Allow GM's to see all player whispers

As the title says I would like it if I were able to see all player whispers. There are times when players would like to speak silently to one another but must repeat their conversation to the DM afterwords. It would be nice to just see all. Edit 4/3/1013: Wow, I had no idea all this below would happen... How very interesting. At the very least thanks for the interest on everyone's part; good and bad at least it is an active heartfelt community : ). Quite the bright side if you ask me.

There are also times the players want to talk without the dm knowing what they are saying (like for planning a cheep way to enter the enemy fortress without the dm quickly placing a defense against it). Personally, I feel the more generic, versatile, and simplistic way to solve this is to allow multiple targets for a whisper, ether just with in chat commands or by setting up groups of participants somewhere else.

I'd side with And p on that. Allow for people to target more than one person with a whisper. Making it so the GM can see all whispers... I'd dislike that personally. (and I'm a GM, not a player) :)

This needs to happen. The DM should be able to see them all since, ya know, he's the DM, basically the 'god' of the game. If the system was DM vs Players, I could see that....

Yeah for any gaming table that does not allow for Meta gaming the whisper feature needs to have an option that when ticked allows the GM to see all whispers, if left unticked in the options let it remain as it is now. Hey I am even happy if they have it marked on a campaign that the GM can see all whispers. Myself as a long time GM would use it to monitor metagaming or possibly even work more detail into something sneaky the players were planning rather than out and out thwart it. Aslong as it is transparent which options have been turned on I see no reason that having options like this would be a bad thing.

Many play styles do not have the GM as a defacto deity. I would say having it possible to whisper to more than one person or leave it the way it is rather than favoring the old D&D DM/GM against Players style. For example in our game it is very apropriate for the players to plot against me as the game master.

What would monitoring players' private messages solve? They could just use IM or SMS or a hundred other things to metagame. If players don't want you to know, you won't. And you shouldn't even try.

Let whispers be private, that is their purpose after all. Allowing for 3-way whisping would be good though.

No.

Melvin McSnatch said: What would monitoring players' private messages solve? They could just use IM or SMS or a hundred other things to metagame. If players don't want you to know, you won't. And you shouldn't even try. Because if you know it is going on you can talk to the player or players that are doing it, sometimes people will only do something because it is there and quite often I have had to deal with a player that likes telling the rest of the players especially new players what to do. Now I would find out about this at another point in time but it can ruin a session. Tell me one good reason it couldn't be implemented as a feature that when gets turned on puts a tag on the campaign that says "GM can see your whispers" I believe that should be up to the gm to decide, if players don't wish to play under that rule it will be majority ruled quick enough, aslong as it is transparent I don't see the reason for people to come here and say. "hey look at this nice and optional feature, I don't like the idea of it so nobody should have the option even though it won't actively effect me" As for SMS and so on, well yeah there is nothing stopping that, my players play over chat and webcam so it becomes pretty obvious if they were to do it all the time. Actually that clears up both issues really, it should be quite obvious who is metagaming and who is not purely through webcam and voip. Still I think the option to have it enabled or disabled is a good one regardless of your own personal view on the matter, sure have it transparent what options the GM has enabled on the campaign but don't deny a feature or shout it down just because it is something that you don't particularily wish for. JonathanTheBlack  said: No. Care to elaborate?

Whispers are private communication between one person and the other person. No one needs nor should they get access to those whispers.

Haven't found a way to do it successfully yet, but it came up in a game yesterday-- can you link more than 1 person into a whisper? We had a private conversation between 2 players that WANTED the GM to be able to see it-- couldn't get 2 whispers going and so ended up just posting in common chat. Maybe a toggle for "GM can see whispers" would work for this or just a way to whisper to more than 1 person at a time? Or both?

JonathanTheBlack said: Whispers are private communication between one person and the other person. No one needs nor should they get access to those whispers. This. Roll20 shouldn't be encouraging DM/GMs on a powertrip.

Melvin McSnatch said: JonathanTheBlack said: Whispers are private communication between one person and the other person. No one needs nor should they get access to those whispers. This. Roll20 shouldn't be encouraging DM/GMs on a powertrip. It doesn't have to be about a power tirp though... As I said if it is clearly marked there should be no problem. Honestly if you think the GM is working against you find a new GM or they should just stop being a GM.

Not all private conversations are about the game. Whispers should and must remain private. Now and always.

Conversations not about the game should be conducted outside the gaming interface. A GM should know what happens to (and between) each PCs and NPCs. We are not speaking about monopoly or cluedo here. [UnknowablE]  said: Honestly if you think the GM is working against you find a new GM.... Indeed.

