Knights & Knaves Alehouse

TRP wrote:I can only recall one creepy player. This would have been back around '85 or '86. We used to have large groups, and players were in and out all the time. The first, and last, night this guy played in my game is when his barbarian was killed by the other adventurers for being an asshole (both the player and character)*. He then went into the bathroom, and he began to cry. Most of us were in our early to mid twenties, and this guy was at least 10 years older. Weirdest RPG experience I'd had then and since.

* he was awkwardly hitting on all the women in game and out, and his barbarian kept trying to break all the magic items and beat up, or kill, the magic-users. As DM under those circumstances, I had no pity for either he nor his character.

T.t.t. This is why TRP should be banned from DMing with the UA. Such unnecessary strife introduced into such an otherwise flawless game.

Falconer wrote:Some interesting issues, here.

I wonder what sort of differences may exist in gamer culture between the UK and the US.

In Arneson and Gygax’s earliest campaigns, the PCs did NOT have names (they were just referred to as Svenson, Fant, Rob’s fighter…), so, I wonder if that idea of naming the characters might be bar a LOT of people from the hobby (a step “too far” for someone who hasn’t grasped the idea yet).

Of course, in this day and age I would assume most people have played Baldur’s Gate or World of Warcraft or some video game like that, and would have grasped some of the basics. (Of course, that comes with its own baggage.) But, I still hear ALL THE TIME from people, “I don’t get it… What IS Dungeons & Dragons? A game where there’s no end, no winning???”

The very first time we played 1E (Spring of 1980) we didn't write down names (we didn't use character sheets, but rather just a piece of loose leaf). But we did list alignment, race, and class. The name thing came after we switched DMs first time (our third game session). Kind of interesting, if I'm remember correctly, perhaps that wasn't as common at that point in time (or not worth thinking about, since the game was heavily adventure focused, and PCs died quickly)? I still thought of my character as an extension of myself (observed the world in my minds eye from an overview or from its eye), perhaps even more so then when naming it (which gives it a different identity somewhat, like suddenly I'm an actor thats supposed to play some other role I'm likely not suited for). Does the 1E PH mention naming your PC (I remember the 3E books had a section on it, and their website). I suppose all the early modules of 0E have usable PCs in the back with names, so thats a guide if nothing else.

Wheggi wrote:Deathanddrek, could you explain a little more about what these "lines and veils" and "X-Cards" are? I've never heard of this.

- Wheggi

Sure!

Firstly, I'm not a story gamer, it doesn't appeal to me, I'm a boring old AD&D player without a background in feminism. I've never come across these issues IRL. Foot ready to be firmly implanted in mouth. So, on we go!

Background

If someone has post-traumatic response to something, some people say that they were "triggered". Much of the dialogue in story game circles is about having a safe space for gaming for people with various phobias, traumatic experiences, etc. That is done by avoiding "triggers". If you've seen posts on feminist websites or you've got feminist friends, you might have seen the phrase "trigger warning" in the introduction of a blog post or something.

Lines and Veils

I took these definitions from a forum somewhere.

Lines: Something that will never be hinted at or brought up in-game. Something that is off limits.

Veils: Something that can happen in a game, but when it does, we skip the details and fade to black. We "veil" it.

So before a game of Carcosa, you'll start the session off by saying "OK, let's discuss Lines and Veils. I'm drawing a line at the rituals involving rape. There's no way I'm having that in the game." A player chimes in and says "I don't particularly want to go into the details of the rituals involving murder and torture, but I'm OK with the sorcerers doing that, let's just put it behind a veil and we'll cut the scene or skip over those details".

Here's Vincent Baker talking about veiling sex in an RPG about dating called Breaking the Ice. This post demonstrates the sorts of RPGs that some people like to play and how those people find those games very immersive/uncomfortable.
http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=11005.0

X-Cards

Here's the document that describes 'em: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SB0 ... edit?pli=1

Basically a panic button on the table: "don't go there!" no questions asked.

Emotional bleed

Seems to be a term that people in story gaming circles use. Link: http://www.story-games.com/forums/discu ... warning/p1

Edit: actually, that last link is a doozy. A game got rapey and now the fellow wants to debrief. It mentions X-Cards too.

So everybody's character needs a safety word. Got it.

deathanddrek wrote: Emotional bleed

Seems to be a term that people in story gaming circles use. Link: http://www.story-games.com/forums/discu ... warning/p1

Edit: actually, that last link is a doozy. A game got rapey and now the fellow wants to debrief. It mentions X-Cards too.

