Quote

Or it's just a guy who passed through the same port as the Bounty Hunter? Don't see how "has knowledge" automatically translates into "shady," here.

C'mon. Star Wars is a game about simple narratives and narratives have rules. In every crime movie and TV show, the guy who wants to rat out the mob boss is either mobbed up himself or is involved in some sort of side action. I have a hard time believing that any group of players that's been exposed to a decent amount of pop culture wouldn't be immediately suspicious of any informant. Unless that informant is a kid.

Quote

It spoils the reveal that this isn't an ordinary, average citizen, and does so in a meta way that encourages metagaming. That's disastrous in a narrative game, because the whole narrative relies on PCs acting organically based on stimulus within the game world.

There's no such thing as an "ordinary citizen" in FFG Star Wars , unless they're Nerf Herder Minions in a bar. Every NPC that's important enough to talk to is going to be a Rival or a Nemesis and have proficiency dice in a handful of skills.

Metagaming isn't a disaster but it's really, really bad form and essentially cheating in the same way insider trading is cheating. Part of the GM's role as game ref is to call players out when they metagame and encourage corrective behavior. Behind "have fun," the most important rule of RPGs is "the players aren't their characters." I'm certainly not going to twist myself up in knots trying to anticipate every way a player might interpret my actions as a GM.

Quote

That doesn't really accomplish much of anything. The PCs know that something is up, and that this random civilian they decided to pump for information has some high stats SOMEwhere. The entire point of a quiet, behind-the-scenes roll is to not alert the players that anything is out of place until their characters pick up on it.

I don't know what a "quiet" roll is. Dice rolling makes noise and creates motion. Any player who is looking at me can tell what I'm doing whether it's in front of the screen or behind it. So such more secrecy.

Quote

I...honestly think that's a bit of a creepy comparison to make. First of all, saying "I love you" isn't same magic sign that someone isn't cheating, openness and trust is. Second, hiding a Deception check to keep the results secret isn't exactly the same as locking your phone or your bank account, here. The latter is unnecessary, the former is how you preserve dramatic tension and take your players by surprise without cheating.

I don't. And you're giving me a strawman argument. What I said was two forms of positive behavior helps to reinforce trust even if one form should be enough.

From what I understand, your argument boils down to "players are going to metagame if they see what I'm rolling and it will ruin the secret."

My counterargument is:

1. it's the GMs job to call players out when their characters act on information there's no way they could have ( sidebar: narrative RPGs like FATE mechanically reward players when the players make their character's lives harder , not easier, and it's not a bad idea for GMs to reward players who go down that path [the old "good role-playing" bonus XP])
2. narrative role-playing games aren't designed with keeping secrets in mind; they're designed to encourage good story-telling. Unveiling secrets through dice-rolling requires a completely different mechanical approach, such as the investigative GUMSHOE system. FFG SW is good at what it does but investigations are not part of it. Probably because Star Wars isn't part of the detective genre.
3. the trust a player has in a GM when he rolls in the open outweighs the possibility of keeping in-game secrets. I know because I've been cheated by well-meaning but misguided GMs who fudged rolls in order to keep their story intact. I didn't hate them because they were my friends but I no longer trusted the game or my agency in the game.

21 minutes ago, whafrog said:

For me it's not punishment, I just structure the presentation differently so that open rolling is a non-issue. I enjoy it far more than what I used to do.

Yeah, it's definitely not punishment. FFG SW actually makes GMing easier if the GM can let go of the old "GM tells a story while the players go along for a ride" style of gaming.

9 hours ago, themensch said:

Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment, but I roll in the open and expect the players to roleplay. If they start to metagame, I give 'em one of these: ಠ_ಠ

edit: that isn't to say I don't hide information from my players. I have most things hidden from them, in fact!

In my experiance, it is VERY difficult for people not to metagame to some extent. It's like asking someone to knowingly hit their head on a bar: they might do it, but chances are they'll slow down slightly, adjust their head position for maximum cushion, and so on. It's just how people are. And as you pointed out, I'm already hiding information from them for the sake of the story anyways.

