It's not paranoia if you're roleplaying.

[Rated Aargh]

So, last night, I played Coriolis: The Third Horizon with my group and a GM who was new to us. Much fun was had. But I was reminded of something while we played because the GM pointed out how tactically I was thinking as I moved my character, a former Legionnaire, through the adventure.

We didn't use a battle mat or anything like that, but I checked sight lines, covered angles, and played SEAL Team 6 in space. It seemed appropriate.

This got me thinking about how almost all roleplayers who cut their teeth on dungeon-style adventuring are hardwired for tactical thinking. Every thought, every movement, is geared toward minimizing risk. Open a door? How about using a pole? Advancing down a seemingly benign corridor? Where's that pole? See something unusual? Poke it with the pole!

Not every character should think this way because not everyone is a former Legionnaire with a big gun. But most do because their players have been conditioned to worry about traps and tricks.

Is this bad? Are we losing some of the subtleties of roleplaying by thinking in these terms? In other words, are we engaging with fiction or playing a war game in our heads?

 

[PolarBlues]

My roleplaying background didn't really include dungeon crawls or wargame-adjacent games so I can confirm your thesis in that my characters tend not to suffer from "gamer paranoia". I'd rather see my character "lose" with style than "win" with a slow, methodical approach. This makes me ill suited for a lot of games, but that's OK.

As a GM I often encouter instances of "gamer paranoia" among players. I find these jarring as they often seen to me unnatural, perhaps a little metagaming or at least clash with my view of the genre conventions of the game being played. I sometimes find I have to go out of my way to to reassure the players that I am not trying to catch them out and screw them over.

That of course misses the point that for many players, planning ahead and thinking about all the possible threats and how to mitigate them is part of the fun.

 

[Fenris-77]

The only question that matters is "Are you having fun?". Personally, I've found that in my old age I don't have the patience for the 10' pole approach and tend to be relatively more reckless in my play, but that's also fun. Fun is the key.

 

[sharps54]

As always, it depends. If you are playing in the style the Classic Adventure Game folks do than that kind of player skill is expected. If you are playing something more narrative based not so much. This will really depend on the group and the experience that particular group wants to get out of the game. No wrong answers here until people start judging how other groups play.

 

[Lofgeornost]

I'd have to say that very few of the people I play with act that way. But none of our g.m.s include physical traps very frequently in games. 'Social' traps--hidden motives, wheels-within-wheels, 'things are not as they seem' are more usual. So players tend to be more wary in dealings with others rather than in a 'firefight' kind of way.

 

[Vidgrip]

I cut my teeth on the original Tomb of Horrors and still play tactically when I'm in an old-school D&D game, but no, I don't play all games that way. At least I don't think so. I'm currently playing in a pulp game and there is no way any of our heroic characters would check for traps when entering the bad guy's base. If we spring something that gets us knocked down or captured, then adjusting to this new dilemma will be part of the night's entertainment. Different play for different games. But in all honesty, I do still love a gritty tactical dungeon crawl like nothing else :-)

 

[sharps54]

I cut my teeth on the original Tomb of Horrors and still play tactically when I'm in an old-school D&D game, but no, I don't play all games that way. At least I don't think so. I'm currently playing in a pulp game and there is no way any of our heroic characters would check for traps when entering the bad guy's base. If we spring something that gets us knocked down or captured, then adjusting to this new dilemma will be part of the night's entertainment. Different play for different games. But in all honesty, I do still love a gritty tactical dungeon crawl like nothing else :-)

I think this is key, it really depends on the game you are playing. What are the assumptions of the game that you and group are agreeing to by picking that system? Torchbearer and Barbarians of Lemuria require totally different mindsets and playstyles to play the game as the designer intended.

 

[AsenRG]

I'd rather see my character "lose" with style than "win" with a slow, methodical approach.

"There is no glory in pointless defeat!" - Dawn of War 2!

(Mind you, I'm not saying it to criticize your approach. What works for you, works, my goal is simply to illustrate my own preferences).

I think this is key, it really depends on the game you are playing. What are the assumptions of the game that you and group are agreeing to by picking that system? Torchbearer and Barbarians of Lemuria require totally different mindsets and playstyles to play the game as the designer intended.

Of course, that assumes that I value how the designer wanted me to play above the way me and my group want to play...in other words, an idea that has no basis in reality, if there ever was one!

I mean, if what you find fun is "playing the way the designer wanted", go for it. But for many groups that's between irrelevant and orthogonal to the topic at hand...

