4 replace code formatting with prose formatting, http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1483/is-there-a-functional-purpose-to-putting-things-in-code-text-here
source | link

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-based thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-based thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-based thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.
3 Fix stupid spelling error.
source | link

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-bsedbased thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-bsed thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-based thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.
2 Add advice.
source | link

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-bsed thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

I once heard Sandy Petersen, at RQCon II, talk about a Call of Cthulhu campaign where he pulled a similar trick. He worked with the player being impersonated, and the two pulled it off. The party eventually found the original Investigator, and he insisted they test the imposter for humanity. The imposter had green gel for blood. But then the player (of the imposter) insisted that the original Investigator be tested the same way, and the original Investigator (?) also had green gel for blood. The player, now of both, held a fast conversation:

“You stay East of the Mississippi.”
“You stay West of the Mississippi.”
“Deal.”

Advice

BESW asked me to distill some advice from this anecdote. The freedom the GM has depends on the maturity of the players, and of his own, of course. The more he can depend on the players to act from the characters' standpoints and not from reward-bsed thinking, the more he can pull off tricks like this.

There were some things I left out; the convention was nearly 20 years ago. Sandy added a lot of flavor. The characters were storming a village, accompanied by a mob of farmers, and in a thunderstorm. When the lightning flashed, some of the mob looked inhuman. It turned out that they had green gel for blood too, and all the players later suspected themselves.

  • Tricks like this require mature players.
  • The GM has to be able to communicate with the players privately, with other players not taking that into account.
  • At the denouement, when the GM took an active part in the unraveling of the deception, he involved the characters in an interesting and thematic way.
  • The GM did not punish the player for his cooperation.
    • Except for a typically CoC-ish surprise.
  • The player was allowed to resolve the dilemma in a way satisfactory to the game.
  • The player was not called to damage the original character's companions, possibly unlike the OP's situation. However, he was not given any explanation of what happened. Actually, he might have been told that something weird had happened, but not told he was an impersonator, which would make this anecdote not really apply to the OP.
1
source | link