Quote

Yeah, it's definitely not punishment. FFG SW actually makes GMing easier if the GM can let go of the old "GM tells a story while the players go along for a ride" style of gaming.

Funny, for me it's the opposite: the people who want to control the story are the one who do things like "PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NPC, HE'S ROLLING DECEPTION." The GMs who are willing to let the story unfold without metagaming it one way or the other are the ones who are surrendering control over it.

15 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

C'mon. Star Wars is a game about simple narratives and narratives have rules. In every crime movie and TV show, the guy who wants to rat out the mob boss is either mobbed up himself or is involved in some sort of side action. I have a hard time believing that any group of players that's been exposed to a decent amount of pop culture wouldn't be immediately suspicious of any informant. Unless that informant is a kid.

A Bounty Hunter isn't a mob boss, though. He's basically a freelance cop, and if he's famous enough his movement are going to be public knowledge to people in the immediate area. Remember that this isn't some informant from inside a crime ring, it's literally a "This guy just came from the station the BH was heading to, maybe he knows where he went from there."

Besides, have you never heard of red herrings? Not every NPC is important or knows something worthwhile. Sometimes leads don't lead you somewhere, at least not the way you were expecting.

Quote

There's no such thing as an "ordinary citizen" in FFG Star Wars , unless they're Nerf Herder Minions in a bar.

In your game, maybe. I like to populate my galaxy with real people, though, or as close to it as I can make on the fly. A galaxy where every single person the PCs interact with is important is just...boring.

Quote

Metagaming isn't a disaster but it's really, really bad form and essentially cheating in the same way insider trading is cheating. Part of the GM's role as game ref is to call players out when they metagame and encourage corrective behavior.

Exactly! And you know what the easiest way to discourage insider trading is?

Don't give away insider knowledge.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

For me it's not punishment, I just structure the presentation differently so that open rolling is a non-issue. I enjoy it far more than what I used to do.

I do the same, honestly. I like to trust that my players can roleplay even if they know something their characters don't. It's a fine distinction that I have not found at every table. I enjoy watching the looks on their faces.

53 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

In my experiance, it is VERY difficult for people not to metagame to some extent. It's like asking someone to knowingly hit their head on a bar: they might do it, but chances are they'll slow down slightly, adjust their head position for maximum cushion, and so on. It's just how people are. And as you pointed out, I'm already hiding information from them for the sake of the story anyways.

I agree, and really, operating in the shoes of another being is the heart of roleplaying. I enjoy playing with folks that will go headlong into the miasma like I do and **** the torpedoes. But of course the metagaming aspect is running through everyone's head and probably even being discussed. But in the end, it's what the PC does that matters. It's very easy for the GM to break this rule too, so leading by example is paramount to expecting this behavior from players.

I have, however, played at many a table wherein this wasn't the case over the past...well, many decades. Some tables like to play that way and that's their right. Different strokes and whatnot....

2 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Exactly! And you know what the easiest way to discourage insider trading is?

Don't give away insider knowledge.

Not if you change how you present the information, or re-prioritize what is actually important for the story to proceed. This fear of meta gaming is only valid if the thing the players can see is meta-game-able.

Another useful technique for hiding information in plain sight is the Red Herring - bury the information amongst other information and let them work through it.

7 hours ago, whafrog said:

Not if you change how you present the information, or re-prioritize what is actually important for the story to proceed. This fear of meta gaming is only valid if the thing the players can see is meta-game-able.

I'm definitely with you whafrog. If i was standing face to face with someone IRL and could tell they where lying (one of my children perhaps) then just because I know they are lying doesn't tell me what they are actually hiding. Rather than presenting them with an opposed check with the expectation that they will discover the NPC's true potential just give them the face value result.

Perhaps with success you tell them "Sure, this guy is lying through his teeth, not a word he has said is truthful... but he doesn't let slip any hints of the actual truth"

With successful thereat it could be more like "Sure, this guy is lying through his teeth... but he is telling different contradicting stories and you cant make out which he is lying about and which is the truth" (In actual fact its all lies!)

