thread: 2009-06-17 : Secrets
On 2009-06-17, Vincent wrote:
Majcher and Tim: Nope. Those are plans with rock-solid setup, where the group has agreed in advance to assent to them when the players bring them out. Like Darth Vader being Luke's father: it comes up on the screen, and as audience we have no valid way to dissent. (In roleplaying, we always have ways to dissent, unlike watching a film; but if we've already agreed not to, and the revelation isn't a real-world betrayal, then effectively we've guaranteed our assent.)
Like I say, does the distinction matter? Not really. At this extreme end of the spectrum, they're practically secrets. Nevertheless, the spectrum is made of plans and group assent; that they're practically secrets doesn't make them actually secrets.
Suppose someone joins a campaign part way through. Are we saying that somehow the everything that's been said before they joined is contentious?
Absolutely, yes. In fact, everything's always contentious, and it's most contentious when a new person joins.
The preexisting group will hold ENORMOUS social authority over the stuff they've already created, of course. The new person won't have much ground to demand they revisit it, but she can if she chooses, same as anybody can.
Here's a good example, this kind of thing happens all the time. I join your campaign in progress, and I say "hey, I know you said that King Arno has 2 daughters, but I really think he has 3, and my character's the middle one. Cool?" If King Arno and his daughters don't really matter to you, as a group, you might well go along with me.
