Secrecy

[BreaktheStatue]

A common problem is when the secret player goes full jerk and tries to make the game all about them. See they can't just sit in the corner and have a secret: that is no fun. And it would not matter. For the secret to be fun, the player has to throw it in everyones face all the time and then be like 'nananahaha, I got a secret and I'm not going to tell you", a lot like a three year old.

You also get the spotlight problem: For the player to ''keep" the secret, they have to steal the spot light.

Like take the cool character that wears a mask so ''nobody knows what they look like". Now the characters stop and eat, and the jerk player HAS to steal the spot light and say "Attention, my special faceless character moves away from the group and makes sure no one is around and eats in private!"

Then you get the game problems like, the characters are invited to dinner with the king. Jerk player has his silly character in their mask. Obviously the kings guards are like ''sorry silly character, you can't wear your stupid mask in to see the king". And this is where the jerk player will often cry and break down and such.

And then you get the problem of...well, to stop the jerk player from crying..the DM (mistakenly) caves in and says ''ok, fine, your silly character can wear the stupid mask to go eat with the king. And then the player goes full game disruptive jerk and steals silverware or attacks the king. After all, yuc yuc yuc, no one knows what the character looks like, so they can't 'go after them", yuck yuck yuck!

And that is just a few.

Yeah, I can see those being annoying scenarios. I am not convinced that the problem is the concept of "PC secrets" though - it sounds like an issue of obnoxious players.

I think 99% of these "Would you allow X at your table" discussions can be answered like this:

"Is your player an antisocial a-hole?"

No, your player is generally a good sport:

Okay, sure. Let's see what player can do with concept x. Might be fun.

Yes, everyone is routinely annoyed by your player:

Your player's a-holiness will shine through at some point, no matter what you allow, so maybe just stop playing with him.

I don't know if my new player is an a-hole:

Okay, maybe just be wary of the common problem-causing tropes, but give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Darth Ultron]

Yeah, I can see those being annoying scenarios. I am not convinced that the problem is the concept of "PC secrets" though - it sounds like an issue of obnoxious players.

Right that is kind of the point: only obnoxious players want to do the ''secret thing".

Okay, maybe just be wary of the common problem-causing tropes, but give them the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to let something go that most likely will ruin the game, you can sure try it. Maybe your game will be a game where everything works out great....or maybe not.

[BreaktheStatue]

Right that is kind of the point: only obnoxious players want to do the ''secret thing".



If you want to let something go that most likely will ruin the game, you can sure try it. Maybe your game will be a game where everything works out great....or maybe not.

Man, don't take this as a put-down, but it sounds like you need to vet the people you play with, better.

You get the right crew, and you can do anything. Secrets, power gaming, evil campaign, whatever. Throw a bad apple in, and it doesn't matter how many "problematic" concepts you've placed-off limits, they will find a way to ruin your game, because *that's what a-holes do.*

EDIT: And quite frankly, if I can't trust a group of people to act maturely enough to not screw-up something as simple as "My character has a secret," why am I spending 5-6 hours a week with them? They're not my coworkers or family, this is a totally voluntary association.

[Mordaedil]

But what if the subterfuge is the point? What if that part of the game is what certain players enjoy? Would you call them out for BadWrongFun because of their preferences?

Now, it's something you don't enjoy, and wouldn't bother interacting with? That's fine. But why rain on their subterfuge minigame, to the point of wanting to ban it from the table? What harm does it do you?

Subterfuge is always the point, the problem is that they expect other players to slowly dig out their secrets, but in my experience it never plays out the way you'd want to at the table. Either players push to reveal everything at once or they take no interest at all. That doesn't mean all secrets at the table are taboo, I've had characters who started the game evil, worshipping a lawful good deity and the players were confused as to why this was the case. Some secrecy and mystery is good and fun.

Maintaining your character as a complete enigma usually doesn't work out. But I say this mostly as a warning to how I've seen it play out. There's definitely ways to make it work.

No, no...I'm the Other Kind of Person, you know: Make America Great Again. I'm just passionate. I do not believe in psychobabble, like the silly idea that ''everybody hurts" and the only reason they ''are something" is all sad stuff happening to them. For example, no pirates have ever raided my boat, and yet I still hate pirates..though none have ever attacked me personally.

Do you mean "Make Germany Great Again"?

[Lacco]

Funny thing is that this is really close to what I'm going for; Aith (the androgene in question) has been continually punished by circumstance for being a woman, first by the monastery that adopted her unknowing of her femininity (thanks to one monk out of the hundred being good-natured and not entirely on board with their belief system) and then by other, much more sadistic things that need no further discussion.

The idea is that her ambiguous nature can be played both for laughs and give room for some character growth when the cat does, inevitably, come out of the bag, hopefully in such a way as to facilitate more humor before getting down to the more dramatic and less lighthearted aspects of the character.