With successful advantage it could be "Sure, this guy is lying through his teeth, most of what he has said is a lie... but he does let slip a hint of the actual truth giving you a lead to follow up on"

Triumph could embellish on that little hint of the truth, let them derail the session somewhat. Perhaps in DtP the droid in question mentions Droid rights. Its a snif of the truth but not a revelation then and there.

Despair could be accidentally believing something that wasn't actually said, "The miners brought it upon themselves" or "We droids managed to fight off the attackers, but now we cant get through to the miners since they barricaded themselves in" Both are a truth but from a different perspective.

Now as for the Metagame aspect of "the pool is big so it must be an important NPC" i call phooey. Throw big challenges at them that are red herrings more often and you will quickly dispense that little problem. Life shouldn't only be hard when it matters, in fact sometimes it should be easier. Throw challenges at them that they could easily bypass, make a dice pool difficult with the expectation that they will get around it in another way. Lull them in!

14 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

I'm definitely with you whafrog. If i was standing face to face with someone IRL and could tell they where lying (one of my children perhaps) then just because I know they are lying doesn't tell me what they are actually hiding. Rather than presenting them with an opposed check with the expectation that they will discover the NPC's true potential just give them the face value result.

Perhaps with success you tell them "Sure, this guy is lying through his teeth, not a word he has said is truthful... but he doesn't let slip any hints of the actual truth"

I agree that the only thing succeeding vs. an opposed Deception check gives you is that they're lying. It takes Advantage or Triumphs to get hints about the truth. That's actually the primary reason I hide deception checks in the first place: the base information you receive on success ("This person is lying") is instantly handed to the player success OR fail when you openly tell them the NPC is making a Deception check. And at that point, why not just tell them whenever every NPC lies, ever?

Edit: on the topic of giving every NPC a big pool, I see that as a viable alternative. I just don't prefer it myself because having every Tom, Richard, and Jane wandering around with Attributes of 3 and skills of 2 across the board feels more restricting than just hiding the occasional NPC Deception check. It also doesn't help when you want to make an NPC that is better at lying than average; they'll still stick out from the new norm you've created.

3 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I agree that the only thing succeeding vs. an opposed Deception check gives you is that they're lying. It takes Advantage or Triumphs to get hints about the truth. That's actually the primary reason I hide deception checks in the first place: the base information you receive on success ("This person is lying") is instantly handed to the player success OR fail when you openly tell them the NPC is making a Deception check. And at that point, why not just tell them whenever every NPC lies, ever?

Edit: on the topic of giving every NPC a big pool, I see that as a viable alternative. I just don't prefer it myself because having every Tom, ****, and Jane wandering around with Attributes of 3 and skills of 2 across the board feels more restricting than just hiding the occasional NPC Deception check. It also doesn't help when you want to make an NPC that is better at lying than average; they'll still stick out from the new norm you've created.

I can certainly appreciate this perspective. It makes complete sense to me. On the other hand, if a GM is only hiding certain negative dice rolls, that, too, could tell the players that something's fishy.

So, middle ground maybe:

Just give the players the difficulty. Don't tell them whether or not it's opposed or what skill is being used. And/or, make it clear that, if a player is specifically checking to see if an NPC is lying, it will ALWAYS be an opposed check against Deception, whether the NPC is lying or not...Deception as a counter is representative of the PC being able to get a sense of any "tells" the NPC may have, not an indication in and of itself that the NPC is trying to deceive. Failure doesn't mean that the NPC deceives the PC...it just means the PC can't tell whether or not the NPC is lying; success means that the PC can tell whether or not the NPC is lying.

Another thing that people shouldn't forget to consider... what do your players prefer? Like I said in my post earlier, I 100% would rather have hidden rolls than 'oh, you know that, but your character doesn't' situations. Now I'm not worried about me meta-gaming.... but for me, it ruins the suspense and the excitement. For some people maybe it's too stressful or they don't trust their GM. There's a lot of moments in my campaign that boil down to -"Well... you can reroll deception/stealth/perception/whatever.... but it'd be more funny/interesting/dramatic to let this roll stand" and I usually believe my GM. In the end, it becomes a non-issue because that's how we prefer to play. It wasn't just our GM being mean, we decided as a group to run things that way.

