I like player knowledge and character knowledge to remain as close as possible, so I try to only tell people what their characters will know. As such, I use a lot of private/secret messages to tell players stuff their characters might notice/know but which the others might not, so it encourages people to discuss stuff in-character and tak about it more, rather than everyone just knowing it all at once and thus acting like their charcater already told everyone about it or whatever. I don't like meta-gaming so I wouldn't want people to discuss how to handle a situation OOC - I want their characters to deal with the problem, whatever it might be.

If some characters end up getting split up and going off to two different places (and thereby each separately learning and doing different stuff), I'll split them into two different threads, each invisible to the other half of the group so that they can all have a big IC swapping of information whenever they finally do get back together again. I don't want the players of one group reading the thread of what the other group is doing...that removes the point of splitting them. Similarly, if I'm playing in a game and my character gets separated from everyone else, I won't read what they're doing even if I have access to it, because if my character doesn't know what's going on, why should I?

I make invisible threads all the time - they are usually so that I can have my game notes ready to go even if I am not at my primary computer.

My most common example is if I develop a quest line that is a bit convoluted... I will create a private thread with all the data I need.  This way if I am away and on my kindle - I can instantly review monster stat blocks, quest hidden agendas and the like.  It would sort of defeat the purpose of some of these adventures if all the players could read them.

Also, I run a game wherein ALL the players are separate from one another - as one of my players called it - it's an "information deprived" game.  They are not supposed to know what one another is doing as this would result in their characters getting attacked.  So, for this game - invisible threads are vital.

I wasn't meaning to include threads for GM use only, only threads that some players can read and some cannot.  Also, I can see if that's the entire conceit of the game (such as your information-deprived one, GH.)

Gameena, in a perfect world I can see that, but this is RPoL, where player engagement is the name of the game.  If you lose that engagement, your game dies.  And it seems to me that invisible threads threaten (or at least do not encourage) engagement.

It would depend on what kind of GM you are, what kind of game you're running, and what kind of players you have. It's a tool; it is there in case it is needed, and if you do need it, it is very useful. I can make examples.

In my experience, I use secret threads to heighten the tension whenever the players are separated - if the team splits, this keeps them unaware of each other's situations, which allows me to have more complex ploys to throw at the players. I can agree, if the threads were public, that tension would be replaced with a sense of the players cheering each other on; it's a matter of the kind fo feeling you want the game to have. In fact, I've used both in the same game, exactly because I wanted to achieve both results regarding different portions of the plot.

The game I'm running now, for example, has a deeply politic plot - the character are cooperating to defeat a greater threat, but they're also part of differing political faction who are in competition; having secret threads allows me to keep them guessing on what each other's leaning truly are, which adds a challenge to the game. So that's a second way having invisible threads being useful - if your game can be enhanced by having some secrecy between the characters' real goal and their professed ones, the secret threads give you a way to do so.

Third. secret private threads are a wonderful means to test new players before making them join the main group, when new blood is introduced; this allows GM and player to get a feeling for each other, to test the new player's commitment and help them develop their backstory in-game, to appropriately time the new player's entry so that it integrate them seamlessly into play, and to be able to spring a surprise on the group with some plausibility. These are all very good reasons to use secret threads.

Lastly, I also use secret threads for whenever a player has some weird dream experience or such; the fact that the others won't know the dream is even happening helps the immersion a lot in those situations, I've found.

As for your issues with players feeling left out... that dipend mostly on the player. However, my rule of thumb is that I never force players into a secret thread - but, if they want to do something on their own, separate from the group, then I open it. If it's the player asking for it, then said player is unlikely to become annoyed, and the rest of the team should still retain enough characters not to feel the lack of one of their numbers too much.

These are all my opinions, of course; you can make of them what you will, but I do think that secret threads can be a very useful tool when necessary, and I'm very glad of having them around. And if one doesn't like them, never using them (or asking a GM not to use them before joining their games) is hardly difficult, is it? :)
This message was last edited by the user at 00:32, Sun 25 Jan 2015.

When I'm reading a book, I like surprises. I mean, I don't like to know what's gonna happen until it happens, so I can try to work out what I think's gonna happen next, or what I think is going on, and so on. Like, is that guy a bad guy or is he on the side of the heroes? Is he secretly plotting behind their backs or does he just look dodgy? And then when the big reveal happens, I can go "Oh yay, I called it", or "Wow, never saw that one coming...", and so on.