That's my rationale; I wanted to provide the table with a small puzzle they can fiddle with during downtime in the form of trying to figure out just who and what Aith is. A part of the inspiration for the idea was actually a filler episode of Naruto focusing on trying to get Kakashi to remove his mask, only for every scheme to somehow be foiled. If someone's not interested, they're allowed to be so, because it's not like not knowing this information about the character is liable to hurt anyone in the party; I just take umbrage with the DM undermining my efforts.

Now then provide them with the puzzle - but once they take the hook, expect that they will do what the characters you speak about did - do anything and everything to find out the reality behind the mask. And expect that you will not be able to foil the attempts - how will your character react to such intrusion?

That's the important part. The lady in my example was actually having lots of fun when the players tried to find out about her - and the character by the time did not mind the actual revelation. Is it the same with your character?

Zero. The campaign hasn't even been going on long enough for any of the party members to have a reason to care about my character's history; they just know she's good with a knife and can't be detected unless she wants to be (I've rolled pretty well on all things stealth so far.)

How many attempts were there from the PCs to actually find out anything?

Because you can use this as a simple measure - if they did not even start, maybe they don't even know there is something. Let them know. If they like the game you propose, they will play it.

You could try telling the secrets to the other players, but not letting their characters know. Then the GM don't have to spend the extra effort of keeping track of the status of your secrets. Might get more interesting and dynamic roleplay with that approach as well, instead of relying on players who don't know there's a secret to go looking for one. Though that depends on your group I guess.

Now this is a good advice.

Ideally: give each player something to work with. A piece of puzzle, so to speak. Maybe even conflicting information. If I were to play such character, I would - instead of withholding information - provide too much information to sort out what is correct/true. Every character would know my backstory, but every one of them differently (and every one of them would have part of it correct)...

But do tell them that these are secrets and that they don't have the whole puzzle.

This actually reminds me of a similar problem in a current game. One of the characters has a nickname in her background that people hunting her know her by, so she doesn't use it. Unfortunately, the DM has trouble remembering the character's real name so he refers to her by her easy to remember nickname for things like initiative. This led to all the characters referring to her by her nickname that she never told anyone in game.

Did you expect the nickname to come up & make trouble in game sooner or later?

Subterfuge is always the point, the problem is that they expect other players to slowly dig out their secrets, but in my experience it never plays out the way you'd want to at the table. Either players push to reveal everything at once or they take no interest at all. That doesn't mean all secrets at the table are taboo, I've had characters who started the game evil, worshipping a lawful good deity and the players were confused as to why this was the case. Some secrecy and mystery is good and fun.

Maintaining your character as a complete enigma usually doesn't work out. But I say this mostly as a warning to how I've seen it play out. There's definitely ways to make it work.

Agreed.

Either the players take it as the main quest of the game, hunting for clues and hounding your character (which, considering the information provided about the character is not really ideal - as the primary reaction could be retreat) or they will not care at all. Which is better for the OP?

[Lunali]

Did you expect the nickname to come up & make trouble in game sooner or later?

It is supposed to become an issue eventually, when/if we travel to the areas where she's hunted.

[Lacco]

It is supposed to become an issue eventually, when/if we travel to the areas where she's hunted.

I'm a bit slow today - so apologies if this comes as stupid question, but: why would the nickname be an issue in areas where she's hunted if she does not use it/nobody mentions it?

[Tanarii]

The solution to the fact that you don't know everything about everyone isn't to have secrets. It's not to write a ten page backstory. Write up a few key personality motivations, choose a few important pieces of history that will possibly act as motivations, and go from there. The little details of your past can be made up on the fly if they come up.

The majority of enjoyable games I've played in, every character effectively starts as a 'mystery' to the others. At best, you know race & class, and a 1-3 sentence description of appearance and personality summary given by the player in the first session. Everything else comes up in play, most often because it's made up on the spot.

[Erit]

Well, I'll guess your talking about real life here, right? So, for most people when they are friends, they share a lot about each other...it's kind a big part of a friendship. Now, sure, there are silly people who do the thing where ''I know Bob's name, so we are best friends 4ever!", but that is not how normal people are. Sure you don't know everything at the introduction, but you should know a lot after a good amount of time.

Do you think that the friends of convicts are lying when they tell authorities "No, I had no idea they were like that"? I've known my sister for literally as long as I have been alive, and I didn't know she was a Communist sympathizer until last month. Are you about to try, and fail might I add, to convince me or anyone else with a functioning brain that anyone can know everything there is to know about a person? Because that seems to be the criteria you're putting forth for being able to call someone anything more than an acquaintance.

Right, but your playing a selfish, hostile mini game against the other players.....and that is not a good thing at all.

You are operating under the assumption, an assumption that has already been refuted mind you, that it's done with malice or hostility, because for some reason you seem to be convinced that malice and hostility are all that can exist in this equation. Disregard for a counterargument is not a refutation, it's a tacit concession, and to try and press the matter with the same arguments that have already been defeated is among the heights of either arrogance or intellectual inadequacy.

When the Dm does it, it's a game secret.

So when the players do it at the DM's behest, as was the case in the example you quoted here?

No, no...I'm the Other Kind of Person, you know: Make America Great Again. I'm just passionate.