Now, on the topic at hand, I'm sure you can all guess where my preferences lie based on the above: I go for slow and methodical. I've been told that people get really careful when their survival is at risk, so it makes sense to extend that courtesy to PCs as well, and not assume that all non-military guys would only know the "brazen charge and vainglorious death" method. Also, people can extrapolate from different experiences, like...you know, like a roleplayer extrapolating from his dungeoncrawling experiences!
Or it might be based on group sports, or hunters extrapolating from stalking prey, whatever...

So, the bottom line is, players may play any way they wish. Especially when I'm playing* a PC. (I don't feel I have a say in how they roleplay their characters - but I also expect the same courtesy to be extended back).

*And as a Ref, I've already decided what the opposition is doing, and this won't change, so let's hope your approach would keep you alive!

 

[sharps54]

"There is no glory in pointless defeat!" - Dawn of War 2!

(Mind you, I'm not saying it to criticize your approach. What works for you, works, my goal is simply to illustrate my own preferences).


Of course, that assumes that I value how the designer wanted me to play above the way me and my group want to play...in other words, an idea that has no basis in reality, if there ever was one!

I mean, if what you find fun is "playing the way the designer wanted", go for it. But for many groups that's between irrelevant and orthogonal to the topic at hand...

Now, on the topic at hand, I'm sure you can all guess where my preferences lie based on the above: I go for slow and methodical. I've been told that people get really careful when their survival is at risk, so it makes sense to extend that courtesy to PCs as well, and not assume that all non-military guys would only know the "brazen charge and vainglorious death" method. Also, people can extrapolate from different experiences, like...you know, like a roleplayer extrapolating from his dungeoncrawling experiences!
Or it might be based on group sports, or hunters extrapolating from stalking prey, whatever...

So, the bottom line is, players may play any way they wish. Especially when I'm playing* a PC. (I don't feel I have a say in how they roleplay their characters - but I also expect the same courtesy to be extended back).

*And as a Ref, I've already decided what the opposition is doing, and this won't change, so let's hope your approach would keep you alive!

I guess my point isn’t so much playing the way the designer wanted as picking the right game for your playstyle. Some RPGs are written with certain play assumptions baked in and while you can do anything with any game it is a lot easier if you aren’t fighting the rules to do that.

 

[AsenRG]

I guess my point isn’t so much playing the way the designer wanted as picking the right game for your playstyle. Some RPGs are written with certain play assumptions baked in and while you can do anything with any game it is a lot easier if you aren’t fighting the rules to do that.

Now, that part I totally agree with!

 

[Baron]

I play RPGs tactically. While that's the norm in my old group (with good reason), when I jump online to play I often draw comments from other players about my play style. Those online GMs also don't get inspired to play along.

When I run a game you'd better be playing tactically!

But really, these strangers play so casually in life-or-death situations. And it's not just "traps," it's socially, or dealing with intrigue. They'll blithely walk into enemy hangouts without any preparation. They'll say anything without regard for giving anything away.

There's that whole "player skill vs character skill" thing, and the role-playing aspect, but honestly? There are people who would blithely enter potential danger without thought, but I think I pretty much only play some NPCs that way. My own player characters aren't going to die just because someone thinks my accountant shouldn't take precautions when entering a criminal's hideout. The very fact that he's in that situation means he's "exceptional."

 

[AsenRG]

But really, these strangers play so casually in life-or-death situations. And it's not just "traps," it's socially, or dealing with intrigue. They'll blithely walk into enemy hangouts without any preparation. They'll say anything without regard for giving anything away.

One of the younger roleplayers in our WFRP group often does that. I don't know if she does that on purpose, and I frankly enjoy it*, but she started spotting that when both me and the other old roleplayer in the group are facepalming**, she's said something that she didn't need to...

So we're teaching the young generation now. Too bad I can't often make the session due to scheduling conflicts, but it's what it is.


*But then keep in mind I've also decided none of our PCs should survive, after the first genocide we induced.
**I start rubbing my PC's forehead, totally IC! He's a priest of Sigmar, he should have an idea what "speaking too much" means.

 

[godswearhats]

I’m a tactical nerd, I play a lot of wargames and complex board/card games, so when it comes to RPGs, I have to remind myself when I sit down that this character IS NOT ME, it’s someone else with different experiences and a different world view. I’m playing a character in WFRP right now who is below average intelligence. He’s not stupid, but he has limited capacity for planning ahead, and prefers to take action. This is a mental adjustment for me, because my default is to think things through and play tactically. I think as players (and especially as Referees) we should encourage each other to really take action like the character, not like we are ourselves controlling a puppet. But, as Fenris said above, really it comes down to having fun!

