one I was in used more traditional "If you don't know in character, you can't act on it." and was pretty good about it. We knew that a major NPC wasn't who he claimed to be out of game, but no one EVER acted on that knowledge. Though it's easier to not act towards an NPC than another player that way.

[Ryan Paddy]

If secrecy is (..) too high, information hoarding can stall a line of action that matters.

That's only true if you think some lines of action matter more than others. Not wanting to go all GNS on this, but in shorthand that's a Narrativist kind of concept. Which is why no secrecy works so well for jeepform, because it's totally driven by narrative.

I find that too much secrecy lessons the enjoyment a player might get from seeing the "big picture" of what is happening in the setting. It limits their enjoyment to things that their character encounters personally.

Also, an atmosphere of secrecy may lead to players not knowing stuff that their characters really should know.

[Levi]

That's only true if you think some lines of action matter more than others.

To different players, they do.

I'd like to solve a mystery. Bob has a clue I need, and no reason to withhold. But he knows as a player that he can raise it's value by doing so.

So he does, and I'm stalled.

That's hoarding.

[Ryan Paddy]

Need more info.

Are we talking about an IC interaction? In that case, it's up to the player to decide whether his character would share a secret. The character may want to withhold info just to raise it's value, or to "cash it in" for a favour later.

Or are we talking about an OOC interaction? In which case why should the player tell you information that you haven't earned IC, to alllow your character to solve an IC issue?

Either way I'm not sure how this relates to the IC/OOC information barrier.

[Ryan Paddy]

There's another aspect to information hiding that is somewhat different to "secrecy". What if the game is set up so that you the player can actually see what is happening in an IC location that your character can't see?

For example, a play area can be split into different IC areas. This might just be for convenience, or it might be deliberate so that information can easily flow betwen the IC areas. One area of a room might be onboard a spaceship, and the other could be down on the planet that the spaceship is bombing. They could speak via radio (they can actually hear what each other is saying in the play area, so no need for technology) and the people on the planet would know when they've been bombed without need for GM messaging. This type of thing is common in improv and it sounds like jeepform uses it, but I haven't heard much about it in other larps.

[angelsorayama]

Here's a question relating to jeepform:

Does knowing what is about to happen at all times ruin the reactions of the characters?

Part of the fun of roleplaying (imo) is the improv aspect. If I wanted to be in a pre-staged play, I would likely go and audition for a theatre troupe. The way I see it, jeepform takes away the chance to catch a character by surprise or put them on the spot because the player will know it's coming and plan out their response to it. Also, it makes it near impossible for characters to plot against each other successfully. Jeep form takes a level of undrestanding between players and comes from a distinctly "I'm here for the story" perspective that would only work if all the players were on the same level... which isn't as easy to achieve in larp, especially if the larp is larger.

I know that, for me, having out of character information drives me insane. It's there but I can't act on it the way my character would, because my character doesn't know. So instead of concentrating on what my character is doing in a given situation, I am concentrating on not acting on this information. It is my opinion that out of character information should be kept to a minimum and that if you are chatting with a player ooc at a game and you tell them something, that you may as well have told them ic. Secrets are secrets and if you want to keep them, you shouldn't be telling anyone.

That being said, players/characters hording secrets can be dealt with as well, right? I mean, in Vampire there was Dominate, in Mage there was mind magic, in our homegrown Sunfall system there are spells whose names I can't think of off the top of my head right now. If a character is hording a secret for a good reason, then there are in character answers to that. If a player is hording a secret for no good reason, then the ST should have a back-up plan on how to get that info out if they need it out.

[Levi]

That being said, players/characters hording secrets can be dealt with as well, right?

Yes, but not necessarily "in good order".

I refer you to any number of older MET Vampire games where "nobody but the bossess gets any plot".

(Also, Angel - Spectacle is at the bottom of my signature).

[Eggwhite]

One of the issues I've encountered in games is that of having to decide at what point you can work something out IC when you've known about it OOC for ages.

As an example... Character A has a secret. Character B is an investigative type. Character A puts a lot of work into hiding the concrete evidence of their secret.

Player A tells player B the secret. From that point on, Player B has issues to deal with concerning fair play. If they were not already looking for Character A's secret, will they be accused of using OOC knowledge IC if they start looking? If they were already looking for it, when can they decide they have enough evidence to work it out? If they're a naturally suspicious character with a lot of circumstantial evidence, is it fair for them to make their mind up IC without it being metagaming.

I know this is why a lot of games have a rule of "if you've been told OOC, you've been told IC"... simply to stop people telling their secrets OOC and then complaining when they get found out IC because it <em>had to have been metagaming</em>.

We've not outright said that at the game where it might come up, and I'm wondering if perhaps we should... just to avoid the issue before it appears.

[bink]

I've played in a game that said anything you know OOC is known to you ICly. It did help reduce the amount of people blabbing their secrets away, and people taking OOC as IC comments. At one point in the game I found a player had found information from the st's without them knowing and used their rule to horrible ends. I would say taking the middle ground is the safe way to go.