It's the same in games - I don't want to know what everyone else is doing if I'm not with them. I want to try and work it out based on what they do or say when they get back from their mysterious venture or something. So I run my games the same way (not that I have masses of experience at doing so, so far, but I'm working on it ;)) and keep information restricted to the character(s) I think would/should know certain things. I mean, there's no point in saying to the whole group "The walls here clearly look like dwarven stonework, as you can tell by the finely-carven patterns and the way it all fits together seamlessly" when only one person in the group is a dwarf - I'd tell the dwarf that info, probably in a secret message so he didn't know he was the only one getting it, and then see if he'll tell the others when they're walking along going "Hmm, I wonder who carved this tunnel?" >:).

I actually asked my players in the last vampire game I ran, and they decided they didn't want to see what everyone else was doing.  It kept the element of surprise I guess.  I usually keep all threads visible, so that it keeps more of a cinematic and entertaining feel, but apparently a good number of players what it the other way.

In reply to Machiara (msg # 5):

Sorry I took the question/comment a little too literally.


For the sake of referring to 'normal' games, I can see why you ask the question, however; I agree with a lot of what folks are saying here: when I am playing - I want the surprise.  I don't even want the opportunity to glance at the subject matter.  Also, it's fun to be the scout who gets to report-back information to the party! =)

If I were running a game where information control were vitally important, or where lack of information is key to fostering a feeling of uncertainty/anxiety/etc., I could see making some threads invisible.  But my default rule, stated in my game guidelines, is that everything is public -- I leave it to the players to decide if they want to know what's going on with other players, whether they don't want to have to deal with their own inclination to metagame, whether they want to be spoiled by plot twists that might come up first in someone else's thread or whether they want to avoid those spoilers.

For me, a large part of the enjoyment of a game sitting at my tabletop is knowing things my PC doesn't, and having the PC act without the benefit of that knowledge -- there is a tension between the "audience" for the other players in our group as well as being a part of that group.  And I enjoy that tension.  I have players in my game who feel the same way, who like knowing things their PC doesn't and still letting their PCs walk into trouble despite the players' knowledge of that.

So each player decides for him or herself whether s/he doesn't want to know more than the PC does, or whether s/he wants to be part of the audience for the other PCs.  In the (very rare) instance where I feel a player is using metagame knowledge that their PC wouldn't have, I don't hesitate to call them on it.

To me, keeping anything invisible to the players really goes against the whole "Spirit of suspended disbelief" thats really at the heart of roleplaying.

While the player might know who the secret murderer is, the character isnt privy to such knowledge and a good player will roleplay as if he didnt have a feathersweight of a doubt for that other character.

Personally I like it. Easier to rp when I don't have to think about whether my character knows something or not.

I also like the sense of discovery more then storytelling. I play to discover the world, therefore, I want to find out about things when my character discovers them.

It also removes temptation from those who struggle with metagaming.

In my games, I keep threads visible to everyone as much as possible, only ever really hiding threads with adult content. I like reading all threads when i'm in a game; i don't play just to play my character, i want to see the unfolding story. I don't have a metagaming problem though, so I can see how some people would need stuff to be secret to avoid temptation. My biggest isue with games where most of the threads are secret is that it feels like my character is missing most of the plot a lot of the time, and I also like to use 'out of character' knowledge to engineer amusing scenes between characters. It's the same reason I love it when players include internal thoughts in their posts - it gives everyone some insight into the character and takes out annoying guesswork.

It varies from game to game (and sometimes even within the same game).

Hiding some threads makes for a more "realistic" experience when characters have split up for a while, and can be fun, but keeping them all visible avoids a long, "Well what did you guys get up to?" discussion when the group gets back together.

These days I mostly stick to a small core group of players that I trust not to metagame too seriously.

So... depends on the mood I'm in, and how well I know the players.

In reply to Machiara (msg # 1):

The idea that it interferes with the sense of community within a game is a fallacy. The games which compartmentalise a lot do it as part of the theme and atmosphere of the game. The games which don't, use private groups to allow a scene to belong to a (group of) player(s) without interference or meta-gaming from the other players. It actually allows characters to from a special bond over events, which wouldn't happen the same way if everyone could see what happened.

Personally I find the idea that everyone should be able to see and can be trusted to see everything to be a little naive, but putting that aside I assure you I have never seen it disrupt or damage a game's sense of community.

I love the group threads at Rpol. It's one of my favorite features. I use it whenever I would -- face-to-face -- take players into a separate room to allow their actions to proceed apart from the others. In face-to-face that means I go back and forth about every five minutes between the groups to keep everyone involved. The beauty of Rpol is that I can keep both threads going simultaneously.

