During the last game that I GMed I had the players infiltrate a facility to dump a vial into a large water pump. When they got to the pump, a Johnson representing the company they were attacking had set up an ambush to present a counter-offer and, if the players refused, to try to take them out. The players succeeded in wiping out this ambush team and dumping the vial as they had agreed to do.

After the game was over one of my players asked me how the rival Johnson knew they were coming, which I said I couldn't tell him. He complained that this was unfair. He said that after a game session is over the GM should give the players a debriefing outlining all the alternate possibilities and revealing all the information they were unable to uncover.

Personally, I think that's an unfair request to make. For me, as a GM, a lot of the fun is that I get to know things the players don't, and seeing how they cope with that. Creating a mysteries and secrets and seeing how the players are able to unravel them is one of the main joys in GMing for me. I also think that, given the nature of the world of Shadowrun, the players are simply going to not be able to know certain information. I realize there's a difference between PC's and the actual player, but I still think it's a fair point.

On top of that, this was not a one-off adventure, it was the beginning of a larger story arch that I have planned, and to reveal any information the players weren't able to uncover during the mission seems like it could compromise the rest of the campaign.

So, two questions in relation to that: 1) Is it fair for a GM to refuse to divulge their secrets to the players in an ongoing campaign, even if they aren't actually sure whether or not the information in question will play a role later? 2) Is it fair for a GM to refuse to divulge their secrets once a campaign is over?

Your player is whining like a kicked puppy.

unless I am absolutely sure that I am done with a plot point, my players do not get to know the back story. Full stop, end of story.

Tell them they've graduated beyond Choose Your Own Adventure, and to act like it

It is up to the GM how much info to divulge. You don't have to tell them anything you don't want to. Especially if you're not done with the story elements the players want you to give up.

Ditto that.
As long as YOU know how the enemy J scoped them, you don't have to tell them squat.
If they wanna know so bad, they are free to have their characters investigate the issue.
If they wanna have all the secrets, let one of them GM and give you a chance to play.
Ungrateful cretins.

Seriously, even if that plotline will never come up again, you shoulcn't tell them anything (unless you want to for your own personal pleasure, of course). It sets at least two bad precedents -

First, think of poker - if the other guy folds, he does NOT get to see your cards. If he wants to look at what you're holding, he has to buy the right. No free chances to analyze your opponent's playing style.

Second, caving to that kind of whining just sets a bad precedent, gives problem players a sense of entitlement to your GM secrets, and lets them think they are empowered to somehow hold you accountable as to whether you played fairly.

And if players don't trust their GM to play fair and objective, they shouldn't be at the table.

No whining allowed!

I personally tend to wish that GMs I've played with are less talky about what cleverness they have put together.

Of course, like a leader who can't get his men to follow him to a whorehouse, any foe who can't organize an effective ambush isn't exactly a major threat.

oh hell no the player doesn't get to know my NPCs' secrets. especially if i'm not done! if i'm completely done, i might explain, just for fun, but i sure don't owe them anything.

Remember after the game, you are no longer the GM. After the session, you are one of a group of friends(hopefully).

So I think your player has a legitimate complaint. If I knew my GM was railroading me or if he had written his adventure with certain [Go straight to jail] triggers, I wouldn't be happy about it. At least when they are playing Choose Your Own Adventures, they know that the book is dealing it straight. If my GM were to refuse to talk about the campaign after it was over, I'd express my unhappiness to him about it. Remember, it is never about you as a GM, it is always about the players - if they enjoy being hoodwinked/lied to/fudged, then do it; if they'd rather you deal it straight up, then you do that.

You could tell them the adventure is a part of the campaign arc, but you'd give them a debrief once the arc was finished. Or if you are fine with players having GM info, then there would be no problem. The point about being transparent and fair is simple. If you do not want PC/s geared totally towards digging up every single piece of GM info out of you in-game(not that it is not a viable build, but it would save you a lot of headaches, speaking from experience), I find that a GM info-disclosure policy is quite useful.

