I didn't mean "Watching the plot unfold" in quite the way it sounded. What I meant was that the player has no clue what is coming next and is very much in a submissive role in the story (even though their character may be the brutal dominant one). Obviously, their posts will affect how the story unfolds, but they don't know how they affect the story.
Yeah, I got it that you mean that. But I think maybe you haven't played with many "torpedo-style" players
? These ones thrive best in sandbox stories, and "submissive role in the story" is at most a temporary state for them, unless they really rein themselves in!
It's true I haven't noticed this style much on E., but that's for the other thread.
Let me just say that I call this style "torpedo" because, you guessed it, its adherents tend to torpedo any plot unless they find it would be something their characters care about. Then they set their own objectives and work on achieving them
! I'm sure you can see already why they thrive best in sandbox or character-focused games
One thing I'm always very wary of, having seen multiple examples of it in films, TV shows and books, is the delicate balance between a character knowing too much and not knowing enough.
Having a character make a leap of logic that is just impossible can be very off putting in a story, but at the same time you don't want your readers (or other players) screaming "Oh come ON! It's OBVIOUS!" I find the over-cautious author to be more frustrating that the one that maybe has the hero work things out a little too soon. This can be made more complex if your RP partner likes having her characters kept hopelessly ignorant of what is happening! (She knows who she is, I doubt she will read this, and I love her to bits!)
The obvious compromise is to have one character work it out on schedule and have the other simply refuse to listen.
I've had one of my players making an impossible leap of logic. It turned out his logic wasn't even correct, but he reached a correct conclusion through it.
So I just rolled with it, and while they soon discovered that no, their assessment of the murderer's motives was wrong, they have still intercepted one of his hits.
And the eternal conflict between giving too much information and not enough of it is even harder in roleplaying. Sometimes, what we as GMs think is obvious isn't quite so for the players. And sometimes, what we consider a clever twist, they see coming from a mile away and react accordingly
I've seen exactly two possible solutions about it.
First, make sure they have all the relevant info, and let them think what it means. It helps if they can check their theories.
Second, allow them to establish facts about the setting, if they make a good case for them and don't contradict what's already established. Then roll with that.
Either one can be fun, and has its adherents. Personally, I like them both, just for different stories.