Tara Zuber [8:50 AM]
I also find it interesting that [character] is playing everything close to [their] chest. [redacted.] And even now, in the downtime-coordination, [they aren't] sharing [information].
[8:50]
If [they're] doing that on purpose, then good for [them].

Degen Gottlieb [10:06 AM]
One thing I'd like to do, speaking of which, is formally clarify to what extent downtime coordination is IC vs. OOC --not in the sense of being written in character, of course, but in the sense of the information being _available_ in character.
In the past, I (as a PC) have treated it as information that is publicly available (i.e. "IC" by the above definition), but I don't think it has been made fully clear. (edited)

Tara Zuber [11:19 AM]
downtime-coordination is completely OOC. So, good point on what Rachel is and is not sharing. Comment on Holly not sharing at game stands.

Degen Gottlieb
[11:22 AM]
In that case, I think it would be beneficial to make a clarifying announcement to that effect? That said, personally I actually would _prefer_ that we say that info shared in downtime-coordination is publicly available unless otherwise stated, because this is a game where PCs keep secrets from each other, and many people may not want to use the channel at all if being in it means they are constantly "spoiling" themselves.
[11:22]
(nb. as a PC, I would have fallen into that category)

Laurie Rich
[11:23 AM]
I don't want to discourage using downtime-coordination, though

[11:25]
I'm down with a clarifying statement that says something like 'be sure to make sure to be clear if you're sharing information IC or OOC, and if OOC put it in a thread'.

Degen Gottlieb
[11:25 AM]
that's a great compromise

Laurie Rich [11:25 AM]
Threads are one of the best things Slack has ever done

Tara Zuber
[11:25 AM]
On a side note--this is a game with a wall, right? Like you can share info OOC with the expectation that people won't use it IC?

Laurie Rich [11:26 AM]
Yes.

Degen Gottlieb
[11:27 AM]
...that said, I personally feel strongly that one _shouldn't_ share OOC information that can't be used IC without checking that the other player is comfortable with that, but that's me.

Laurie Rich [11:27 AM]
I disagree, especially in a game like this that is more about collaborative storytelling than mechanics
[11:28]
Ah, I just caught the 'without checking the other player is comfortable'

Degen Gottlieb [11:28 AM]
Even collaborative storytelling games like this one have scheming. yes--that, haha

Laurie Rich
[11:28 AM]
There's nothing you can do in a forum like this, though
[11:28]
If you want to share with a channel, you can't wait until everyone checks in

Degen Gottlieb
[11:28 AM]
hence the great threaded replies compromise :catdance:

Laurie Rich [11:28 AM]
I guess I thought your comment was because you were trying to tweak that rule some how?
[11:29]
Or push us to a more closed game?

Tara Zuber [11:29 AM]
"without checking" Do you mean if I want to share info with you OOC with the expectation you don't use it IC, I have to check with you first that you're okay getting OOC info?
[11:30]
Or do you mean that if I have received OOC info from you, I should check with you whether I can use it IC

Degen Gottlieb [11:31 AM]
The former is what I meant, yes. It's not something that has to be policy here; I'm speaking to my preference as an individual. But personally it's something that I prefer, because many players, particularly if they're playing characters who may be secret-keepers themselves, find it makes their own play less fun if they're told something that they were enjoying trying to discover on their own.

Laurie Rich
[11:31 AM]
Yeah, but I guess my thought on that is, what if the player who wants to share needs to do so for their own story-telling reasons?

Tara Zuber [11:32 AM]
I prefer the latter. Person who gets info checks if they can use it.

Degen Gottlieb
[11:33 AM]
for example, if I'm trying to investigate Character A, and have a set of theories I'm developing, and character A's player comes up to me and says, "isn't it wild that my character is secretly [xyz]," I'm put in an unfortunate position: I already know the answer to a question I was trying to figure out, and if I already had a guess that they were secretly [xyz], now how can I be sure whether my character has really figured something out, vs. me abusing OOC knowledge?
[11:33]
does that make sense?

Laurie Rich
[11:33 AM]
Mm, somewhat.

Tara Zuber [11:34 AM]
I think you then be open "hey, I've been trying to figure that out" and then you can talk through some potential scenes for the investigation going forward

Laurie Rich
[11:35 AM]
I think the person whose character is xyz is the one with the greater stake in the story -- especially if it is damaging info -- and if they want to share that and plan future scenes or the reveal or whatever, it's their plotline and their secret.

Tara Zuber [11:35 AM]
That too

Laurie Rich
[11:35 AM]
It is very, very rare that I have had plotlines go well when secrets between players are kept close to the vest, and much better when things could be planned

[11:36]
Case in point, heh, and this is not me being critical, just a story: in AAL, if Vivien and I had been able to talk about character secrets, we could have planned a lot between our characters as allies, etc.

Degen Gottlieb
[11:36 AM]
I guess my taste is just different! Tara's solution strikes me as completely viable, and gives me a better idea of how you want stories to be structured in the game.

Laurie Rich [11:36 AM]
But because secrets were enforced and kept, Vivien felt very disconnected and did not have a good way to make backstory

Degen Gottlieb
[11:37 AM]
AAL is a different game, and I'd rather not use it as a point of comparison, if that's alright!

Laurie Rich [11:37 AM]
Surely!

Degen Gottlieb
[11:38 AM]
there are places in SSC where I could bring up counterpoints; it's really a matter of player style and what's right for the kind of stories a LARP is telling

Laurie Rich [11:38 AM]
I totally acknowledge they're different kinds of games; just trying to share an experience I knew you were aware of.