unforum

[OhWhatProvidence]

The concept of trust in ARGs

[BubbleBoy]

This is really the only form of entertainment that the audience can control, at least in small part. I have a feeling that that plays a small role in what you are talking about. No story, in ARG's, really ends up going the way that you want (from a PM perspective). You learn that events do not occur on a specific date and time but, rather, at a point in the story (unless it's specific, like RL meetings).

The audience has a way of coming up with ideas that the creator may not have thought of. In that way the creator almost has to be open to some change. That "change" can go one of two ways: good or bad.

The good ones take the audience by surprise (who wants to play a predictable game?), the bad ones leave a bad taste in your mouth. This means that the creator has to constantly be keeping on eye on everything from the forums to chat rooms to try and gauge audience reactions to all aspects of the game.

I did not play the game that you reference exactly, so I can not speak from that perspective. Maybe the PM reacted to any number of things. Maybe this was done "on the fly", with just a basic story written out? Who knows.

I don't know if what you are referring to is actually trust, but rather an error on the PM's part to not fully explain events that were going on (maybe there was no real explanation).

In the end, you are right, that trust does play a role, much more than it does with other forms of media and game-play. That trust rests on the shoulders of the PM being able to react effectively to all of those unforeseen circumstances.

IMO

[MageSteff]

(I'm wondering if this is more of a topic for the META board rather than press, but here are my thoughts)

The thing to keep in mind is that the characters - or the information generated that comes from the characters- is the only way for the players to get the information. If the players can't trust the information they are given then the transfer of information breaks down to where the players basically have no base to work from. If the character is unreliable then there is no reason for the player to continue to invest in the narrative.

If a character gives out information and then the players discover that the information was false, then basically the character has shown disrespect for the players. Note: I am not saying that players learn that a character is less than mentally stable, but that the character knowingly misled the players. If a character has a mental illness, then players learn that they must treat the information as seen through the filter of the information that the character has a mental illness.

But for a character to tell about a ghost,a voice etc. when the character has not experienced those things, they are no better than a scam artist and will quickly lose the interest of the players, unless the PM gives a compelling reason through other sources, for the players to continue to interact with that character and accept the information from that character.

It isn't so much that the character is being factual, but that the character is being truthful about what they are reporting.

If you mean the videos, sound recordings, and photos that are offered as "evidence" by the character being manipulated by the character to convince players to "convince" players? It really depends on how the PM handles the information leading the playeras to suspect the "hard" evidence. You could lose a lot of players if they feel a character is trying to scam them without giving the players another character to "side" with against the con artist character. You have to respect the players as a PM, because if the players feel that you are trying to make them look foolish, that will lead to a whole lot of bad feelings and a game that could implode rather fast.

Or are you asking about the Players' suspension of disbelief? That is a totally separate issue.

[OhWhatProvidence]

I meant this coming from a character who, in my game, already has established that they have their own agenda that is against the players (the only real antagonist in the game) and yet my players are still treating everything he says as fact. I have a small group of characters who are fully opposed to this character and are decrying /everything/ he says, which a few of the players listen to, but most don't. And then another sort of mediator group who are siding with only the players, (they basically /are/ players in a way) trying to sort out what's actually going on from the two absolutes. -shrug- it seems to be working well so far, just something I thought i might get an opinion on from others, as well as just a general discussion about the concept.