Knights & Knaves Alehouse

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

Thank you, Dallas, for shining a light into that particular dark corner. I had absolutely no idea there were people like that.

What those people are playing is not a game. It probably counts as some form of therapy.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

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

Thank you, Dallas, for shining a light into that particular dark corner. I had absolutely no idea there were people like that.

What those people are playing is not a game. It probably counts as some form of therapy.

What disgusting and reprehensible behavior. People "play" like that?

It's not therapy either. Just the opposite.
I stopped reading just a bit in, but I'm not sure why people would want to play a game to cause anxiety and trauma reactions.
Hell, I'm in business to help folks (mainly kids) deal with those things.
Cheese and crackers, I play games to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I stop playing.
If I need a safe word (whatever you want to term it) then it isn't a game.

This one isn't so much about creeps but is about immersion.

A German gamer term I stumbled upon in a discussion elsewhere: taschenlampenfallenlasser or "flashlight dropper".

Used to describe a player who makes their character deliberately fail because it makes a good story.

It originally comes from someone's Call of Cthulhu game where a player character's flashlight reveals a terrifying monster. Player announces he drops the flashlight in fear and the investigators meet their end.

I once had a flashlight dropper in an AD&D game. An immobilised PC was hanging from a great height by a rope which another PC is holding. I roll a random encounter: "spooky noises in the distance". The player of the latter character announces that the PC is scared and drops the rope! I'm flabbergasted, go to pick up some d6s but instead give the player a save to re-grab the rope, hopefully projecting a look of disapproval.

I mentioned the term taschenlampenfallenlasser in a local gamer's forum thinking it'd get a chuckle... the responses I got were all in support of the idea, one guy saying that he sees a lot of it in Monsterhearts (that game mentioned in the last link I provided in my earlier post).

Now, you see, that I don't mind. If we're playing a game and someone plays their character in such a way that it leads to a TPW, then I have absolutely no problem with that at all. Action, consequence, all over. The players won't blame me or feel I've been unfair. They might have a word with the Taschenlampenfallenlasser afterwards, of course...

I don't see that as creepy or scarily immersive.

I don't see it as creepy or scarily immersive either... but I do think it is about immersion which seems vaguely on topic.

For RPGs in general I don't think flashlight dropping is necessarily a bad thing. It may well be the whole point of the game.

I feel that for old school games the suspense comes from the tension of trying not to die (AD&D) and/or lose sanity (CoC) so when a player acts contrariwise it feels discordant.

Possible factors why:

1. As a GM I'm pulled out of that tension because the axiom that the players are trying not to die is now untrue.
(2. Maybe, deep down, I don't like the fact that the player has taken liberties with who's saying who lives or dies. )

A player taking the riskier/stupider choice of two options due to low-INT character reasoning, or low-WIS/low-CHA blustering I'm OK with, but just chucking in the towel... I dunno.

I consider people who get all worked up about immersion in RPGs in the same light as people who stalk Bigfoot or believe in alien abductions. I don't really care how you get your kicks, but if you talk about it publicly, I'm not going to pretend I don't think you're a weirdo.

If all of the players are trying to play well, except one of them who causes a TPK on purpose, that’s just going to cause hard feelings all around.

Now, if the DM tells the player, “Roll to see if you can hang onto your lantern or not,” and the player fails his roll, that’s fine, we’ll probably all have a good laugh about it.

Alternatively, if ALL the players have the same attitude that “We are here to write a story,” that’s okay, too (though I don’t personally care for that approach).

Taschenlampenfallenlasser? That's got to be one of the worst German compounds I've yet encountered. I just use the more accurate Arschloch.

Yeah, if somebody purposefully makes a mission critical error with the excuse "I am just playing my character", that strikes me as weird and a little creepy. Not somebody I would choose to play games with too often.

austinjimm wrote:This kind of thing is not a problem in my game. Probably because I intentionally minimize "role-playing." I don't even like to use the term. I prefer to think of my D&D game as a "fantasy wargame." Situations that are usually role-played in D&D, i.e. hanging out at the tavern, etc., are abstracted to the greatest extent possible via tables & dice rolls. Metagaming is fine as long as you're not looking up monster stats mid-combat. If you want to go all larpy, find someone else's table.

I will echo this. Character role-playing wherein the player is acting out in real life is just not my thing. I am ok with the occasional sound-effect or whatever, but acting out your character's actions is too much for me. I guess if the whole table is doing it, so be it. As a DM, I could deal with it so long as all the players are on the same page. But my experience is that is rarely the case.

I will never forget the 1984 AD&D Open when in the first round we had a guy who went straight into Larp mode (before it had a name). He was so bad and out of control, I asked the DM to call for help after about an hour and half and we had not even completed the very first encounter. They cancelled our game and we restarted at the next time slot that morning. Needless to say, the "guy" was not in our group and we played with one less player. That single event is still burned into my brain 30 damn years later.

