anyway.

thread: 2015-03-23 : The Vengeful Demon of the Ring as a Con Game

On 2015-03-23, Gordon wrote:

(First thought on reading the title - Vincent is recasting VDotR as totally a conFIDENCE game? What?)
1. I don't think the ethics issue can be "resolved", but that's true in non-secret play as well. I think there are special additional dangers in unknowing participants, though, so I guess I'd like to add something directed at the knowing players warning them that, as knowing amongst the unknowing, they need to be extra careful not to be abusive. Play the actual game, don't exploit your se-krit no-ldgz for personal giggles. Maybe the fact that anyone might be knowing in one/some game(s) and unknowing in some other(s) is a help, but I wouldn't count on it as a cure-all.
2. For communicating to the adventurers and the demon-chosen, I think it's OK. I'd be concerned about (the more simplistic takes on) thinking that way as a game designer, and I'd kinda reject it as an accurate analysis. Even in that first case, being an oxymoron actually looks helpful to me, as it makes you really think about how it might be interpreted sensibly. Which I'd hope would help with understanding that witting players are both like and unlike unwitting "players", in complex ways.
3. Are you a player? Hard call. I think your potential to be a player is greater, but still not really high. Current thinking - making decisions informed by an understanding of the game is important to my willingness to label someone a player. "Understanding of the game" and "informed decision" are hardly absolute issues, though, so I'm left with "maybe a player, or maybe not."
Vincent (If you think it'd be helpful to answer - I, obviously, think it might): In the actual play of Uroos Maluroos Peter posted about, the target got a note much like this one, but even more pointed. What would you say about him and his player-ness?