A question: the game informs me that it is best practice to not keep secrets from the players (for very long at least), but rather find excuses to reveal the plot points. Therefor, I feel that if there is some nefarious party working against the players it should be represented by a clock, and not simply sprung on the players. Clocks are put on the table for all to see, there is no such thing as a private or GM only clock to my knowledge. The title of a clock could be a spoiler (ex: “The Lost: Tracking you to your lair”).
I’m leaning towards using as vague a title as possible for my clocks, (ex: “The Lost: scouting in retaliation “) but the impression I’m getting is that I should fully explain up front what will happen when a clock runs out. What is in the spirit of the game? For my players, what would you prefer?
Abrupt surprises are often no fun for players.
Instead of having the players surprised by enemies attacking them in their supposedly secret lair, telegraph the enemies’ attempts to locate them.
They learn of inquiries about them, specifically, through their contacts. They notice they are being tailed on the way home, just in time to shake, mislead, or confront the tail.
Instead of surprising them with enemies at the gates, let them know the enemies are looking. Once that is out, reveal the clock.
The Players can see the clock even if the characters don’t know the scope of it. When you tick a segment, it should ratchet up the tension This dramatic irony can be fun, if the players engage it well.
There is room between No Secrets and Complete Surprise, and you can fill that space with tension.
You don’t need to say exactly what happens, but I also think what happens should not be a surprise. If the clock says enemies are hunting them, neither assassins in the night nor a mob at the gates should be a shock.
It may be helpful to think of it as dramatic irony. The characters may have no idea what’s coming, but the players do. Or you can just run a game where the characters are savvy and well-informed. They catch wind when bad things are going to happen.
This doesn’t mean no surprises, by the way. It means no surprises from clocks. The problem isn’t surprise, I don’t think; it’s that a clock counting down to ??? is not meaningful or interesting. Clocks need to be meaningful, and surprises should come from nowhere.
I somewhat disagree with Daniel Helman. Count down clocks that count to ??? Can be interesting to everyone, the trick is that everyone needs to be equally surprised, including the gm. It goes with the principle ‘play to find out’. If the gm isn’t planning what the mystery bad stuff is then they find out with the players when it happens and it isn’t a secret because they themselves don’t know. When the bad stuff does trigger then the gm looks at where the players are and decides ‘what would make the players go oh shit that has been around the whole time’.
I think vague titles for long term stuff feels weak. It might build tension in the short term, but it makes a weak reveal the longer it’s on the table. When I ran a one shot, I used vague titles for the jobs on the table to represent the rumors of who wanted what. When they chose one, the they were told what the score was and the other two vague things left the table. Overall, I don’t think I like very longterm clocks. They work against the play to find out principle. If there is a long term threat, I would handle it with the faction guide and faction goals.
I keep hidden campaign clocks, if something ticks further, the player will hear rumors and note them. Which means, I do tell them ingame that something moved, and set up rules what ticks which clock, but the Players dont know what and how. Just that something hidious is ticking down their doom.
I liken this to your stance during any particular part of the game. (and this applies to ALL the players – inclusive of the GM)
Are you author? Audience? Actor?
At any given time the ‘hidden information’ is never actually hidden. The delicious sensation of knowing bad shit is gonna happen real soon far outweighs the ‘gotcha’ element that may tickle some GM’s fancy. Detail that stuff, make it collaborative, make it a stake question to be answered in play, make the consequences real and firm and undeniable.
Don’t forget that there is no pre-planning, so the surprise comes from playing to see what happens.
I knew that a degree of Co-authorship is the goal here, where to draw the line wasn’t as clear, so thanks for the tips!
I’ve only played in a couple BitD sessions, and GM’d one, but what strikes me as a good approach to start sessions (after the first) is to ask the players to recap the ongoing projects, and then to identify the specific goals of the crew.
Do they want to expand territory through pursuing hold/tier? Do they want to accumulate some resource(s)? Do they want to improve relations with or antagonize another faction? Is there a particular individual they want to strike against? Are they just plain murder-hoboey?
This serves two purposes:
1) Player recap of the ongoing narrative helps the GM know what bits resonate with the players. I’m often surprised by which carefully considered hooks i throw in the water that get no nibbles, versus the off-handed, improvised bits that become of major interest to the players (and therefore important in the story).
2) Once you have an idea of ongoing character and crew priorities, you should be able to come up with a score or two that fit one or more priorities.
I’m learning to keep the line between the GM and players in terms of creative input very, very fluid. I see my job as GM to be more about taking notes to keep the world consistent with what we’ve established before, and presenting interesting opportunities based upon those notes. It’s up to the players to chase the opportunities down, and together we’ll find out how that works out.
Which is probably why the previous quick start rules applied experience at the start of a session, to recap. I prefer experience at the end when everything is still fresh in mind, but a moment of goal planning at the start can go a long way. Thanks for the further insight.
No reason why you can’t award XP at the end of a session and then re-cap at the start James 🙂
Its a conversation after all. John says its fine either way. Whatever works for you and the group!
That’s exactly what I plan on doing moving forward
Yep, just finished session and have xp, recap next week.