I only read a couple paragraphs of that post before I seriously began to wonder why such people play role-playing games. Articulate, intelligent adults fantasizing about cliques, power, control, social dynamics and sex in the secondary school environment have some serious issues to resolve. And then they have the temerity to create hypocritical/artificial boudaries...sounds like a disfunctional group therapy session.

deathanddrek wrote:

Wheggi wrote:Deathanddrek, could you explain a little more about what these "lines and veils" and "X-Cards" are? I've never heard of this.

- Wheggi

Sure!

[SNIP]

Whoa! After all that, I am seriously glad I run my games the way I do.

We do almost no immersion/acting/funny voices/whatever in our games. The only thing I can think of is that when something funny happens in the game, we'll sometimes make a comment or two about it in a funny voice. We just don't find the thespianism fun.

Character names? Highly optional. Those who have character names typically forget them, and when asked, "What's your character's name?" have to look on their character sheets to read the names.

Geoffrey wrote:We do almost no immersion/acting/funny voices/whatever in our games.

I think there seems to be two types of behavior referred to as immersion. One takes place in your minds eye (pretending to be there, visualizing it etc.) pretending on some level as if your there and your character, the other takes place at the table (acting). The second has little to do with the first (there are many players with great imaginations that can be deeply immersed in a game yet never act at the table).

Geoffrey wrote:We do almost no immersion/acting/funny voices/whatever in our games. The only thing I can think of is that when something funny happens in the game, we'll sometimes make a comment or two about it in a funny voice. We just don't find the thespianism fun.

Yeah, I bet your games are just a laugh riot.

AxeMental wrote:I think there seems to be two types of immersion. One takes place in your minds eye (pretending to be there, visualizing it etc.), the other takes place at the table (acting). The second usually has little to do with the first.

Yes. If it's not clear already, I prefer "one," not "the other." Additionally, I dislike games that emphasize "the other."

Praise R’hllor!

AxeMental wrote: I think there seems to be two types of immersion. One takes place in your minds eye (pretending to be there, visualizing it etc.), the other takes place at the table (acting). The second usually has little to do with the first.

I would go along with that, and add that the second is potentially fun as well as problematic. The "funny voice" is a good example. Sometimes it really adds to the feeling of immersion and sometimes it brings everybody right out of the game by being annoying or distracting. As I say, "the game is the thing" and "role-playing" (despite the name) should be subservient to the game rather than what the game "is".

TRP wrote:

Geoffrey wrote:We do almost no immersion/acting/funny voices/whatever in our games. The only thing I can think of is that when something funny happens in the game, we'll sometimes make a comment or two about it in a funny voice. We just don't find the thespianism fun.

Yeah, I bet your games are just a laugh riot.

I wonder if they game in the back of a stationary store.

I've never yet gamed with 'creepies', but I've meet them out-and-about, esp. on college campuses. Glad I never had to play with those types.

Armchair thespians can be funny -- up to a point, but anyone showing up in a wizard's pointy hat and velvet cape will me mocked roundly if I catch an eyeful of that.

I've never heard of Lines and Veils, but I think I grasp the concepts. I guess an example would be the PCs need to 'answer the call of nature'. That level of narrative granularity would make me and likely others uncomfortable. The ref should just say, "okay it's break time, so you take off your rucksacks, and sit for a spell, or whatever." Anything else is understood, and then the next cycle of dungeoneering starts.

I keep things between a PG rating or, at most, PG-13. I call it the Ick Factor: if the ref likes using the disease rules or goes into detail about hit locations, that is a bit much for me and not "heroic", but too real-life.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: I think there seems to be two types of immersion. One takes place in your minds eye (pretending to be there, visualizing it etc.), the other takes place at the table (acting). The second usually has little to do with the first.

I would go along with that, and add that the second is potentially fun as well as problematic. The "funny voice" is a good example. Sometimes it really adds to the feeling of immersion and sometimes it brings everybody right out of the game by being annoying or distracting. As I say, "the game is the thing" and "role-playing" (despite the name) should be subservient to the game rather than what the game "is".

Yeah, done properly and at the right time changing your voice can really add to the immersion (this depends on who's doing it and why, usually the DM does this as part of his description of the setting. A player responding in kind might be totally into the action and caught up in the moment. This shouldn't last very long (just enough to establish the setting; at some point it would likely grow old, come off as thespian and be annoying to the average player).