It never stops being interesting to see just how vociferously I can disagree with someone on one thing while sharing their opinion on another. +1.

I do not believe in psychobabble, like the silly idea that ''everybody hurts" and the only reason they ''are something" is all sad stuff happening to them. For example, no pirates have ever raided my boat, and yet I still hate pirates..though none have ever attacked me personally.

And I do not believe it when you claim to you haven't "been hurt" as the saying goes, following this:

A common problem is when the secret player goes full jerk and tries to make the game all about them. See they can't just sit in the corner and have a secret: that is no fun. And it would not matter. For the secret to be fun, the player has to throw it in everyones face all the time and then be like 'nananahaha, I got a secret and I'm not going to tell you", a lot like a three year old.

You also get the spotlight problem: For the player to ''keep" the secret, they have to steal the spot light.

Like take the cool character that wears a mask so ''nobody knows what they look like". Now the characters stop and eat, and the jerk player HAS to steal the spot light and say "Attention, my special faceless character moves away from the group and makes sure no one is around and eats in private!"

Then you get the game problems like, the characters are invited to dinner with the king. Jerk player has his silly character in their mask. Obviously the kings guards are like ''sorry silly character, you can't wear your stupid mask in to see the king". And this is where the jerk player will often cry and break down and such.

And then you get the problem of...well, to stop the jerk player from crying..the DM (mistakenly) caves in and says ''ok, fine, your silly character can wear the stupid mask to go eat with the king. And then the player goes full game disruptive jerk and steals silverware or attacks the king. After all, yuc yuc yuc, no one knows what the character looks like, so they can't 'go after them", yuck yuck yuck!

And that is just a few.

It's okay to admit your opinion is colored by negative experience. No, really, you can admit to it and nobody will light you on fire. It's not too late to accept that most players are actually more interested in cooperating with the story than in undermining it, contrary to the memetic nature of the problem children. But to counter your examples of concerns as to what the character might do:

Aith takes first watch every night and eats her day's rations when everyone else is asleep.

By the time the campaign progresses to the point where meeting an authority figure is worth planning for, either the party will have gotten to know each other well enough, and experienced enough individual and interpersonal character growth, that she's done away with the charade, or they'll be still be disparate enough that she can justify ****ing off to do some busywork for pocket money while the others do their thing. Or she'll have died horribly at the whims of the dice. In all three scenarios, the point is utterly moot.

You have no way of proving my intent to be a disruptive player, because not only can you not in fact read my mind, but I don't intend to be a disruptive player. This is an argument you literally cannot win, as it would be you trying to assert you know my intentions better than I do.

Backing up a bit:

A common problem is when the secret player goes full jerk and tries to make the game all about them. See they can't just sit in the corner and have a secret: that is no fun. And it would not matter. For the secret to be fun, the player has to throw it in everyones face all the time and then be like 'nananahaha, I got a secret and I'm not going to tell you", a lot like a three year old.

You also get the spotlight problem: For the player to ''keep" the secret, they have to steal the spot light.

Have you considered, just for a moment, or a second, or for any conceivable iota of time... That "keeping" the secret as you mention is the exact opposite of the point I've stated the whole exercise to have? No, seriously; has the idea crossed your mind that you should deign to notice when someone refutes the postulates of your argument?

Right, on day one the adventures meet for the first time and don't know each other. Ok....then they adventure together for weeks....and get to know each other.

Condescend harder, you might actually push your head far enough up your ass to be able to see through your nose hairs. Or, alternatively, you could reverse and realize you just supported the whole concept of there being secrets because secrets are things you don't know and need to learn over a non-trivial period of time.

Right that is kind of the point: only obnoxious players want to do the ''secret thing".

Absolutist arguments are folly.

[Slipperychicken]

I've been through this before; my character used an alias, so the GM had the main villain teleport in, reveal his real name, and teleport out before anything happened in the story.

I think GMs do it for cheap drama, because they can't think of any other way to use a secret in storytelling than revealing it during session 2 before the players even know what the main conflict is. It's kind of the same deal as with PCs' families: GMs without storytelling chops see very few ways to squeeze melodrama out of it (slaughter, sex-abuse, or kidnapping), and end up leaving such a bad taste in players' mouths that they go out of their way to exclude it from background detail in all future characters.


Although I will say, abuse of secrecy by GMs has lead murderhobos to become exceedingly open-minded, tolerant, comfortable in their own bodies and minds, and willing to sharing information with their fellow PCs.

[Darth Ultron]

Man, don't take this as a put-down, but it sounds like you need to vet the people you play with, better.

Sadly, many people lie...but I'm quick to catch them up in the game.

Do you think that the friends of convicts are lying when they tell authorities "No, I had no idea they were like that"? I've known my sister for literally as long as I have been alive, and I didn't know she was a Communist sympathizer until last month. Are you about to try, and fail might I add, to convince me or anyone else with a functioning brain that anyone can know everything there is to know about a person? Because that seems to be the criteria you're putting forth for being able to call someone anything more than an acquaintance.

It is true that some people are not close to their family or friends, but a lot more people are closer.

