Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus
Well, the solution is you don't give that player out of game information.
|
That's
a solution, but it constrains the range of possible play styles.
I run campaigns where the PCs often do things apart from the other PCs; in fact I've run campaigns where all the PCs came together only in the final episodes of the campaign. In some of those, the PCs have actually belonged to conflicting factions and taken action against each other. It would have been really awkward to keep having them sit in different rooms, while I went back and forth from one group to the other; I think it would have been so clunky as to be unworkable.
Fortunately, I have players who don't believe in acting on out-of-character knowledge—in fact, anyone who slips will be faced with outcries of "metagaming!" from the other players. So I just run everything in the open, with rare steps out of the room when it's dramatically useful to present a surprise to the players—"rare" meaning "less than once a session."
This gives me access to a wider range of campaign styles than GMs who have to be careful about what players know. I find that useful enough so that I would drop a player who didn't accept the separation of player and character knowledge, rather than change my play style to defend against them.