Sorry to double post, but I wanted to add, as someone said, it's really easy in this system to create really engaging, funny, compelling stories... so I don't want spoilers. I want the reveal to be a amazing to me as it is to my character.

45 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I can certainly appreciate this perspective. It makes complete sense to me. On the other hand, if a GM is only hiding certain negative dice rolls, that, too, could tell the players that something's fishy.

So, middle ground maybe:

Just give the players the difficulty. Don't tell them whether or not it's opposed or what skill is being used. And/or, make it clear that, if a player is specifically checking to see if an NPC is lying, it will ALWAYS be an opposed check against Deception, whether the NPC is lying or not...Deception as a counter is representative of the PC being able to get a sense of any "tells" the NPC may have, not an indication in and of itself that the NPC is trying to deceive. Failure doesn't mean that the NPC deceives the PC...it just means the PC can't tell whether or not the NPC is lying; success means that the PC can tell whether or not the NPC is lying.

When it comes to NPCs specifically taking covert actions (like Deception, Stealth, or Skulduggery) I'll usually make the roll silently, through a dice app. The first hint the players get of something going on in those cases is when I apply their success/advantage/triumph. So, let's say an NPC is listening to the PCs one floor below in an old old building, his ear against the floor. Rolling his stealth check, the PCs get a net success and a Triumph! It turns out the NPC chose a bad spot to lay down on, and he comes crashing through their ceiling to land at their feet, dazed. Because I didn't roll openly, the players had no idea that anything was happened during their planning session, and this was a (welcome) surprise. It also means that if they had failed the check, the NPC would have been able to listen in and then go on his way with the players none the wiser, as opposed to making players roll to oppose a Stealth check and fail in the middle of them planning their heist in their apartment: they know that something is up!

Spoilers? I think you guys are missing the point. My players don't get spoilers. If the "big reveal" is an NPC dice pool, that seems rather ... limited.

13 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Spoilers? I think you guys are missing the point. My players don't get spoilers. If the "big reveal" is an NPC dice pool, that seems rather ... limited.

I would go with either "dull" or "boring" but "limited" works too. I've yet to hear a gaming story that began with, "So this one NPC had a big dice pool..."

7 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

I would go with either "dull" or "boring" but "limited" works too. I've yet to hear a gaming story that began with, "So this one NPC had a big dice pool..."

Exactly, because figuring things out that way don't make for interesting stories. To be clear, I'm not taking about the dice being the reveal, I'm talking about the results of the dice being the reveal.

Let me put it to you guys this way:

You know those old Saturday morning cartoons? You know how you could instantly tell what was background scenery, and what was something the characters interacted with, just by the way it was drawn? That's a spoiler. You can argue that it's not a BIG one, but it's a spoiler nonetheless.

You also didn't address the example I gave above, where simply informing the players that a test is taking place at all is a spoiler. Or do you disagree?

6 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

You also didn't address the example I gave above, where simply informing the players that a test is taking place at all is a spoiler. Or do you disagree?

I disagree. At some point *everything* could be a spoiler, it's a matter of degree. When I present a test, it's because that's a natural progression of how the story is unfolding, or the PC has done something that makes it obvious a test is required. If an NPC is particularly good at avoiding lie-detection I don't consider that a spoiler because I don't center the plot around that one ability. It also doesn't say anything about the "level" of the NPC...they could just be really good at avoiding lie-detection, and nothing else.

I addressed these issues in the links I provided, which you haven't addressed either...no worries, they're long, so I get it if you don't want to read them, but I don't feel the need to write it all up again. I will reiterate that I used to do things your way, and changing it has been a liberation.

Just now, whafrog said:

I disagree. At some point *everything* could be a spoiler, it's a matter of degree. When I present a test, it's because that's a natural progression of how the story is unfolding, or the PC has done something that makes it obvious a test is required. If an NPC is particularly good at avoiding lie-detection I don't consider that a spoiler because I don't center the plot around that one ability. It also doesn't say anything about the "level" of the NPC...they could just be really good at avoiding lie-detection, and nothing else.

I addressed these issues in the links I provided, which you haven't addressed either...no worries, they're long, so I get it if you don't want to read them, but I don't feel the need to write it all up again. I will reiterate that I used to do things your way, and changing it has been a liberation.

