Kenny Norris asks in his SoloRP mailing list the question of how do people handle NPC's that may have secrets and half-truths a GM would normally handle. I asked Kenny if we could discuss it here, and he agreed it would be okay.
I can think of three ways in order of easy to hard:
(1) Amorphous NPC - ask only what you need to know about the NPC and let the NPC slowly take shape across the game. Hopefully a tool you are using will provide a surprise, and since the whole of the NPC is not set in concrete that "secret" can then be revealed.
(2) Disguise - based on some roll, such as Mythic's "doubles" throw out some portion of the NPC and replace it with the real motivation. This can be hard because there will be past/future fallout based on the NPC's earlier actions.
(3) Metagame - this is hard, but take the hat of the GM, and then play cat and mouse with the PC. Allow only the world to revolve around the secret/half-truth while the PC has to act according to the lie until such a time that the secret is revealed. I've found that while this is hard, it can be a really good tool to becoming a great roleplayer of the PC.
What are your thoughts on NPC secrets?
Maybe if you suspect an NPC roll on a yes/no to see if the hero notices anything. If they do then a sense motive roll could be used. If it is successful then a roll to ask the solo engine (again).
ReplyDeleteZach Best I think #1 would be the default for most people. But I can see that #2 can help shift something within the game--as it's meant to.
I am the perso at the origin of Ken's question. I wanted just to thank you for the good tips so far !
ReplyDeleteSorry in advance for the wall of text
ReplyDeleteMy feeling on this is that randomly rolling to determine the existence of a secret on the spot is engaging in authoring. To me, the difference between this, compartmentalizing PC knowledge and dealing with actual secrets is that the last one requires that the secret preexist, and that the actual player be in the dark-- not just the PC. Sometimes a GM authors on the fly, but the situation is such that she can at least trick you into thinking that a secret was there all along.
An interesting thing about that is that it somewhat presupposes that, in a fair game, the GM would drop a hint that something is up (or let the player think there were hints), or at least let the player know that the PC perceives something (based on some ability roll perhaps). This seems like a hard trick to pull off solo, though I think something equivalent could be implemented.
If I was going to try, I think that these would be essential conditions:
1. Usually a GM will provide some sort of hint for you to work out, or attach a requirement such as a perception check that you must pass prior to having a secret revealed to you. I think that for solo play the requirement, rather than the hint, would be more appropriate. All secrets should have at least one requirement that must be fulfilled prior to revelation.
2. More of a question: Should requirements hint at the possible nature of the secret? For example, if the requirement is “Get a positive reaction roll”, then should the secret be of a personal nature?
3. Requirements could potentially have requirements themselves. Requirements that have requirements are treated as secrets. This perhaps implies that you generate requirements, and after fulfilling them generate secrets or other requirements as needed.
3.1. Yet, part of the reason secrets are fun is that deducing, as a player, what the secret is prior to it being revealed is pretty satisfying. Guessing wrong is also what perhaps creates surprise. I feel that generating secrets on the spot after passing a requirement undermines this.
4. Rolling for the existence of a secret should generate a requirement. In order to keep suspense, requirements should signal that a potential secret might exist, but not guarantee it. The player will only find out if there is an actual after the requirement is fulfilled. This is just a way to keep suspense.
5. Whether a secret exists should be decoupled from player intent as much as possible. To me this means divorcing the player’s decision making from the act of generating secrets/requirements.
Working from these premises, for example, I think that in accordance to #5, I would never generate a secret as a result of an Oracle question like “Does she have a secret?” Rather, I would probably generate potential secrets for all entities prior to actual play, or as they enter play for the first time. Perhaps I would even use the Mythic Random Event mechanic to signal the existence of a potential secret.
Granted, once you move on from the abstract thinking to actually coming up with ways to implement a system, things get complicated for me. Balancing the desire for unpredictability with the need for coherent content seems kind of hard. I guess you could always throw away nonsensical results if generating on the spot, but like I said, I feel this undermines some of the fun.