Bugger that. We have enough windows and programs open. Not gonna open yet another program just to ask a quick question or something when it's not my turn to act. Especially when we have a tool that works just fine.

The only work around I figured out is to use a character sheet with the players and the gm assigned to it. This is clunky and slow but it is a work around.

As a GM, all I need is access to is in game whispers. I have never cared what two player wanted to whisper about. All I every wanted and needed is a way to have whispers that involve in game actions/events archived. examples:  Player A whispering to player B about the GM, sports, or anything else that is OOC. Don't care about it Player A whispering in character to player B's character about the situation they are in. I need to know about it since it is in character.  The second example is where the gm needs to be included in the whisper since it has an impact in the game. A good GM will not change his adventure just because the players out think him but instead reward the players for doing a good job.

No, you don't need access to in game whispers.

Yes, you do (if you don't care to explain, why should I?).

One of my players actually complained when he found out I couldn't automatically see the whispers. It depends on the play style, to be frank, whether it would be valuable or not.  In some case, the DM NEEDS to know what's being said.  If two characters are discussing something relevant to the story or making plans that would require the DM to do some advanced prep work, it would be necessary or at the very least useful.  Some games are more players vs. the DM where it's essential to NOT have the DM know what the players are planning.  But most aren't (as far as I've ever seen anyway.) so I think allowing the option would be very smart -- So long as it's somehow made clear to the players that it is happening.  Maybe when you send the whisper it adds "GM" as a person whispered to automatically in the results in the chat screen.

I guess the main thing it comes down to is how you view the role of the GM - are they Doyle, or are they Watson? As Doyle, of *course* the GM needs access to all conversations, regardless of the parties involved. As Watson, however, any conversation in which Watson (i.e. the sum total of NPCs and other GM-controlled entities) does not participate explicitly *should not* be visible. Independent of this, there's the fact that multiple-target whispers would be very useful. Case in point, discussing something with 3 members of a 6-person party. Doing this manually is... onerous. I'd suggest that the initial issue (Doyle/Watson) should be resolved with some sort of campaign-wide setting, and should probably be clearly marked because it could be a point of disagreement if it is perceived as having been 'snuck in' by the GM. Possibly only permit setting it when the campaign is created. I also feel that whispers should be logged, if only for the sake of letting the participants look back at their own conversation, with the caveat that only participants can see it. Letting the participants make a whisper (or whisper session) "public" would also likely be beneficial - in cases like the above, where an intent was stated to reward players for doing careful work, this would be a way for them to "show their work" as it were, in a way that it can be verified.

Why would 2 players need the GM to see something the other players wouldn't see? Is this a game where the GM pits teams against one another? If that is the case, then copy and paste the first conversation into a new whisper for the GM... I agree with Jonathan, GMs needing to know what their players are doing is NOT a necessity. Your players are supposed to have secrets, their communications should be considered as sacred as an email with the GM NOT included. If the GM can't control their players, they're doing something wrong.

The players can have all the secrets they want. But the GM should be aware of what happens in the world and communications between characters are a part of it. So, any communication that can be seen as a communication between the characters should be visible to him. Why would a GM want to control his players? Bobby A. said: ... I agree with Jonathan, GMs needing to know what their players are doing is NOT a necessity.  But the argument boils down to "in my games, I think I need it; and I am old enough to decide for myself if it is a necessity for me or not". If it is going to become a feature is something entirely different, and a decision to be taken by the devs.

Exactly if it is marked and clear the players and GM will decide whether to play in a game that features it or not, if people are too paranoid to trust in their GM they need to play with a different GM or GM themselves. I NEVER work against my players to be a tool and NEVER try and alter their path through railroading just because I can see what they are planning. Infact it gives me more time to plan and see what I can do to flesh out their path, mind you I run narrative and roleplay heavy games... Which some players may look down upon however aslong as it is a campaign wide option and VERY transparent I see no issue with it at all and it shouldn't effect the people who dislike this mechanic unless they are in the minority of their group which ofcourse means they are in the minority of their group and need to stop enforcing it on the whole. I would really like to know where this whole "against the GM" mentality is coming from that I keep on seeing in online forums.

Patrick C. said: Yes, you do (if you don't care to explain, why should I?) Whatever. You do NOT need access to any of my in-game whispers, period. No if's and's or but's. Deal with it.