That said, I sometimes don't put threads into separate groups (or isolate f-2-f players going off on their own) if it's going to go on too long or if I think what's going to happen is so cool that I want everyone to share as it happens. If there are no big secrets, I will often make a private thread open once the characters are back together, to simulate IC info exchange.

Another good use of separate, private threads is at the start of a game when each player is starting from a different place. Again, I wouldn't want that to go on too long.

I find it very difficult when a GM doesn't split threads (whether making them private or not) when PCs are in different places having different experiences, especially if one or two are in an extended back-and-forth with an NPC. It can get tedious and confusing and make it difficult to separate IC knowledge from OoC knowledge.

One of the things I like about online games, as compared to FTF, is that you don't know, for instance, that the thief character is passing notes to the GM, what the character separated from the others is up to - and how much trouble he's in (though you can expect that a separated character is having issues), etc.  Sure you can pretend not to know, but sometimes it's easier when you really don't.

I do remember one, however, where two characters were interacting and the other players didn't know, even though it was in sight, though not hearing.  My character definitely would have done things differently if she'd known, and the story would have probably played out in a smoother fashion.

So it depends on the circumstances, the GM, the game, the players...

I don't think it's a fallacy, because I have personally seen hidden threads damage game communities.  Remember we are dealing with RPoL here, and RPoL games are very delicate social situations, especially at the beginning.  I think the success of an RPoL game depends on the GM's skill as a social facilitator as much as anything else.

There are a lot of dangers with hidden threads.  Players can feel left out.  There can be a sense of GM favoritism towards players with hidden threads (especially if done frequently with one character, say a rogue or some such).  The hidden threads can create an "us versus them" dynamic between groups of players.  The player(s) in the hidden thread can treat the information they learned as some sort of valuable treasure and refuse to share it with the other players, or dole it out in incremental and/or distorted ways.  Any of this can cause player conflict, which can be a death knell to the game.  Players lose interest, start posting less, and the game dies.

It's kind of a Catch-22.  A game with hidden threads seems less active, but if it is known that lots of posting is happening there then the risk of hard feelings about being left out increases.

On the flip side, allowing everyone to see threads makes them feel included and a part of what is going on.  It allows people to get to know and understand other players' characters, which I think is a very important thing in RPoL.  It is really easy for players to take things other players do in character personally.  The more the players recognize and appreciate the characters the other players are trying to create, the less chance there is of that happening and the more chance there is of "oh, of course Kalrin would do that, that's totally who he is."

That said, I was probably too broad in my initial post.  If done with care, and with the proper group, hidden threads won't detract from the game.  I think they carry a big risk, though, and GMs considering their use should weigh those risks prior to using them.
This message was last edited by the user at 23:36, Sun 25 Jan 2015.

See, I think this would be a great place to have open threads.  I did this in my game, and each of the threads when on for a while.  It was a lot of work for me but each of the players got to see the other characters in action and get to know and like them before they were all flung together, as well as giving them opportunities to flesh out their characters on their own.



Don't get me wrong, I think split threads are great if the players are off in different places!  It keeps things organized.  I just think that they should be open for all the players to read, not hidden just for the players in the threads.

YES!  So much this.  A lot of players play for the story of it . . . I know I do!  And having half the story hidden away in private threads takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me.  Things feel very disjointed.  And it's not like reading a novel--in RPoL it might be a year or more before things are resolved!

And I also enjoy internal thoughts in posts.  :)

Well, I'm running a 12 person game, one that most of the players don't even know the system.  I've used private threads for character generation (easier than PMs) since char gen is more of a path you took through life type system.  I also use them for each of the separate teams when they split.  Later on down the road, once the mission is over, those threads will be public.  It reduces the temptation to metagame and stops me from having to use the GMHammer.

I'm in at least a couple of games where all the threads have been readable by all the players.  In the one game, it's not bad...but there's only four or five players (one I'm a little hazy on, whether it's a GMPC or another player, but I personally don't care much either way).

The other one has had as many as fifteen players at the same time...and trying to keep track of where you are in the middle of all of that is nightmarish.

Another game I'm in is actually three or four games running concurrently, with the incidents in one game potentially impacting the others.  But since none of the PCs know that anyone outside of their group exists (except in a general, "yes, there are other people in this world" sense), players only see what's happening in their specific game.

Yeah, I can see where having threads hidden could pose a risk to a game...but I don't think it's any greater than the risk of someone metagaming if you have everything visible.  Each has advantages and disadvantages, and each GM needs to try the option that works best for them.