Yeah, I'm definitely in the "the less amateur thespianism the better" camp. It becomes uncomfortable really quickly. I've always named my characters as have the others in my group, but we've had varying degrees of "seriousness" in that regard. I usually try and come up with something not too goofy and basically genre appropriate but others in the group come up with somewhat comic names and thats fine. In game we really hardly use those names anyway. Its mostly a way to distinguish one character sheet from another.

I have encountered one or two "method actors" in my time and creepy is definitely a word that applies. The problem isn't necessarily what they are doing (although it can be), its more that they are doing it in a group that is so obviously not travelling along that path so to speak. Like a group of 5 people who are doing things one way and then one guy who is totally invested in BEING his character all the time in spite of the fact that everyone else at the table is squirming and eye-rolling...

Matthew wrote:Yeah, if somebody purposefully makes a mission critical error with the excuse "I am just playing my character", that strikes me as weird and a little creepy. Not somebody I would choose to play games with too often.

Hmmm, I don't know Matt, we do it all the time, especially when we as DMs are controlling NPCs (for flavor, and recreating a game reality). Do we always make the best choices in real life. Nope (otherwise we wouldn't see traffic accidents, drug users, people in bad relationships etc.). So the same should apply for a game that simulates a game/fantasy reality. The guy that chooses to do the stupid thing because he's playing a stupid character (half orc, 7 wis) is actually playing correctly in a way. He's playing make believe. Hopefully he's smart enough not to do the idiot act when it matters.

If you played every PC the same, there wouldn't be a point in rolling things like wisdom, intel, or picking an alignment. Hell, there wouldn't be a point in playing D&D. Your supposed to be yourself yes...and your supposed to want to survive, but in the bindings of what the character would know and how it would likely act (based on class, race, alignment etc.).


Do players often do the best thing to survive even though its not in their characters likely personality? Sure. Are they playing better then the guy who plays to his characters personality? Maybe, maybe not. I'll take the occasional crazy mad dwarf running down the hall chopping the shit out of anything that moves (and in the process perhaps falling into a pit trap) over the predictable methodical same old same old any day (that vanilla gets boring). And hell, sometimes the guy that plays balls to the walls (but not necessarily the smartest) stumbles upon the best course of action by chance, or just gets lucky. Dungeons are often designed to reward actions that on the surface seem stupid (the classic modules have many examples).

I'm no fan of Thespian acting or deep immersion (both annoying and missing the point of the game). But then again I'm not a fan of "not getting into the game" either (playing every character you control exactly the same). The point of the game is to have fun and win, but even more its to experience and adventure.

As far as killing your PC to develop a story? Yep, thats not playing correctly (as stated above your supposed to be trying to survive).

But, I don't think the guy that dropped the rope did that. I think he was being evil (so intentionally killing the other PC, but not wanting to fess up to why).

As to the guy playing CoC dropping the flashlight. That was his choice (not an uncontrollable reaction, from a bad san role) that may or may not be fine, and depends on the intent of the player (is he messing with the group, or really trying to "be there" (the definition of immersion in RPGs) maybe his character just gave up -what he feels like he'd do IRL- (or perhaps didn't realize his action was going to kill the group). I've actually seen people do weird shit like that in real life. One girl I know dropped a gun after firing it, even though I know it wasn't an involuntary reaction, but she pretended it was, dropping it for whatever reason (attention, pretending to be girly or what have you). Since people do this sort of thing in real life, then yes, its OK to do it in a game now and then -to drop the flashlight- (as long as its to how you perceive your character) its the players character to do what as he likes (you can do anything that don't defy the laws of your worlds physics in an RPG).

PS While a player who is clever IRL can play a dolt, its more difficult for a player who's a real life idiot to play someone thats supposed to be bright (say an 18 intel or Wis), he's still going to make bone headed mistakes (the DM can't help him). The game can only go so far, your still yourself. The important thing is you make an effort (at least a little).

Sorry, man, not buying it. Players who purposefully sabotage the efforts of the rest of the group are unwelcome. It is one thing to "add flavour", but it is quite another to drink a potion of insanity knowing full well what it is going to do, expend the last wish on resurrecting your pet hedgehog, or whatever. These guys are not playing the same game, they are pushing the buttons of their friends to see how far they can go. I am not saying players should not engage in reckless heroics or make the occasional odd choice, but there is a limit.

Matthew wrote:Sorry, man, not buying it. Players who purposefully sabotage the efforts of the rest of the group are unwelcome. It is one thing to "add flavour", but it is quite another to drink a potion of insanity knowing full well what it is going to do, expend the last wish on resurrecting your pet hedgehog, or whatever. These guys are not playing the same game, they are pushing the buttons of their friends to see how far they can go. I am not saying players should not engage in reckless heroics or make the occasional odd choice, but there is a limit.

If you know the motivation of the player, then sure...your correct. But its not always easy to know the motivation (Barlo the Barbarian runs down the hall chasing a rat sets off an alarm resulting in a TPK). In that case, yeah its frustrating, but its not like you didn't know you were going with a barbarian. You CAN'T expect the player controlling the barbarian to play it as he doesn't see it. Thats just lame.

In the examples you give its clear they are just being jerks and should not be invited to play. Thats best handled out of game by the DM who tells them to leave.