I can see needing a way to make whispers public if a player is griefing another player behind the DMs back. I can see a need for a DM to be the fly-on-the-wall for a between-characters conversation that not all characters are privy to for whatever reason. I can see the GM fairly expecting the characters (not the Players) to let him in on their plans-- in-character discussion is just that, and the DM does have a right to hear what characters discuss-- especially if some characters have been granted select knowledge that they then share with others. Whisper without DM-ability to monitor it ruins any type of doppleganger game (/w buddy hey, a doppleganger got me-- don't trust me!). I think it should be a clicky option whether the DM can see it always. (Perhaps a "Know Whispers" and "See Whispers" with the former saying something to the DM like "CHaracter X whispers to CHaracter Y" and the later with the actual message passed on as well?) I'd like to have an option for a way to bring multiple characters in a whisper, including the GM. It's a virtual "table top" and if my home-brew real table group started getting up and going out the room to have discussions or conspiring through whispers, I'd put the kibosh on it. To have it happening in this simulation of that environment and not even know it's happening? That's disturbingly undermining to the authority you grant the DM as a player when you agree to play.

I'll be sure to never participate in any game you DM. Anyone that thinks the DM is or should be the godlike authority is most likely a craptastic DM that shouldn't be behind the screen in the first place.

Gentlemen, please keep things civil. I do not want to be forced to close the thread.  - Gauss

JonathanTheBlack said: Whatever. You do NOT need access to any of my in-game whispers, period. No if's and's or but's. Deal with it. I decide what I need. Not you. Using capitals and finishing a sentence by "period" does not make your lack of argumentation any stronger. Period?

In PnP, we used to use post its to pass notes to one another that the DM could not know. And the DM ALSO did this. This (what your asking for) makes me feel like you're the teacher and caught your student. I don't see the point in that, that to me sounds like a DM has lost control of his players. To find out if players are griefing on other players, that's not the DM's job? He's a storyteller, not a school marm.  Roleplay is suppose to be public... not discussed in whispers.  Sometimes it's NOT your turn, and you just wanna goof off with your buddy. And yes RAG on the game or the DM or another player, OR an actual secret between you and another player NOT related to the game, and revealing that to the DM is pointless. It would be like instigating a fight, not to mention what this is, an invasion of privacy. Why not take away the whispers entirely, if you're worried that your players are... um conspiring against you? Isn't that what they do openly when they work as a team? Is the GM a GM, or is he hold up in a van, listening to things he doesn't have a warrant for... pardon the analogy, but I don't agree personally, and would not use it. It's Pandora's Box in my opinion.

Patrick C. said: JonathanTheBlack said: Whatever. You do NOT need access to any of my in-game whispers, period. No if's and's or but's. Deal with it. I decide what I need. Not you. Using capitals and finishing a sentence by "period" does not make your lack of argumentation any stronger. Period? Whatever. Go bugger a goat. Whispers are private communication between one person and another person. If you are not either of those people... go bugger off. You absolutely do not need access to that private communication. PERIOD. Not now, nor ever.

Dear Jonathan "period" the black, it seems that having an other opinion than yourself affects your self-control. "Period" in capitals? Wow! That's an argument! Please, keep your goat.

There needs to be an ignore function so I can put twits like you that don't understand the concept of PRIVATE COMMUNICATION  on ignore. 

And p. said: There are also times the players want to talk without the dm knowing what they are saying (like for planning a cheep way to enter the enemy fortress without the dm quickly placing a defense against it). But this actually isn't a way to prevent the GM doing anything. Eg the GM could just say stop and the in-game time would stop. Then the GM would do what ever s/he wanted and the game would continue after this. I actually use this every now-and-then but not to cheat but to react to stuff I had not been prepared for (eg. a player out-of-the-blue enters a place which isn't ready yet) or to maintain DL or....

The problem is that communications during a game is part of the game. If the characters are whispering within a room, the GM is the only one to know if there is going to be in-game consequences. Has the room been taped by the ennemies? Is another character within ear reach? Is a NPC hidden behind the tapestry? If the GM doesn't know that there is a communication, he can't decide if the communication was overheard and forward its content to the character that was in position to overhear. I certainly have no business to know a communication that has no bearing on the game, but, then, the players should make it through other channels.

JonathanTheBlack said: There needs to be an ignore function so I can put twits like you that don't understand the concept of PRIVATE COMMUNICATION  on ignore.  Yes, ignoring me would suit me well.

Here's a simple **** solution.... don't **** use whispers for in character conversations. Duh. EDITED by mod: Let's keep it civil guys.

Ah. And when some characters are out of reach and shouldn't hear? That's an in-game situation and that's what whispers are made for, not metagaming outside of GM's knowledge. Weren't you going to ignore me?

Find some better players then that don't **** meta game and use ooc knowledge for their own gains. Duh. Edited again. Keep the language PG please.