If your player is "whining" about something, then chances are that he is unhappy about it. As a GM, your players should be enjoying the game and not being unhappy.

The problem with full disclosure is that it never is. Yes, I could sit down with my players after a campaign and tell them what was really going on - and for some things, I do let my players have a bit of background info - but only when they can no longer use it in-game.

But what if that tightly planned plot hook that they just happen to miss is something that you want to use for your build of a city? I tend to build a world for my players - and sometimes, it makes players more comfortable if you don't keep changing the world on them every other campaign. So I have to ask myself: as a player AND a GM, would I rather be ignorant or totally confused?

Personally, I'd rather be ignorant, and let my GM build the world as they see fit.

I will occasionally pull back the curtain a little bit, but typically only if I think it'll make things better. Generally I'd only do this with a new group.

For example once after an adventure I explained some things they'd missed so that hopefully they'd be in the mindset to pay attention to the details in the future.

Sometimes I'll also come out and tell them, usually over pizza mid session, that they aren't on a railroad, just that success isn't guaranteed. A lot of players just expect the railroad and assume they could have saved that NPC or whatever. I don't roll that way and like to remove that mindset.

Wow, I can't recall ever having a player demand OOC info at any point during a game.

I think if the player was afraid that the team was compromised, like one of their commlinks was hacked, that he was fishing for info to verify that.

@Toturi, I agree that after the game I am not the GM anymore, but one of a group of friends. But the effort and time that went into running the game is not going to be compromised by revealing information that the players didn't discover in game. If a player is curious about something, that's a good reason for IC legwork to occur.

I can't decide on the proper response to a player demanding a debriefing with the overlooked and the other possibilities being laid bare to everyone. I'm debating between 'icy stare', 'you all would have died', and 'devil rats make a loving, caring home in your dessicated rib cage.'

If one of my games ended with a plot point unresolved, I fully reserve the right to use, or discard said plot point. If the characters go on the run, break into the lab, grab the widget, deliver the widget, discover the use of the widget is nefarious enough to interrupt said use of the widget, and then destroy the widget and the evil scientist who plans to use it to destroy the world/Renraku/Atzlan/any clothing made of synthleather, that's great! But they missed the crafty manipulative lab assistant who had carefully prodded his superior to these ends, and he or she will be after meticulously plotted and coldblooded TEA after a nice cup of revenge with no cream and two sugars, please.

Why on earth would I let them know they only got 8 out of 10 goals? This isn't a video game with an 'end clear' scoring screen.

It's a tricky line. On the one hand, you have continuing NPCs who will -- must -- have their secrets. On the other, players may want to know you are playing fair, and may even want to learn.

One compromise is to show them one or two of the most obvious clues on which the other Johnson could have acted -- "could", because you're also not going to tell them whether it was this or that specific thing that triggered reaction.

Beyond that: well, it's a balance every group must find for itself.

I "lifted the curtain" once last session and told them what was going on. It wasn't anything major, just a minor reveal on a minor plot point, but now my players know that I have a reason for anything that happens in the game and that I'm playing straight with them. They also told me not to do it again, so it works on both ends--they know that I'm playing fair, and I know that, so long as there's a logical and in-game reason for it, I can pretty much pull anything I like and they won't complain (much).

I guess it has to do with players learning that you're not doing anything they can't do by the rules.

If the Fixer who matched you to the Johnson then turns around and sells that info 'Johnson A meeting with runner team for B&E work' it's not farfetched for Johnson B to prep for action against his facility.

I'm actually surprised (now that I think of it) that there aren't more mission ideas such as 'follow this Suit and find out who he works for. He's an unattached Johnson, a wild card.' If you think about how the Shadowrun world works, it's even more important to keep tabs on your colleagues (if you're a Johnson) than ever before.

I had a Lone Star cop pull a funny gambit on a PC last session. He showed up outside a notorious Runner bar, intercepting the PC as he left. In a previous meeting, the Officer had given the PC a business card, and the character, not being technically savvy, didn't think about how this was a very large RFID tag. The player knew, but agreed the character would be duped by this trick.. but only once.