And I do not believe it when you claim to you haven't "been hurt" as the saying goes, following this:

Guess my definition of ''hurt" is not quite the same as yours. I don't get ''hurt'' when something happens like a jerk player acts like jerk.

Absolutist arguments are folly.

I'd answer....but it's a secret, hehe.

[Icecaster]

Right, on day one the adventures meet for the first time and don't know each other. Ok....then they adventure together for weeks....and get to know each other.

Exactly. All I'm trying to say with my point is that what would be a "secret" from non-PCs coming to the attention of the PCs' characters can lead to fun roleplaying. Perhaps I should have been a little more clear with my articulation: A secret should come out during a campaign and the other characters should learn all other characters' secrets. When I say "secret," I'm really referring to any facts or backstory of a character that wouldn't be available knowledge to the average NPC. A secret that doesn't come to light is generally simply a waste of time and effort for all parties involved. Such a secret wouldn't necessarily hurt a game, but it wouldn't improve the game either.

[Quertus]

Sure you don't know everything at the introduction, but you should know a lot after a good amount of time.

Right, on day one the adventures meet for the first time and don't know each other. Ok....then they adventure together for weeks....and get to know each other.

And that transition is a minigame I'd like to play - regardless of how open or secretive the individual characters are.

Right, but your playing a selfish, hostile mini game against the other players.....and that is not a good thing at all.

Historically, you have trouble understanding Sandboxes, so this might be a hard sell, too, but I'll try.

Learning about someone else is an opt-in minigame.

So, you're not paying a hostile game against the other players - you're giving them the opportunity to opt-in to a particular minigame, if that's the kind of thing that they enjoy.

A common problem is when the secret player goes full jerk and tries to make the game all about them.

You also get the spotlight problem: For the player to ''keep" the secret, they have to steal the spot light.

Like take the cool character that wears a mask so ''nobody knows what they look like". Now the characters stop and eat, and the jerk player HAS to steal the spot light and say "Attention, my special faceless character moves away from the group and makes sure no one is around and eats in private!"

If a player who takes the 10 seconds or so to say that they eat elsewhere is all it takes for you to consider them a spotlight hog - if you seriously can't stand a player having the spotlight for less than 10 seconds in a game - then you've got much, much bigger problems than players or PCs keeping secrets.

Either the players take it as the main quest of the game, hunting for clues and hounding your character (which, considering the information provided about the character is not really ideal - as the primary reaction could be retreat) or they will not care at all. Which is better for the OP?

That's one very false dichotomy you've got there. Personally, I'd expect that they might take it as a secondary or tertiary goal, not as their main quest. If they didn't just ignore it, that is.

The solution to the fact that you don't know everything about everyone isn't to have secrets. It's not to write a ten page backstory. Write up a few key personality motivations, choose a few important pieces of history that will possibly act as motivations, and go from there. The little details of your past can be made up on the fly if they come up.

The majority of enjoyable games I've played in, every character effectively starts as a 'mystery' to the others. At best, you know race & class, and a 1-3 sentence description of appearance and personality summary given by the player in the first session. Everything else comes up in play, most often because it's made up on the spot.

Other than the bolded bit, my experience agrees with that last paragraph. Some of the best games I've had were where a group of very experienced and well-played PCs met for the first time. And nobody had to make up anything on the spot. Because everyone had thousands of pages of "backstory" in terms of time played.

[Darth Ultron]

And that transition is a minigame I'd like to play - regardless of how open or secretive the individual characters are.

Though your not playing the game that everyone else is playing:The set RPG adventure. Your all into the private game with just yourself exploring things and 'doing tests on others' and such.

So, you're not paying a hostile game against the other players - you're giving them the opportunity to opt-in to a particular minigame, if that's the kind of thing that they enjoy.

Right, you want everyone to stop playing the game that everyone came over to play....even you, maybe, unless you were just misleading everyone so you could ''sneak in" and play your selfish hostile solo game.

After all, you are not up front and honest, right? You don't say ''attention everyone, I wish for us to stop playing the game and instead, I want you to play my personal minigame. What do you all say?"

If a player who takes the 10 seconds or so to say that they eat elsewhere is all it takes for you to consider them a spotlight hog - if you seriously can't stand a player having the spotlight for less than 10 seconds in a game - then you've got much, much bigger problems than players or PCs keeping secrets.

Of course it's not just 'one' bit of ten seconds...it's more like ten seconds out of every five minutes or so. Plus rants of ten minutes and more. The secret attention hog wants to ruin lots of the game time.

[Quertus]

Though your not playing the game that everyone else is playing:The set RPG adventure. Your all into the private game with just yourself exploring things and 'doing tests on others' and such.

Right, you want everyone to stop playing the game that everyone came over to play....even you, maybe, unless you were just misleading everyone so you could ''sneak in" and play your selfish hostile solo game.

After all, you are not up front and honest, right? You don't say ''attention everyone, I wish for us to stop playing the game and instead, I want you to play my personal minigame. What do you all say?"