You disagree, and then you say that EVERYTHING is a spoiler? Wouldn't that mean that it IS a spoiler, and you just don't care about spoilers?

All I am saying is that, in the example I highlighted above, rolling the Stealth check in the open is a spoiler: it spoils that fact that the PCs are being spied upon and diminishes the surprise that they would otherwise feel when they discover the spy in character. I don't understand how ruining that surprise for them is "liberating."

30 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

You know those old Saturday morning cartoons? You know how you could instantly tell what was background scenery, and what was something the characters interacted with, just by the way it was drawn? That's a spoiler. You can argue that it's not a BIG one, but it's a spoiler nonetheless.

You're certainly welcome to run your games however you like, but I think it's not an equitable comparison between Saturday morning cartoons and a roleplaying game, this one in particular. Is it a spoiler that everyone knows Darth Vader is Luke's father? Your players probably know that, but their characters do not and shouldn't act on that information. Point being, a GM can't hide everything from the players and expect them to collaborate in the way this system encourages, and smacks a little bit like railroading. However, I will admit there are likely plenty of tables out there that are okay with this style of play so I don't mean to denigrate it.

4 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

All I am saying is that, in the example I highlighted above, rolling the Stealth check in the open is a spoiler: it spoils that fact that the PCs are being spied upon and diminishes the surprise that they would otherwise feel when they discover the spy in character. I don't understand how ruining that surprise for them is "liberating."

Could the NPC be spying on the PCs in a way that would be virtually undetectable? For example, using quadnocs from a klick away? That fixed this particular problem for me.

6 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

You disagree, and then you say that EVERYTHING is a spoiler? Wouldn't that mean that it IS a spoiler, and you just don't care about spoilers?

No, don't be obtuse. And I specifically outline how I would handle a Stealth issue in the links.

Either way, OP has lots of examples of the pros and cons, people's opinions, and examples how either method might be employed. I would say, ask your players how they want the game to run. You know the tone of your campaign. Investigative campaigns are run differently than combat centric games. As long as everyone is on the same page, you may hide or conceal to your heart's content.

4 minutes ago, themensch said:

You're certainly welcome to run your games however you like, but I think it's not an equitable comparison between Saturday morning cartoons and a roleplaying game, this one in particular. Is it a spoiler that everyone knows Darth Vader is Luke's father? Your players probably know that, but their characters do not and shouldn't act on that information. Point being, a GM can't hide everything form the players and expect them to collaborate in the way this system encourages, and smacks a little bit like railroading. However, I will admit there are likely plenty of tables out there that are okay with this style of play so I don't mean to denigrate it.

To me, it's just the opposite: just like in those cartoons, you're creating a light patch to railroad the players: "Hey, look at this! This is important! Pay attention!"

Obviously, some spoilers are unavoidable. I wish I could run a game where the players were unaware of that connection, it would make the eventual reveal that much more impactful. But I can't, so I don't worry about it. On the other hand, I CAN prevent further spoilers.

Quote

Could the NPC be spying on the PCs in a way that would be virtually undetectable? For example, using quadnocs from a klick away? That fixed this particular problem for me.

And that's NOT railroading?!

The PCs detecting the NPC isn't a problem, here. A problem is the players finding out before (or instead of) the characters.

Just now, whafrog said:

No, don't be obtuse. And I specifically outline how I would handle a Stealth issue in the links.

No, what? No, it isn't a spoiler for players to find out about stealth checks before their characters do? Because...well, it is.

1 minute ago, themensch said:

Point being, a GM can't hide everything form the players and expect them to collaborate in the way this system encourages, and smacks a little bit like railroading.

I don't know if I would call it railroading but it's definitely removing player agency.

6 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I don't understand how ruining that surprise for them is "liberating."

That's a strawman argument. What's liberating is, rather than planning out every eventuality and plot point, flexing your game to match player choice and player action. Clutching fast to secrets that cannot be revealed until the appropriate time isn't narrative gaming; that's a plot "dungeon crawl" where the PCs have to check the plot boxes in order to get the full story.