Some GMs will only figure out which option that is via some trial and error...

In reply to Machiara (msg # 18):

'Can', 'can', 'can', if done too early, if too much is hidden, if only the "favourite" has them.

If your game vibe suggests/requires you keep secrets, it is not a problem.
If you hide a thread here and there for This reason or That reason it is not a problem.

If you hide everything just because, then of course it causes problems.

I wouldn't hide threads to separate different locations or groups. I might hide a thread which relates to a specific location for a specific reason. I might hide a thread containing a specific event for a specific reason. I wouldn't hide stuff for the sake of hiding it unless I was running a deliberately paranoid game.

Even then, the threads I do hide I tend to close and make visible to everyone when the event is concluded.

It is a useful tool. That some people don't use it effectively, doesn't mean it's a poor tool.

Sure, and I said as much in the post to which you responded.  If a GM has a purpose for them, and uses them well, with the right group, that's great.

But a lot of GMs don't--they just hide threads whenever the party members are physically separated without thinking too much about it.  I wanted to bring up the drawbacks of doing so, which I hadn't seen discussed.  If you have thought about those drawbacks, and have a purpose, and open the threads after they're complete, awesome!  :)

But if my post gets even one GM to think more closely about how they're using private threads, and what the cost of using those threads might be, then mission accomplished.

I don't know that I agree with the assertion that 'a lot' of GMs arbitrarily use hidden threads.  The number of people here (who, presumably, aren't all in the same games) that have mentioned games where hidden threads have been used to great effect indicate that there are plenty of GMs who have a great grasp of how they can be used.

But, yes, I will agree that if it's used excessively and without any justification, it can do a lot of damage to a game.  I don't think it will, by itself, kill a game, but the GMs who would use such threads excessively will quite likely have enough other problematic practices that their games are going to have a lot of issues.

The fallacy is the assertion that hidden threads will necessarily harm the sense of community. In some games, with some players, separate threads can harm the sense of community, but as in most things in life, role-playing is a deeply context-dependent activity.

I've done it both ways. And had success (and failure) in both cases. As many have said before me, it depends on the game, the players, the story, the groove of what it is you're trying to accomplish. I'm rarely worried over-much about metagaming. I've found that a little bit of metagaming can be an important part of any story. But not everyone feels that way about it.

Whereas I have a deep, deep hate on for even casual godmodding ("Bill walks into the bar and the bartender is shocked at the wounds on his face.") Even a little of that sets my teeth on edge. But not everyone feels that way about it. One of my regular players is prone to it, just a little, and I've learned to let it go because I like playing with them so much.

But in regards to separate threads, for example, for a game I'm running now, the structure of the story is that the players will come together as strangers to deal with a common threat. And after that, they will part for several years before being forced back together again.

Because I want them to start as strangers, I'm doing the initial workshopping in Private. And because they'll be separated, I'll be doing the inter-adventure part in private too. The only information I'll share with everyone are exploits that 'everyone' would have heard about through gossip, legend, etc.

So when they come back together again, the characters and players will have imperfect knowledge of what they've all been up to in the interim.

Some GM's are really big on character knowledge being clearly separate from player knowledge (sometimes even to the point of not allowing players to post internal dialogue). Which is fine. That's their groove. That's how they have fun. For those GM's, separate threads would be vital to maintaining the mood and feel of the story they want to tell.

tl;dr - It totally depends on what kind of game you're running and what kind of story you want to tell.

I like the use of Hidden threads. As a GM in both TT and my excursions here I find all to often the leeching of Metagaming. It happens subconsciously and there is little you can do to stop it. As a GM IF one or more members decide they want to do something different, I let them, and I let them do it basically anonymously. In this medium I tell them flat out that I need to keep timing, doing things as a single is always faster than doing it as a group and they should be prepared (as they would in the "normal" thread) to wait on others.

Last TT I played my Character found this really cool glass bowl. I knew what it was, everyone else around the table knew what it was. It was a traditional GM hook item that this particular GM used. My character acted as if it were a really cool bowl, everyone else acted like it was the devil incarnate. I could only maintain the insistence that it was JUST A GLASS BOWL so long before as a RPer I started to get "peached". I despise metagaming and use any and all tools at my disposal to assist others prevent the use of it.

Do some people "get peached" that I enforce it, sure, Just as I get peached when people do it. Same boat.

At this point I simply use the hidden threads to represent different locals that are not easily reached by the others. If you are "nearby" I use Private lines.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 14:33, Tue 27 Jan 2015.