Of course it's not just 'one' bit of ten seconds...it's more like ten seconds out of every five minutes or so. Plus rants of ten minutes and more. The secret attention hog wants to ruin lots of the game time.

An attention hog will be a problem, regardless of whether or not they're keeping secrets. The problem isn't the secrets, it's the attention hog.

As to the rest... few people actually picture the game exactly the same way. For example, I'd almost be happy writing "Quertus, Wizard" on a blank piece of paper as the entirety of character creation. I didn't come here for the character creation minigame, I came here to roleplay. Yet systems and GM's keep insisting that character creation, backstory writing, character sketching, etc etc etc minigames are somehow completely valid in role-playing games, where all I signed up for was role-playing.

And, if the characters that we're role-playing don't know each other, well, then, I'd like to roleplay that. And roleplay them getting to know each other. Funny how the minigame I'm describing is actually more inherently a part of a role-playing game than those other minigames.

How much the other PCs choose to get to know my character is a purely opt-in minigame. As is how much I get to know theirs. And the NPCs. And the world. At least, in the sandboxy games that I prefer.

[Kardwill]

As for being secretly evil... Well, I've done that before, too, but not in the backstabby kind of way; more the "My friends won't do this because of some tripe about morals, but things will be so much easier if you just... disappear" bent.

Pulling a Gilles? Even Good characters can be pretty vicious when they're all pragmatic about it

Gilles : Can you move?
Incapacitated bad guy : Need a... a minute... She could have killed me.
Gilles (quietly cleaning his glasses) : No, she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later, she will pay for that mercy, and the world with her. Buffy even knows that, and still she couldn't take a human life. she's a hero, you see. she's not like us.
Incapacitated bad guy : "us"?

[Lacco]

That's one very false dichotomy you've got there. Personally, I'd expect that they might take it as a secondary or tertiary goal, not as their main quest. If they didn't just ignore it, that is.

Just for fun: how would Quertus the PC react to such person in his party?

[dino_park]

Its the case with almost all the games these days :/

[Tanarii]

Other than the bolded bit, my experience agrees with that last paragraph. Some of the best games I've had were where a group of very experienced and well-played PCs met for the first time. And nobody had to make up anything on the spot. Because everyone had thousands of pages of "backstory" in terms of time played.

From what you've described, you're not playing anything like the games I'm describing. Where people come to the table with some basic outlines of how a character personality differed from their own personality. Then play the game to make decisions for their character in the fantasy environment, which is what I call roleplaying. And in the process of playing the game, let the at-the-table experiences and decisions made invent who the character ends up being.

You seem to come to the table with a full formed character in your head, and have a primary goal of expressing that character at the table. And define roleplaying as expressing the character at the table.

[Darth Ultron]

As to the rest... few people actually picture the game exactly the same way.

Not exactly true, as the vast majority of players come to play the RPG adventure. Most players play the same way: role playing their character on the set game adventure.

For example, I'd almost be happy writing "Quertus, Wizard" on a blank piece of paper as the entirety of character creation. I didn't come here for the character creation minigame, I came here to roleplay. Yet systems and GM's keep insisting that character creation, backstory writing, character sketching, etc etc etc minigames are somehow completely valid in role-playing games, where all I signed up for was role-playing.

Sounds like you are saying you just want to free form role play. I wounder why you even play a game with rules then? Why not find a nice free from game?

How much the other PCs choose to get to know my character is a purely opt-in minigame. As is how much I get to know theirs. And the NPCs. And the world. At least, in the sandboxy games that I prefer.

Yes, you can be the Lone Wolf and sit in the corner and not play the game with the rest of the group...it is a valid way to ''experience' the game.

[Jay R]

Right that is kind of the point: only obnoxious players want to do the ''secret thing".

Right, but your playing a selfish, hostile mini game against the other players.....and that is not a good thing at all.

A common problem is when the secret player goes full jerk and tries to make the game all about them. See they can't just sit in the corner and have a secret: that is no fun. And it would not matter.

For the secret to be fun, the player has to throw it in everyones face all the time and then be like 'nananahaha, I got a secret and I'm not going to tell you", a lot like a three year old.

You also get the spotlight problem: For the player to ''keep" the secret, they have to steal the spot light.

Well, if that has been your experience, then I can see why you don't like the characters to have secrets. But the problem isn't the secret; it's the player. If you deny a secret to somebody who is obnoxious, selfish, hostile, a jerk, a three year old, or a spotlight hog, that person will find other tools to ruin fun. Such tools are everywhere.

In my experience, people who actively want to support the party will support the party, secret or no secret. When my character has a secret, I generally start out knowing under what conditions he will reveal it to the party. Indeed, that's the most fun part about having one.

For the secret to be fun, the player has to throw it in everyones face all the time and then be like 'nananahaha, I got a secret and I'm not going to tell you", a lot like a three year old.

