The Secrets disadvantage

[artichoke]

This topic is intended to discuss anything related to this mechanic. It is intended to be rather open-ended. In that vein, I have some questions and ponderables:

Does the mechanic give a player too much control over part of the narrative?

• "Secrets come up again and again until they're exposed or bought out" (paraphrase)

• "If the player feels the secret should come into play, it does" (paraphrase)

• The effect must be immediate, so it has an immediate narrative impact

• The effect must also be double the strength, in build points terms — suggesting that the reveal is going to be a big deal in the narrative

The secrets-as-patrons version does seem to be easy enough to integrate into the narrative. The "disadvantage reveal" version also seems to be easier to integrate. If, for instance, a PC has a secret drug addiction, the reveal could be that the PC has gone blind from contamination in the illicit drug she/he has been using.

Of course, one of the things that many advocate, including me, is to give the spotlight to different PCs at different times, generally — instead of trying to have everyone share it constantly (which leads the game down the path of making everyone roughly the same PC — by chasing the goal of perfect balance, aka perfect uniformity/dullness). It could be, though, tough to balance multiple secrets, especially since players can say they come into play, on-demand. The secrets mechanic could be a way for a player who feels underutilized to grab the spotlight, which could be good, neutral, or bad — depending.

It says the GM can restrict or ban secrets (either specific ones or the whole mechanic) for being too disruptive — but that's true of anything. It does, though, imply that they are inclined to be. Otherwise, why state it?

The GM appears to face contrary incentives, which factors into the narrative timing and more:

A) The first is to make the time bomb blow up, so the player isn't gaming the system (in terms of the points buy). Even if the GM doesn't think that's the case, the GM may face pressure from other players over the build points — especially if the secret roll is rolled in a manner that shows the other players that someone at the table has an unexposed secret.

I anticipate that a response might be to assume good intent on the part of the players but I'm not sure that really applies enough here, since we're talking about a basic points buy mechanism. Players tend to be competitive about character optimization which is why so many specific rules are in place about it, like a cap of the number of perks.

B) The flip side to A is to not annoy the player by blowing up the bomb before the player has had the chance to diffuse it (by paying for it in earned XP). Players can love their GM a whole bunch but that doesn't mean they won't feel something. If the time bomb blows up the first session or two it could feel more punitive, too (or less, depending on the emotional investment).

C) The way the story seems to be going and the player interjecting their secret, especially one that is very severe — or the secret coming out even without the player wanting it to come into play. For instance, the GM rolls at the start of the session. If a player's secret comes out then, due to that roll, then there would be, potentially, a huge shift in focus from whatever was happening and whatever the GM had prepared. This could be an issue for GMs who have more difficulty with a high level of ad-libbing. I suppose the GM could postpone the outcome, even though the description says immediately.

The secrets mechanism seems to enable a player to get a more powerful character up-front by taking the risk that the GM will blow up the time bomb and create a lot of pain (a doubling of the severity of the disadvantage, as it is prior to the explosion).

While flavorful, it seems like it might be very swingy. Either the pain is replaced with what could be seen as a bonus (the player gets to buy off the points later, after having taken advantage of having a stronger player prior) or it is very bad (a doubling of the disadvantage's severity). Of course, how swingy it is depends on the level of secret taken.

It's true that the GM can use the random roll mechanic (at the start of the session) to reduce the pressure to refrain from blowing up the secret until the player has, at least, enough earned XP to buy it out. However, since GMs can fiat anything, and players know that, the pressure level seems like it can be unclear. GMs could announce, prior to the campaign beginning, that secrets rolls will be done openly and will not be subject to fudge or delay of any kind. That seems like a good idea to me at this point. Of course, it also tells the table that one or more PCs has a secret — which makes it less secret.

A situation might cause more than one PC's secret to be revealed. I wonder how ugly that could get, given the immediateness of the result. What if the secret revelations would normally take the party in two very different directions? I suppose the GM would have to think about the possibilities for each session, prior to playing them. Of course, it could be fun to have this kind of tension/drama.

I wonder if this mechanic might work better, for a less swingy and/or specific PC-dominated goal, outside of the disadvantages system. Have each player choose a secret for their PCs, with the table deciding how severe the secrets should be (each PC having the same level severity). Doing it this way takes away the points buy issue and makes it so that revealing the secret or buying it out isn't required (it doesn't have to come up again and again and there are no build points involved). It means the narrative can flow without the player interjecting their secret on-demand. The GM might find that most of them never come into play, depending on how the story flows. Of course, there probably should be a way to balance the disadvantageous nature of many secrets or players's PCs that are penalized in play for their secret coming out, while other PCs may not have that happen could be seen as unfairly hindered. Some players won't find this negative but some could. One way to deal with this is for the secrets to have benefits, including when exposed. For instance, if a princess has a secret that she's really a commoner, that might make her seem better to the public, in a certain context, when it's revealed. The drawback could even be just as bad as the positive, depending on the context she is in — making the secret rather neutral. E.g. — she could have been blackmailed into doing something distasteful prior. If no build points are used, this seems like it would be the best outcome for most groups/players. For those who don't worry so much about "fairness", though, the randomness of having mostly, or even totally, negative secrets come out whenever, or not at all, would be seen as positive. A swingy effect can also be more memorable. No risk, no reward. In the points buy version, a secret would have to have a negative overall impact, one double the initial points value.

I actually enjoyed playing a multiplayer Time Bomb type 1 deck back when I used to play MtG, even though it was a very poorly optimized card. Some players couldn't understand why I chose to play with suboptimal cards and complained about me using broken cards in the same deck to try to make it more balanced. Sometimes swinginess is more fun than clinical optimization. Sometimes the goal is to embrace the randomness rather than "win". (Sometimes winning can mean making a "useless" mechanic into one that wins sometimes, even if not often.) I get all that. That's one of the reasons I am interested in this mechanic.

Note that I am not answering any of these questions in this post. I am merely interested in various viewpoints on the subject. I am just pondering this mechanic at this point. I have not invested a huge amount of time into analyzing it.

• Has anyone else thought much on it and/or used it in their campaigns?

• Do you feel the outcome of an exposed secret is typically worth the temporary advantage of having more upfront build points — always or just with a certain level of upfront severity?

• If you have dealt with it as a player and as a GM, is there a difference in how you feel about the mechanic, dependent on your role?

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/Rolepla...1/Secrets.html