Playing (and Scheming) Above the Table

Last post I talked about Wolverine vs. Cyclops, which is shorthand for playing your character for yourself, or playing for the others at the table. Almost always, I want players to be playing for the rest of the table. I want people to think before they take action, "Is this going to be entertaining for everyone at the table, or just me?"

At first glance, this might seem like it precludes selfish and scheming characters. It depends. If your goal was to create a character to get one over on your fellow players, then yeah, I don't think I want that character in the group.

However, if you want to play the bad guy who redeems himself, the scoundrel with a heart of gold, or the villain who is reluctantly forced to roll with the heroes, I think there is lots of room to operate. You just need to keep in mind, "Is this going to be entertaining to everyone at the table?"

One way I have thought to enforce this is, as the GM, to stop accepting secret notes and directions from the players. If they want to perform an action, they have to state it at the table, out loud, in front of everyone. This means that every player is in on the plot, even if their characters would be opposed to it.

I think this avoids a couple things. First, it cuts off the most egregious examples of selfish play. If something is really offensive, or will tear the party asunder, someone can step in before the action is taken and voice their concern. If one player's thief is planning to steal from the group, another player can step in and state, "That's not OK, and if we find out, we are leaving you on the side of the road."

Second, it avoids one of the pitfalls of PvP play, which is opposed skill rolls. If your thief is going to palm some coins, one of the other players may ask to make a spot check. If your schemer is lying to the group, someone might think to ask for a sense motive check. Of course, the GM will have to adjudicate whether or not anyone will be able to make the opposed skill check. What you don't want is to allow an action in secret, and then another player finds out, and feels cheated because he could have made a skill roll to detect the subterfuge.

You do open the door to some huge metagaming (which you still get as soon as the first secret note is passed). Remember though, what we are shooting for is enforcing the rule that any intra-group plots and schemes are entertaining. Scheming above the table eliminates much of the risk that one character's secret plans derail the entire campaign. Scheming above the table means that all the players are in on the plot -- they agree to allow that plot into the story. When everyone is OK with a character's shenanigans, I think metagaming becomes less of a problem.