This has not been my experience. In general, the players I've seen with secrets (leaving aside the selfish ones using them for mild PvP like picking the party's pockets), the secret has been intended for a great reveal at a crucial moment. A few examples:

1. When we started an old west game, I announced that I was going to base my character on an old TV show. I showed up with Cali Yang, a Chinese immigrant with Kung Fu skills, clearly based on Kwai-Chang Kane from Kung Fu. I never mentioned my secret, and players were enjoying my faux oriental proverbs. But in the fifth game, he needed to drop the disguise, and revealed himself as Cal Young, a disguise artist federal agent based on Artemus Gordon of Wild, Wild West.

2. In a Champions game, I was playing a Superman-like flying brick named Hyperion, with a sidekick Pinball. Hyperion was seen to die in battle. In fact, he hadn't died, The DM and I secretly arranged for him to reappear at a crucial moment. The party was fighting a giant robot, and losing badly. At one point the DM said, "You hear a rush of air from above." I looked at him, he nodded privately at me, and Pinball yelled out, "Look! Up in the sky!" And that's how Hyperion returned to save the day.

In both cases, members of the party congratulated me later on a fun, exciting adventure moment.

3. In a current D&D game, one of the characters has an artifact - an intelligent cloak with powers and goals the rest of us don't know about. I'm having fun trying to work it out. But Isaac is a decent player, and has never used it to be obnoxious, selfish, hostile, a jerk, a three year old, or a spotlight hog.

4. In Flashing Blades, a game set in the musketeer era, every player is expected to have a secret. It always makes the political plots more fun, not less. But nobody I've played with uses their secret to betray the party or hurt other people's fun.

5. In a recent D&D game, my character Gwystyl has a secret quest, which he himself knows very little about (which is to say, I set up a background idea which the DM can use or not, as he chooses, and when he chooses). All he knows is that it's tied to his Ancestral Relic, a hooked hammer. The DM has already used it to attach Gwystyl to the party.

In the second session, it came up that he had a quest, and the following conversation ensued.

Gwystyl: Yes, I'm on a quest.
Mycroft: To do what?
Gwystyl: I don't know.
Mycroft: Well who gave you the quest?
Gwystyl: I couldn't tell you.
Mycroft: Well, where are you supposed to go?
Gwystyl: No idea.
Mycroft: Well, then why don't you drop it?
Gwystyl: How? Until I know where the quest is supposed to take me, how can I turn off that path?

Mike and I were having fun with it, and his character occasionally makes comments about the silliness of being on a quest with no knowledge.

I know (and Gwystyl does not) that the quest is tied to the original owner of the hammer, his ancestor Grabthar, who became a hero while fighting a battle with the dwarf king Warvan and his sons. Someday, when (if) Gwystyl ever learns the entire truth, I hope to bring my Alan Rickman tribute to fruition finally by having Gwystyl swear, "By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Warvan, you shall be avenged." When that day comes, the long-held secret will finally be a source of fun for the party.

If the people at your tables treat secrets the way you describe, I can see why you don't want them. But that's not what I've seen, so I enjoy character secrets.

[Velaryon]

The solution to the fact that you don't know everything about everyone isn't to have secrets. It's not to write a ten page backstory. Write up a few key personality motivations, choose a few important pieces of history that will possibly act as motivations, and go from there. The little details of your past can be made up on the fly if they come up.

The majority of enjoyable games I've played in, every character effectively starts as a 'mystery' to the others. At best, you know race & class, and a 1-3 sentence description of appearance and personality summary given by the player in the first session. Everything else comes up in play, most often because it's made up on the spot.

This is very much a matter of personal preference. The important part is for the DM and the players to be on the same page here. I've had great games where all anyone decided about their character before the game was name, what stats go on the character sheet, and what they looked like. I've also had great games where all or at least most characters have several pages of explanation of what led their characters to become an adventurer and why they are in this particular place where the game starts (some of which was even secret from the other players). My own D&D game falls into the latter character, and a lot of the best parts of the game have been based on things I've pulled out of the PCs' backstories.

When it sucks is when different people in the group have different ideas about this and don't reconcile them. It's frustrating as a player to come up with an awesome character background and then have the DM completely ignore it (especially if they're the one who asked for a background in the first place). It also sucks when you as DM solicit this kind of background info on PCs so you can mine them for adventure hooks, and you have players not even bother to try and come up with anything. Like so many other issues when it comes to RPGs, it's all about having the group on the same page.

This has not been my experience. In general, the players I've seen with secrets (leaving aside the selfish ones using them for mild PvP like picking the party's pockets), the secret has been intended for a great reveal at a crucial moment.

This is exactly what I was saying in my last post. The whole point of character secrets is to see how they affect the game when the secret comes out. Which is why they should be coordinated with the DM, who can decide whether that's something they want to do, and if so then when, where, and how to leverage that secret for the most benefit to the game.

[Quertus]

Just for fun: how would Quertus the PC react to such person in his party?

Quertus the character? Hmmm... He has so many sights, many secrets wouldn't be secrets the moment he got to observe them. For most of the rest? Quertus is not a very... People person. He would rarely inquire or investigate much beyond what he can see. Shrug. Here's a rather... focused academic.