Gauss said: Gentlemen, please keep things civil. I do not want to be forced to close the thread.  - Gauss This. There are some people, people I have learned to respect in the past, here acting like small children.

Or that are bright enough not to make out of game activities on an in game feature?

Patrick C. said: The problem is that communications during a game is part of the game.  Agreed, most of the game is played openly though, no? If the characters are whispering within a room, the GM is the only one to know if there is going to be in-game consequences.  Isn't this resolved by the actual players "whispering to each other" by roleplaying. I.e. Player A says to Player B ONLY in a whisper (at the table/ or in the chatbox but seen by all), that what they're telling them is private. I hope that came out clear... Has the room been taped by the enemies? If so, the players WILL find out in the next few moments no? Should they know they're being taped, unless they've found a clue? Is another character within ear reach? Resolved by saying you're talking to Player X out of ear reach of others... doesn't need to be physically done . Is a NPC hidden behind the tapestry? Only the GM layer will know...  If the GM doesn't know that there is a communication, he can't decide if the communication was overheard and forward its content to the character that was in position to overhear. If the communication is game related, the players should inform the GM. Copy and paste as I suggested before. But a Allow ALL access button, does more than keep your players from being lazy typists, it reveals things the GM shouldn't know. Like what I think of his shirt, whether I am enjoying the last scene... too many variables. I certainly have no business to know a communication that has no bearing on the game, but, then, the players should make it through other channels. Umm a whisper is by definition another channel. The GM as all knowing is a flawed equation. You can't know everything, in the same sense that the person can't know everything. When a GM is thrown for a loop, that is a success FROM the player. He has stumped his GM enough for that GM to now get creative. Knowing their plan minute by minute, beforehand... this is lazy roleplaying in my opinion. Actions in the game resolve actions behind the scenes. It's why the GM writes a plot. It's why players have character motivations. Seeing whispers is like seeing into your player's mind, his private mind, AND his reactionary mind.  Reactions come AFTER action, not before. This is just my opinion. I would not tell another GM how to run their own game. I myself would not use this function, but if you see some validity to it, more power to you.

Patrick C. said: Or that are bright enough not to make out of game activities on an in game feature? There's enough **** going on that players and the GM don't need to have yet another program open for private messages, especially when there is a perfectly viable and now, private, tool in the very program they're already using. Using a different program takes their focus away from the game. Edited again

But roll20 is supposed to emulate a real tabletop environment. On a *real* tabletop, its dead easy to whisper or pass messages so that the GM cant hear you. Shouldn't roll20 attempt maintain that reality? Changing it so that the GM can hear all whispers would break one aspect of the emulation because in real life its just not possible. Just my 2 cents.

Bobby A. said: Has the room been taped by the enemies? If so, the players WILL find out in the next few moments no? Should they know they're being taped, unless they've found a clue? Maybe the PCs are not aware and maybe they will never be aware that they are eavesdropped. The GM knows. And if he is not aware of a whisper that a NPC could hear, we have a flaw here. Is another character within ear reach? Resolved by saying you're talking to Player X out of ear reach of others... doesn't need to be physically done . Some players can think that they are out of reach whilst it is not the case (another character could decide to follow them for eavesdropping, for exemple). Again, only the GMs knows for sure, so he should be made aware. Is a NPC hidden behind the tapestry? Only the GM layer will know...  So the GM should know what happens between the characters, because he has to decide if the NPCs have that information to act upon or not. If the GM doesn't know that there is a communication, he can't decide if the communication was overheard and forward its content to the character that was in position to overhear. If the communication is game related, the players should inform the GM. Copy and paste as I suggested before. But a Allow ALL access button, does more than keep your players from being lazy typists, it reveals things the GM shouldn't know. Like what I think of his shirt, whether I am enjoying the last scene... too many variables. That's probably where we don't agree. You see the whispers as a private way of communication between players. I would prefer it as a private way of communication between characters. And I think it would enhance the game. Players have lot of ways of discussing my gaming style or my wardrobe and I wouldn't want to spoil it for them. But during the game is probably not the perfect time and the virtual tabletop interface is probably not the best mean. I certainly have no business to know a communication that has no bearing on the game, but, then, the players should make it through other channels. Umm a whisper is by definition another channel. The GM as all knowing is a flawed equation. You can't know everything, in the same sense that the person can't know everything. When a GM is thrown for a loop, that is a success FROM the player. He has stumped his GM enough for that GM to now get creative. Knowing their plan minute by minute, beforehand... this is lazy roleplaying in my opinion. Actions in the game resolve actions behind the scenes. It's why the GM writes a plot. It's why players have character motivations. Seeing whispers is like seeing into your player's mind, his private mind, AND his reactionary mind.  Reactions come AFTER action, not before. I don't really understand. Of course, the GM cannot have the NPCs reacting to players intentions (even if he knows them). NPCs can only react to what they know. At most the player's actions (and even then only as the NPC understand them and only to the best of his (NPC) capacities). Assessing the level of knowledge of the NPC and having the NPC react in flawed ways according to his flawed information is one of the basis of gamemastering. Acting otherwise would be gross metagaming on the GM's part. Roleplaying is not a wargame between the GM and the players. I don't see how the GM can be thrown on a loop. If the players come with a wonderful, perfectly unexpected plan, he just has to congratulate them and have the NPC react as best they would under the circumstances (dying in drove if they have no other solution). It would be a very bad GM to change the situation because of the player's intentions. Worst, it would take any interest out of the game. What is the use of presenting the players with a problem to solve if the problem changes each time they find a solution? This is just my opinion. I would not tell another GM how to run their own game. I myself would not use this function, but if you see some validity to it, more power to you. As you said, what I say is only my way to play and what I would like to see implemented in Roll20. Thanks for presenting your opinion in an argumented and civil way. Anyway, deciding if whispers are a way of communication between players (as it is now) or between characters (as I would like) is a question of Roll20 philosophy and to be decided by the development team.