In the end it comes down to trust.

Personally, I'll never lift the curtain at the request of a player unless I both want to tell them and feel the plot issue is fully resolve and that I will never revisit it in any future campaign.

Talia has the right answer for you. You're under no obligation to reveal anything and for the reasons others have given it could actually be very detrimental. The issue is whether your player is asking because he has lost faith in your integrity and suspects you of just making things happen by magic (not spellcasting magic, of course ; ) In this case, you need to restore that faith, but you can hopefully do it just by giving a few possible explanations (not the real one) to illlustrate that there was no handwaving going on.

If there was magic handwaving going on however, your player is right to be suspicious and you should retro-actively work out a reason the Johnson intercepted them and not do it again.

My advice,

-K.

Players have NO right to information that they can´t discern themselves. They do have a right to fairness, and proving that you as a GM are fair sometimes requires giving out "secrets". While I´ll admit that everyone is equal outside the game, he who wants a right to information has to be the GM.

I´d only give in to the request if my fairness is challenged with reason or if I want the players to think about the events in question. My prefered format for "debriefings" are questions asked by me. Some ingame secrets should be known to the players as that makes for better enjoyment of the game, but that choice is for the GM to make.

A good debriefing is like watching the director comments and outtakes on a DVD - it can be quite fun.
Of course, those don't usually spoil...

But a reasonable player asking for a reason for certain events means usually one thing:
You, as a GM screwed up in presenting the world and your player subsequently lost trust in you: It's not that they instantly should know the reason when it happens - but they should feel that something else is going on.

That happens to anyone at a time - and usually, a bit of foresahdowing helps preventing such situations.

Well personally I pretty much agree with Rotbart van Dainig, if your players are reasonable people (And why would you be playing with them if they weren't fairly reasonable?) then something is brewing OOC that you need to take care of before it ruins your campaign.

Personally I think I would refuse to explain OOC what was going on, but would allow the characters to figure it out IC.

However, my players know that they can trust me not to change the world mid-stride in order to punish them for displeasing me, so I don't have to deal with the trust issue as much as some might have to.

Wait, what? you mean rpg's aren't for punishing you're friends when they don't bring you pizza?

If the player is concerned about figuring out how they were betrayed you can always tell him he needs to find out IC.

Next session.

The other fun things to do;

Lie, tell the player you don't want to to betray the betraying players comfidence.

You're certainly under no obligation to divulge secrets. There's no law, no rule, that says one way or other. There's not really even etiquette. What it comes down to is this:

Would knowing this information harm your future sessions?

Is this the player asking in the heat of the moment, or honest questioning after the session has had a chance to cool?

You have to find the balance between what the game requires and what your player requires. If it's truly sensitive information, simply tell your player that - explain to him, like you have to us. A statement of "If I tell you that now, you'll have the ending ruined for you. Wait for it and it will be worth it."

There are some people who enjoy good books and some people who skip to the end when they're in the middle and ruin the suspense. If you're one of the former dealing with the latter, you'll just have to explain it to him and nudge a sense of patience into place.

Agree with most here say. You should not reveal information you do not want to. As a GM of mine once said "That is for me to know and you to find out".

However, if the question is legitimate in game, why not allow the player to get the information? It's good for his character to ask that question - you shouldn't just tell him, but he should have to spend time investigating, perhaps in his attempt to find out could lead to a new run by itself?

Ultimately it's about trust, and I suspect the player asked because he didn't think the NPCs should have known they were coming, and that you might just have assumed so as GM to make it more challenging - which is bad railroading.

So it may in your best interest to let him learn something that will make him at least suspect a possible reason for the enemy to know they were coming - could be anything from files on his comlink that were recently edited without he remembered to have done it, a mysterious tracking device, or simply people that might have squeeled.

It depends very much on how your group views the player/GM relationship and how your group is able to handle metagame information.