From what you've described, you're not playing anything like the games I'm describing. Where people come to the table with some basic outlines of how a character personality differed from their own personality. Then play the game to make decisions for their character in the fantasy environment, which is what I call roleplaying. And in the process of playing the game, let the at-the-table experiences and decisions made invent who the character ends up being.

You seem to come to the table with a full formed character in your head, and have a primary goal of expressing that character at the table. And define roleplaying as expressing the character at the table.

I did limit the scope of the similarity to the second paragraph (minus the bolded bit). I thought it was quite interesting how our first paragraphs would be completely different, yet our second paragraph, nearly identical.

Interesting that your definition of role-playing excludes understanding the characters. I'll have to ponder that one.

Sounds like you are saying you just want to free form role play. I wounder why you even play a game with rules then? Why not find a nice free from game?

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'd want "Wizard" to be chocked full of mechanical bits. Like, say, the ability to move 3 spaces, draw 4 spell cards, and play one. I'm just not generally, you know, terribly interested in the act of character creation, from a mechanics PoV.

[Pex]

In general, it's just a bad idea for a player to keep secrets from the other players, unless it is a very hostile player vs player type game. Typically, the Player Characters are ''best friend" types, so they know all about each other.

At best it can be disruptive to the game, and at worst it can ruin a game. It's bad enough when a player hides game related things, but it's really pointless to hide pointless things.

Is there a point to just sitting there and saying ''ok, you guys know nothing about my cool character". If it does not matter, why even bother to do it?

It really only matters if you disrupt the game all the time to say "haha you guys know nothing about my cool character", If you don't do that, then it does not matter anyway. So again, why do it?

All the players and characters and the DM can know the big secrets...but still the whole game world does not know....so can't you just ''pretend'' that is enough?

Not much annoys me more than a player who refuses to say what his character's name is or what class he's playing. You're supposed to play with your fellow players, not in spite of them. We need to know what abilities you have so we can plan tactics. When I meet such a player I ignore him or her for the rest of the game session. If he refuses to play with the party then he's not in the party as far as I'm concerned. I'm thrilled when they don't return the next game session.

[Quertus]

Not much annoys me more than a player who refuses to say what his character's name is or what class he's playing. You're supposed to play with your fellow players, not in spite of them. We need to know what abilities you have so we can plan tactics. When I meet such a player I ignore him or her for the rest of the game session. If he refuses to play with the party then he's not in the party as far as I'm concerned. I'm thrilled when they don't return the next game session.

I mean, a great many of characters will ask, in character, what everyone's tactical capabilities are, if that information isn't known to the other characters already.

But I'll still avoid giving OOC information if possible.

I'm struggling with the "not giving their name" bit, though - unless the character is an illiterate mute, what kind of person would you possibly want to hang out with where knowing their name (or at least something to call them) could possibly be an issue?

[Tanarii]

Interesting that your definition of role-playing excludes understanding the characters. I'll have to ponder that one.

it requires two things in regards to the characters: not making up one so complex to start with that you have to spend forever thinking before making decisions; a character that comes to be understood from actual play, not a prewritten story.

Basically, it's a technique for people that prefer playing the game, not writing a book.

[Quertus]

it requires two things in regards to the characters: not making up one so complex to start with that you have to spend forever thinking before making decisions; a character that comes to be understood from actual play, not a prewritten story.

Basically, it's a technique for people that prefer playing the game, not writing a book.

Hmmm... One of the most common phrases for actors is "what's my motivation?".

One of least favorite things to do in a game is to have to ask that question. I don't enjoy character creation - I want my previous limited game time to be spent role-playing the character, not creating it.

Actors who have played a role for a long time tend to understand that role, and it's motivations, better than those who are new to the role.

At least, that's how I look at it.

If I'm reading you right, you so enjoy creating and defining the character, that you go so far as to describe playing a defined character as not role-playing. Have I got that right?

If I could get the appeal of playing some nebulous, undefined something, maybe I'd have a better understanding of your position. But, since about 95% of my characters turn out to be not something I want to continue playing, well, that kinda dissuades me from seeing the unknown a desirable goal.

[Maelynn]

Right that is kind of the point: only obnoxious players want to do the ''secret thing".

I'm sensing a lot of butt-hurt here, to put it bluntly. While I would like to acknowledge and respect the undoubtedly negative experiences you've had with players keeping in-game secrets, I don't think it's fair to call all those players obnoxious. For one thing, I am such a player.

I 4e Eberron, I played a Changeling Psion who found that her Human form was far more easily accepted by everyone than her true form. She was a Human almost all of the time, until it became normal for her to be one. She became a respected diplomat and travelled far and wide on missions, eventually grouping up with a party of adventurers set out to figure out what happened to Cyre and their loved ones.

The party all believed she was a Human, but sometimes surges of emotion (fear, anger, happiness) would cause her shape to falter slightly, allowing characters with a high enough Perception to notice a darkening of her sclera, her face becoming somewhat gaunt, or a lock of hair getting a greenish hue. Nobody ever rolled high enough to actually see anything other than what they believed was just their eyes playing a trick on them.

