Allow GM's to see all player whispers

Because private communication shouldn't be redefined.

It's not worthwhile to make a post in this thread anymore because my opinion does not match up with some people's opinion here and I rather not be bullied here.

[UnknowablE] said: Wow... this forum topic has devolved. Gotta wonder why people can't be civil to some extent. So true. I and a few others have made reasonable suggestions in attempts to compromise some of the points-- I like Bobby A's point about letting the players control the whispers-- but it seems that anyone that disagrees with this, either side is willing to flame on anyone who says what they don't like to hear. Loud and rude is never right, regardless of the point, and profanity is uncalled for, as are personal insults. Please close this thread if this continues. The only other point I'd weigh in on is that several people have validly pointed out the difference in gaming styles between GM-as-enemy and GM-as-director. I do not enter a hostile relationship with my players: I set the world and let it run with them interacting with it and, when they come up with a cool way to wreck my plan, I reward them, as a good director does when an actor finds a better way to say a line than written. Perhaps the disagreement stems from the nature of the GM relationship. I've played with GM-as-enemy GMs before and I find it a hostile environment. In such an environment, whispers would seem necessary between players. However, I prefer a GM-as-director position when I GM (regardless of your opinion of my games-- if you don't like them, be clear you're not welcome--some of y'all made it really a personal issue-- so wrong). I prefer to set up reasonable challenges and am impressed when my players totally subvert them. They don't need to hide their conversations from me and instead, since they include me, I often have to avoid throwing my ideas in or answering their questions. What it does do is allow me to make story decisions and plan based on what they are likely to do: not a chess-game where I'm countering their move, but a set design where I need to get the next scene ready before the actors are on the stage. All of that said, I make an assumption that seems untrue based on the virulence of the replies: that whispers are mostly game related. If they aren't then there is no reason for the GM to see them. I don't really care if you think my shirt is stupid, though I'm not so sensitive that I can't take constructive criticism if I bumbled a ruling that I won't listen to the player's side for next time it comes up.  As to griefing players, I spent years on the Con circuit and watched it happen too often, where loud and rude players would scare away shyer ones because of some in-character decision. I'd hate to have any player driven from a game due to whispers that only the offensive individual and the shy player know about-- I'd rather keep my shy player and get rid of the a-hole, personally, regardless of his ability. Shy players are some of the best once they come out of their shell, and I like to encourage this-- I'd just like some kind of protection for this foolishness so I don't have shy players disappear with no idea why they stopped playing. (Before you tell me they need to stand up for themselves, please don't change the subject-- we're talking about reasons for whispers to be made public at least to the GM). I'm not a dictator DM, as some have implied or stated outright, because I want this information (or better yet, the CHOICE of the information). I'm a director DM who likes to be prepared. I don't see the option as the problem, though several of the NO, NEVER, NOHOW voices seem to have a problem even with the option ideas, which puzzles me: options are always better when it gives the individual the choice. Hopefully this can desist from being a one-sided opinionated flame war and return to a discussion of the issue: the REASONS why whispers should or should not be available to the DM. Perhaps the tantrums can end. EDITED TO ADD AN AFTERTOUGHT; This issue of whispers seems related to an earlier forum discussion on campaign style: sandbox vs fishhook. I tend to land on the sandbox side of this  issue, seeing more of a story the players choose than a novel I've scripted-- this does require more preparation on my part as a GM and this may be where part of the difference of opinion is coming from.

Bobby A. said: 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? Certainly not! There is a difference between the GM and the NPCs. As the GM, I am not trying to make the NPCs win. For exemple, if I have prepared a dungeon and my NPCs have a tactic to defend it, they shall stick to that tactic until they (the NPCs) have some new information that they (the NPCs, not me the GM) should change it. And I'll change and adapt their plan in a way consistant with their (the NPCs) new information (not my GM information). Any information that I know, as the GM, but wouldn't be known by the NPCs is certainly not taken into account. " 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.  My game has conflict, but between the NPCs and the PCs. As the GM, I have no enemy. I don't play against the players (it would be too easy: a bolt from the sky, bang, you are dead). The players counter the NPCs, not me. I frequently have to take less than optimal decisions for the NPCs, because they don't have all the information I have or don't have the capacities to act upon it. Having to react to unexpected moves from the players doesn't change a thing. The reaction is limited by the NPCs limitations (some are stupid or cowards or bone-headed...). The NPCs have their own personnalities and react according to it. If you don't meke that difference, all your NPCs are just clones of yourself. My NPCs don't act as I would do if I was playing them as my character. It is not a competition because I can not win or lose (too easy to win and it is not me who loses). " 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. My players are always free to go wherever they want and do what pleases them. It is very easy, I just follow the inner logic of the situation. I don't try to thwart the players or make their situation easier or more difficult. All the places and NPCs have their own goals or logic. They act or react accordingly. I have no course to get back to (because I have no prepared path in mind), and no reason to thwart them. The situation I have prepared contains the conflicts and the problems they have to solve and, also, all I need to decide what shall happen whatever the PCs can do. " 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...  Yes, but what is the interest for the players if they are smart enough to find a solution (any solution), just to have the problem changed because they have been smart.  Indeed, problems have an enormous number of solutions, and any working solution is good for me. I don't prepare a problem with one solution. I just prepare a problem. The way they solve it is up to the players. I don't even try to guess what they are going to do. If they find a way to solve it, that's fine for me. The world and the NPCs exist in themselves and have their inner logic. It just takes that logic to know how the world and the NPCs are going to react to the PCs actions.

Just a recent instance where sharing whispers would've worked well: An NPC (through the GM) made an offer to one PC in a whisper; that PC immediately ran to another PC (me) to discuss the offer, but the whispers he sent me weren't going to the GM too, who had every reason to see what we were discussing about the offer-- we ended up making the entire conversation public to solve this, but the other PCs shouldn't have been privy to the discussion, as they didn't even know the offer was on the table, and based on the decision we made, still don't know. This is why I like the idea of a shared whisper function or of a "GM Sees Whispers" vs "GM Knows Whispers" toggle--there are times where bringing more people into the whisper are relevant and game-related and not part of the GM/Player conflict-issue that seems to be at the fore of this discussion. While I can readily admit that not every whisper should or needs to be shared with the GM, I'd hope that the reasonable idea that there are times that whispers can/should be shared is equally valid and apparent to others.

This thread has some pretty disappointing content.  It's unusual to see these sorts of attacks and lack of civility here.   Upfront: I have been briefed on this thread, but I didn't read the whole thing and I'm not going to.  This is never the way to get our attention. In-game whispers right now function only between two parties. In the future we may look at changing this by allowing multi-person whispers; but the default will always be that whispers are private between the intended recipients.  An omnipotent GM setup has never been the plan, and I highly doubt ever will be.    That's the final word on that.   One last item-- our moderation went and cleaned up some expletives in this thread.  As anyone who has heard the podcast or seen a livestream knows, we are not shy about such things... but that said the uses here were pretty clearly with the use of escalating conflict.  As a rule of thumb, if you have a disagreement here, stay as clean as possible.