Keeping Players in the Dark

[DFJunkie]

Well, if that character has a wily aspect you could always compel it to make them be less trusting.  So long as you compel them to distrust the trustworthy as well as the truly crooked it’s complicating their life.  Alternately you could establish the campaign aspect Everyone’s Got an Angle and compel all the PCs to be more guarded with NPCs and even each other.  The angle might not be nefarious; Michael wants Harry to go to church, Charity wants to score points in conversation, etc., but it does muddy communication and enhance drama.

[fantazero]

when in doubt: Cheat

[UmbraLux]

[Edit] On second thought, though, it makes it impossible for the players to meaningfully spend FPs.  They can't determine how their aspects apply to a given situation.

To some degree perhaps.  Some aspects will always apply to reading someone's emotions or to being alert.  I haven't had any issues with it yet.

The inability to keep twists surprising for the players is actually looking like my one big beef with FATE.

Is it really different from most other games?  They'll still get some perception test and you'll still have to decide when to roll it.  Perhaps it's worth noting I began using the 'saved roll' method of avoiding giving away surprise scenes via meta-game long before I started playing FATE. 

[UmbraLux]

The main issue with that is, as I learned once again last night, I never really know when or if such rolls are going to be needed. I've had sessions where something I expected to get to was delayed or never happened at all.

Then you've got a roll saved up for the next session...or just discarded (with any fate points returned) if you prefer. 

when in doubt: Cheat

Meh.  You may or may not be joking but I've seen some version of this as the answer to almost every question at one point or another.  Personally, I have ethical issues with cheating.  I'll save any detailed discussion for some other thread. 

[noclue]

As a player, I'd greatly prefer of the GM would just put things on the table and forget the big reveal. But maybe that's just me.

[devonapple]

Even if the betrayal is discovered, that isn't necessarily the end of the story. Why is that mole risking everything in this way? What compels him? What does the big bad have over him?

Running a good mystery isn't so much about making the clues a challenge to find as it is about making the players think about the clues and work out what they mean and where to go next.

[fantazero]

Meh.  You may or may not be joking but I've seen some version of this as the answer to almost every question at one point or another.  Personally, I have ethical issues with cheating.  I'll save any detailed discussion for some other thread. 

I'm not joking. thematically it fits. The story of the Dresden Files is that of a Mortal who takes on GODS and WINS. He does this by cheating.
also he's an unreliable narrator.

but your job as a GM is about this (to me) Make it fun. If you have to cheat alittle to make it fun, then do it. If that means you make NPCs that are designed to beat a Wizard, or a Gun Hand, or a whatever, but you think it would lead to a fun time, than do it.
I've seen people spend HOURS STATing things and planning planning planning. Sometimes just DO more by doing less. Trust your Players too.

[Sanctaphrax]

Cheating in-story is very different from cheating out of story.

[devonapple]

There is a difference between improvising based on the shifting narrative, and providing false choices (the "quantum Ogre" technique).

[Silverblaze]

There is a difference between improvising based on the shifting narrative, and providing false choices (the "quantum Ogre" technique).

What is the Quantum Ogre you speak of? Seriously, I've never heard of it.

 What is it's HD? (joking)

[Mr. Death]

An ogre that's both alive and dead until you manage to find the D20 that accidentally fell under the fridge when you rolled to attack?

[devonapple]

The "Quantum Ogre" is a highlight from - and a codeword for - discussions about player agency and encounter design in RPGs.

Relevant links:
http://www.korpg.com/blog/the-fallacy-of-the-quantum-ogre-argument/
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-how-illusion-can-rob-your-game-of.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/alex/2011-09-08_Player_Agency

Essentially:
The DM has an Ogre encounter prepared.
The DM gives players a choice: Forest A or Forest B, alike in everything but name and location.
The DM intends to drop the Ogre encounter into the game no matter which forest they pick.

For some, this is akin to GM railroading, obscured by a meaningless choice for the players. It is seen by others as an oversimplification, or an accusation of "ur doin it rong".

My moderate take on it is that this would probably be less of an issue if the encounter wasn't a blind one. Which is to say: the GM can drop clues or rumors to establish that *something* is up in Forest A (without screaming out "an Ogre is here"), and then giving the players a motive to trigger the encounter (and an opportunity to either plan for or avoid it) rather than simply removing the reward/penalty for choice and simply making an encounter assured.

It seems like an attack on GMs with limited time and resources, but in actuality, it is more of an indictment of giving prominence to non-story encounters (whether random or prepared, I feel, makes little difference).

Now if that "quantum ogre" is (or holds) a clue for the overall story, a stepping stone in the mystery, then yeah, it is important to the story, and the GM needs to get that clue out there. But the GM should also prepare 2 or more *other* vectors by which to deliver that or a similar clue.

[Silverblaze]

Never heard of that term before.  Thanks.

[devonapple]

Ultimately, the "quantum Ogre" thing is irrelevant if it is successfully hidden from the players (as the first article I linked maintains), as is pretty much any GM cheat or dodge, as long as it is done for the players' fun, and isn't obviously counter to how the established and mutually decided game setting/rules/etc. work.

[UmbraLux]

Essentially:
The DM has an Ogre encounter prepared.
The DM gives players a choice: Forest A or Forest B, alike in everything but name and location.
The DM intends to drop the Ogre encounter into the game no matter which forest they pick.

For some, this is akin to GM railroading, obscured by a meaningless choice for the players.

It is "scripting the encounter"* but that's not something I define as "cheating."  While I dislike overuse of scripted plots and encounters, I don't have an ethical issue with it.  Just an occasional preference issue. 

*Trying to use a neutral term.  "Railroad" seems to send objectivity out the window all too often.