There are two primary perceptions of what a roleplaying game should be. Some consider it a contest in which the GM's role is antagonistic to the players, that his job is to provide challenge above all else. In such cases, the keeping of secrets is paramount and the game tends toward rollplaying over roleplaying. Others view the RPG as a cooperative storytelling effort, in which it is the GM's job to work with the players in order to create a coherent narrative. In such cases, any secrets are ultimately temporary and the GM must be open with the players.

There are, however, other considerations. If your players are unable to set aside metagame information and act only as their characters would, then it is necessary to keep such information secret even in a cooperative game. If players are able to set aside metagame information, then keeping of secrets is not entirely necessary even in a competitive game.
Players who knows how to correctly apply metagame information without breaking character can make a prety good game even if they know everything in advance.

The other big consideration is the ability of the players to actually solve the mystery without the aid of a walkthrough, as far too many mysteries in both RPGs and videogames tend to have obscure clues that cannot be deciphered without special knowledge that players are unlikely to have or can be interpreted several different ways. If the mystery itself is such that the players will not reasonably be able to solve it without special knowledge, then sharing special knowledge might be necessary in order to avoid complete player frustration.

But, I will agree that you are under no obligation to GM a certain way.

Lots of good stuff in here. I'll just say:
1) Is it fair for a GM to refuse to divulge their secrets to the players in an ongoing campaign, even if they aren't actually sure whether or not the information in question will play a role later?

Yes. It's your game, and you might not feel like giving them the whole campaign on a silver platter. After you're 100% certain that something won't come up again, and that knowledge of it won't ruin the rest of the game for the players, sure, tell them. Otherwise, keep them guessing. (I very much agree with a suggestion made above, though: be up front that the reason you aren't telling them is because it would ruin the upcoming game(s) for them to know.)

2) Is it fair for a GM to refuse to divulge their secrets once a campaign is over?

Sure. I'm not sure "fair" is the word I'd use. But it can often provide the players with good tips and ways of thinking for the next game. (Then you completely change the way you do things, so that they're still in the dark. ).

Again, though, you can be as complete or incomplete as you like. Say they never got around to handling a certain aspect, and you might use it in your next game. Be selective about what you tell them if it means better games for them in the future.

I had something similar come up last year GMing SR at GenCon. It was a multi-day event that still had a day left. A player came up with a good plan, a really creative plan, but it did not work to the perfection he hoped (thought it should?) Basically, the opposition did not stop their pursuit of the target his team was after. He wanted to know how come they knew where the target was.

For one reason, the scenario required it. So I needed to come up with some ways it would be possible. I think I stopped after the third good way they could have kept pursuing because he wasn't accepting any explanations.

As a player, I have not really expected an explanation. Either I don't need to know, or the plot requires it, or whatever. If I get an unsolicited explanation, it doesn't always make sense. I did ask the GM in the last game I played (it was the last session) how some things had occurred. It still doesn't make sense, but the game was fun.

So, in my experience, don't worry about explanations. Just try to have fun.

Sometimes people need those explanations, otherwise it detracts from the fun. You might have enjoyed the session overall, but the loose end is like an itch you cannot scratch and that makes the session less fun. Transparency of the GM/scenario/campaign is one aspect of trust and trust building. Not having transparency weakens the trust. It is up to the GM and players to decide how much trust is enough.

Maybe an anology of a television show could help explain peoples need to know.

Lost was at the top of the ratings most of its first season. (I think I read on a Lost fansite they were no. 1, but have no first hand knowledge myself.) Lost is a show with a lot of odd things going on and lots of mysteries. The ratings started to lag and at the same time critics were claiming the producers had no idea how to explain the mysteries or where the show was heading.

Finally, maybe because they saw the series being cancelled in the near future, the producers stated Lost was going to end the next season and promised all the mysteries would be explained, and that they did know what was going on (even if it sometimes seemed they were reading the fansites, which they openly admitted doing, and going with ideas expounded there. Who knows how well the explanations will turn out?

To sum it up, people can have a lot of fun trying to figure things out, but when there is no resolution in sight, people quit caring. It beats being frustrated.

