I think I can see where this is going. I asked this question some time ago (it may even have been before the game was printed). It isn't a problem if it's narrator characters that are unaware, but if it's a player, then I think you have to accept that the players are going to know about something that their characters don't, and rely on their ability to roleplay. If I were in that position, of playing my character's side of a contest that he is unaware of, I'd explain my bids in terms of "I might notice someone in front of me reacting to the stalker, I bid 6 ... success ... he failed, did he? Have I won yet? No? <narrator character action is resolved> My character's getting suspicious, he'll glance over his shoulder. Bid 10. This should settle it."
Personally, I've taken great satisfaction guiding my own characters into situations that I know out of character are fraught with danger, wondering how I'm going to get him out in one piece when he finds out. Referees especially seem to like this kind of behaviour, and tend to be somewhat more lenient than they are with players that try and make use of out of character knowledge. Then again I remember once there was something going down that my character couldn't know about, so I just said to the referee "Gribble is going outside to have a piss - hey, look over there, I'll go and join in". I think that kind of situation is just fine, and is not abuse. It's narrative, though, rather than simulationist. Some referees would say "Roll dice for how full your bladder is, then roll Willpower..." ;-)
Phil.
Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let
alone those of any organisations, nations, species,
or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated.
Powered by hypermail