At some point the DM would make it a nice plot hook, but I moved to the other side of the country before it could happen. So instead, he made her come back as an NPC for the grand finale fight, where she ended up a casualty. The big twist? When after the battle the party went to search for the bodies of their fallen friends, they never found Jax. They did find a changeling corpse, which surprised them a little - they hadn't notice one in the fight, but then again there were so many people involved...

Now, the players knew about my 'secret' in this case. Early on, one of the players thought they could force me to out my secret by trying to agitate me, once he learnt that such outbursts could make my real race shine through. When he tried to push it, however, both the DM and another player asked him why he'd do that. "Well, my character just doesn't trust Jax and thinks she's hiding something". They both called out his bullfeces, saying that his character couldn't know this at all and that in-game, Jax had never been deceptive about anything to give him reason to think like that.

So in this story, the only player being obnoxious was the one who couldn't play along and respect the border between player knowledge and character knowledge. And even he came round after that one time, playing along for the rest of the ride.

Had I kept this all a secret to them, then they would've seen nothing but the odd results of the Perception checks. It would've given them a mystery to solve, wondering what it could be. Personally I would've preferred this just to entertain the players with a bit of mystery for them to sink their teeth in, but I didn't think of the background/personality until after session 0, when we had already decided on race/class together. I'm happy the group I played with were all mature enough to not let player knowledge ruin the narrative and the mystery. They all enjoyed it, especially the twist the DM threw at them in the end. I still get goosebumps when I think of how it must've gone down at the table that night.. everyone realising that the Changeling was Jax, but their characters didn't know so the body was left alone. Still, it would've been even better if they were puzzled when not finding Jax, wondering where she could've gone - until it finally dawned on them, both as players and as characters, what she really was. Then it would've really been an awesome reveal.

--------------
Right now, in the group where I'm a DM, I have one player who's keeping his background mostly secret from the others. He mailed me his full background, but during session 0 he only told a very concise part of it to the others and hardly anything about why his character went to the city, what his ultimate goal is (now they think he's just a crime fighter), and what happened to the parents of the little girl he adopted as his daughter. His character keeps to himself, not because he's some evil bastard but because he's on a hunt for vengeance and doesn't want to risk his chance of success by people knowing about it. He's distrustful of people, and for a damn good reason. After all the adventuring they've done together he has slowly come to trust the party with his life. Just not with the rest.

Now, I enjoy this player being secretive. I get to use his background as a plot hook, and can feed him little teasers that don't mean a thing to the other players, and I love watching him play out his character. The other players don't even know what kind of awful events make up his background, and will be in for quite a surprise when they eventually face whatever it is that he's followed to the city. It will be a reveal, one that you can only truly enjoy when you don't see it coming. And knowing my players, I know they'll enjoy it and wouldn't want it spoiled by knowing it beforehand.

And the player? He's not obnoxious at all. He's a veteran player, a veteran DM, and loves a good roleplay.

[Tanarii]

Hmmm... One of the most common phrases for actors is "what's my motivation?".

One of least favorite things to do in a game is to have to ask that question. I don't enjoy character creation - I want my previous limited game time to be spent role-playing the character, not creating it.

Actors who have played a role for a long time tend to understand that role, and it's motivations, better than those who are new to the role.

At least, that's how I look at it.

IMO "What's my motivation" is a fairly critical question to ask if you want to roleplay as anyone other than yourself.

If you've already developed a characters motivations through previous play experiences, which I know you have, fair enough. You can easily slip into character without figuring out what your motivations. Upside is you know the character well. Downside is you're always playing the same character.

The latter famously happens to actors too. They end up typecasting themselves. But that's only a problem insofar as actors are trying to play different parts to entertain others and failing to do so.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm sensing a lot of butt-hurt here, to put it bluntly. While I would like to acknowledge and respect the undoubtedly negative experiences you've had with players keeping in-game secrets, I don't think it's fair to call all those players obnoxious. For one thing, I am such a player.

I did say it is possible to do 'secrets' right, but it's not too common.

So in this story, the only player being obnoxious was the one who couldn't play along and respect the border between player knowledge and character knowledge. And even he came round after that one time, playing along for the rest of the ride.

I'd note your secret race is exactly what I was talking about:

1)There is no reason to hide things from the other players/characters..other then you want to do a 'surprise' at some point to get a rush.

2)You disrupt the game, as every time your character ''looses control" or whatever you are having players making checks and trying to see what is happening and figure it out. Your trying to make the game all about your character. Oh, look everyone, stop playing the game and try and find out my secret.

Then it would've really been an awesome reveal.

Only to you though.

Now, I enjoy this player being secretive. I get to use his background as a plot hook, and can feed him little teasers that don't mean a thing to the other players, and I love watching him play out his character. The other players don't even know what kind of awful events make up his background, and will be in for quite a surprise when they eventually face whatever it is that he's followed to the city. It will be a reveal, one that you can only truly enjoy when you don't see it coming. And knowing my players, I know they'll enjoy it and wouldn't want it spoiled by knowing it beforehand.

Except, like I said, this is just a private game/joke between the player and the DM. So the rest of the players are just forced to sit their and be an audience.