Players do not need, and should not get, an omnipotent eye into the situations they're experienced. Doing such would negate many security measures, spoil tons of future surprises, and otherwise impair the flow of a game which is based on PCs going into unknown situations. If they want to know what was going on, they can investigate it in character.

If one thing can really kill the 'flow of game', it's players starting to investigate every miniscule detail.

Which in turn, reduces the fun for the players, as they want to experience the whole concept.

Doesn't really solve the problem, does it?

Or: How to create bored players that don't really care anymore.

If your players demand to know everything that happens all the time, even the stuff their PCs have no way of learning, then you've got much bigger issues going on than whether they're bored or not.

Yeah, including important things into games and declare that the players have no way of learning them, every, is an important issue.

It's a balancing act. Good things require patience - sometimes patience that must be instilled.

We all tend to want everything right now, but getting them right now ruins the fun of getting them all-together. One of the oldest rules of Gm'ing is "Leave 'em hanging" - it's a ground rule for a reason.

Some players need to be taught patience. If they simply will not relent, well, that's why we have teasers and macguffins and red herrings.

Look, if you go to a magic show and demand after the show is over to know all of the secrets, you're going to destroy the fun of going. It's the mystery inherent in some things, the slow reveal, that makes them worthwhile.

Let me make it vulgar. There's a reason strippers come out clothed.

To think about this another way, is everyone here a veteran group or new players. For new players to SR4 it can be very important to know how they botched their cover or what they could have improved. I especially like to know where I messed up if the GM is willing to tell me. Sometimes things like this are just GM intervention and certain events just have to happen in order to keep the game going.

You could also give the players a chance in game to find out how they messed up. Maybe their fixer or Johnson scolds them for being so amateurish and tells them what happened. Maybe a contact finds out someone sold them out and that they should know about it. You aren't forced to just go outright and tell them, though this can be the easiest and sometimes the best way.

The third aspect, from a player point of view, is to know whether or not the GM pulled a fast one on them. Did the GM give the NPC information they wouldn't realistically be able to know? If it is in the realm of reality, how reasonable is it for the NPC to have acquired such information? Should the PCs be afraid since the NPC seems to have the investigative skills of a Great Dragon?

Most likely he just wants to know where he messed up, so that next time he doesn't make the same mistake twice. Knowledge is power.

...@Tisoz (on Lost) let's just hope it doesn't go out with a whimper like the Sopranos.

On the main topic...

I tend to fall into the "keep things a mystery" camp when it comes to an on going campaign The clues should be challenging but not so vague as to be unsolvable.

In the group I am GM for there is one player who has bit of metagame knowledge from a short SR4 scenario I ran that was related to the campaign currently in progress (which occurs in the past). He has been playing his character very well in spite of his "player knowledge" and really getting into the intrigue.

Yes there have been times that something occurred which wasn't completely explained, but instead of complaining, several of the players approached the conundrum as a reason for additional legwork.

Red herrings are fine, but too many dead ends can spoil interest in the campaign. There have been times when the team is stuck in the mud so to say that dropping a couple of extra hints via maybe an NPC is not a bad thing, but the important thing is to keep it IC.

Deliberately changing the scenario mid stream to purposely trip the PCs up because the players are sharp and making progress, that is a no-no. I have been in such campaigns before. Yes GMs make mistakes, and that is expected. I recently messed up on an important NPC's identity and was corrected. Oops it happens. You set things straight and then continue.

However again some elements, no matter how frustrating or strange they may seem to the players should not require a briefing.

For example:

In one scene they were dropped off by an aircraft with an experimental stealth system. One player referred to it as "magic" but as I mentioned, In my settings, I tend to introduce experimental tech here and there. I actually have the aircraft fully stated out with a description on how it achieves its silent almost "cold" (IR) operation, but at the moment, they had to be satisfied that it worked. Should they run across it again, or desire to "procure" the aircraft on their own then yes, I will divulge the detail as to how it works. However it mainly was a nifty element to get them to their drop zone in the Austrian countryside as undetected as possible.

Sometimes they need to understand the phrase "all in good time."