Then I propose a new set of commands. 1) A whisper between players that can be ONLY seen by intended players - for off topic and secret conversations 2) A whisper that the GM ALSO sees between players, SELECT players who by using this command, instantly include themselves, the GM and any number of " cc'd " players Not a button for the GM to control, I believe that is counter productive. The second choice is player optional. As messages should be. The GM to be listening to character conversations is already done in the open. Don't players deserve a kind of privacy, and don't characters deserve a sense of suspense from what they are about to do? " I don't really understand. Of course, the GM cannot have the NPCs reacting to players intentions (even if he knows them). NPCs can only react to what they know. At most the player's actions (and even then only as the NPC understand them and only to the best of his (NPC) capacities). Assessing the level of knowledge of the NPC and having the NPC react in flawed ways according to his flawed information is one of the basis of gamemastering. Acting otherwise would be gross metagaming on the GM's part." I believe you proved my point here. The GM would be guilty of metagaming from know EVERYTHING. What his players will do before they do it. Even in character, if the plot warrants them to be secretive, isn't the GM suppose to react after the fact. In much the same way the players do as the plot unfolds. NPCs would react to things they shouldn't because no GM is above countering themselves, when given too much knowledge. Case in point. You spend the better part of a weak, preparing a castle for defense, that the players will try to attack and enter. Overhearing their plans in chat, you're saying you would not counter what they plan to do? Why should you know that any other time then AS they are doing it? " Roleplaying is not a wargame between the GM and the players. " I disagree with you here. It's not a war, but it is a competition. You set the stage, the players react. Your plot may unfold in ways you had no idea would come about, that is the player free will. In combat ALL ACTIONS are counter to the GM, who is the enemy. But if your game has no conflicts, then it's just a soap opera, enjoyable probably, and perhaps a good story, but lacking in my opinion.  " I don't see how the GM can be thrown for a loop. "  GM's are thrown for a loop constantly. If your plot seems to be only resolved in 1 way, and the players break that mold. You are thrown. If you can't resolve their solution, you are thrown. This IS the dynamic of the game no? Players react as their motivations dictate, BUT sometimes often more than not, they are completely unpredictable. So the GM must adapt, and if they can't, then the plot stagnates. " If the players come with a wonderful, perfectly unexpected plan, he just has to congratulate them and have the NPC react as best they would under the circumstances (dying in drove if they have no other solution). It would be a very bad GM to change the situation because of the player's intentions. " But the GM must change the situation in order to adapt to the new situation? Player intention is not always a constant, so the GM cannot also be immovable. If the situation morphs into something completely different, the GM must change not to thwart his players, or merely to thwart them, but to also get them back on course, and to indulge the direction the game is going. " Worst, it would take any interest out of the game. What is the use of presenting the players with a problem to solve if the problem changes each time they find a solution? " I don't believe it would take out interest. Problems don't always have 1 solution, as made clear by this discussion...  " Thanks for presenting your opinion in an argumented and civil way." And you're welcome. I have no intention of arguing with you to merely argue with you. Or correct you, I am just trying to give my opinion, respect yours, and discuss our differences... peace out! :D

Wow... this forum topic has devolved. Gotta wonder why people can't be civil to some extent.