 

[Fenris-77]

Welcome to the Pub godswearhats

 

[AsenRG]

I’m a tactical nerd, I play a lot of wargames and complex board/card games, so when it comes to RPGs, I have to remind myself when I sit down that this character IS NOT ME, it’s someone else with different experiences and a different world view. I’m playing a character in WFRP right now who is below average intelligence. He’s not stupid, but he has limited capacity for planning ahead, and prefers to take action. This is a mental adjustment for me, because my default is to think things through and play tactically. I think as players (and especially as Referees) we should encourage each other to really take action like the character, not like we are ourselves controlling a puppet. But, as Fenris said above, really it comes down to having fun!

First, welcome to the Pub!

And second, it is a bit different for Referees. We play all kinds of characters, many of them not exceptional. Some are even almost destined to become part of a crime chronicle somewhere, assuming the setting has those in the first place!

But PCs can be assumed to have way more forethought, at least if the players want them this way. Kinda like how PCs in Traveller often have Level-0 skill in guns and brawling, even if they had a Bureaucrat career...

And of course, any player who doesn't want the PC to behave this way, can just act differently, it's really a self-correcting assumption IME!

 

[godswearhats]

Welcome to the Pub godswearhats

Thanks! I’m kinda like Robin to @lategamer’s Batman.

 

[Fenris-77]

Thanks! I’m kinda like Robin to @lategamer’s Batman.

Right down to the black and white head shots I see.

 

[MoonHunter]

'd rather see my character "lose" with style than "win" with a slow, methodical approach.

(okay some caution, but not the overly mechanical kind of trap paranoid dungeoners)

 

[Godfather Punk]

...the 10' pole...

#Off topic, but why specifically a 10' pole? Was there some damage effect that had a 9' blast radius? Or to reach across two 5' squares? The longest object to fit in a Bag of Holding? Or something else?/# (never played old D&D)

 

[Baron]

#Off topic, but why specifically a 10' pole? Was there some damage effect that had a 9' blast radius? Or to reach across two 5' squares? The longest object to fit in a Bag of Holding? Or something else?/# (never played old D&D)

Well, it was listed in the books as a 10' pole. But yeah, five-foot squares, 10' pole, works out so you don't step on a trap. If you're lucky.

 

[saskganesh]

movement was in ten foot increments, and the ten foot pole was the only pole on the equipment sheet.

no love for the 6-8 foot spear.

 

[Fenris-77]

movement was in ten foot increments, and the ten foot pole was the only pole on the equipment sheet.

no love for the 6-8 foot spear.

Nor much accounting for just how fucking annoying it would be to actually carry a 10' long pole around a cramped dungeon, never mind a whole party's worth of the things. It should look like the keystone cops.

 

[sharps54]

 

[AsenRG]

View attachment 80094

"Corner ahead!"
"Not again!"

 

[MoonHunter]

View attachment 80094

This is what you get if your GM is not using encumbrance rules or only using very basic ones (weight only)

 

[Exploderwizard]

The question to ask is what are doing? Are playing a game or are you engaging with a narrative. In the former case, tactical thinking is just smart play. If you are there to create stories based on fictional personae and their activities then everyone should act more "in character" depending on who they are playing. The definition of role playing has become fractured in the hobby. Originally, and applying to the former case, it meant reacting to fictional stimuli as if it were real. Note that not even a character is required to do this. If you have ever participated in a fire drill at school or work, congratulations, you have role played. The newer interpretation requires a character or persona other than yourself, reacting to the imagined stimuli as that persona would. In other words acting. It is up to each group to decide how they wish to approach this.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I always wanted to design traps for games where the triggered effect is ten foot away from the pressure plate/tripwire/whatever.

Like, if poking shit with a ten foot pole has become this much of a standard procedure, people would start planning around the fact that people would be ten foot away.

The whole "poking everything with a 10' pole" just doesn't even feel tactical to me. It feels rote. It feels like having to remind the GM that your character poops as well.

Cause ok, if I have a "rogue" leading the way, who is experienced in trapfinding, the GM shouldn't be requiring them to be meticulously explaining how he is searching for the traps. The character is the one who knows what they are doing, not me. The reality is that whatever tricks I would think up would probably not even be how someone who regularly engages in that kind of activity would interact with it.

They probably know information about various types of trapbuilders based on culture, and what they tended to do, and what clues that would leave in the construction. And why would I, as a player, know that?

What exactly is clever about just poking everything with a ten foot pole? What does it add to the game?

I just assume that competent characters are taking competent precautions unless they are intentionally rushing.

 

[sharps54]

I always wanted to design traps for games where the triggered effect is ten foot away from the pressure plate/tripwire/whatever.

Like, if poking shit with a ten foot pole has become this much of a standard procedure, people would start planning around the fact that people would be ten foot away.

The whole "poking everything with a 10' pole" just doesn't even feel tactical to me. It feels rote. It feels like having to remind the GM that your character poops as well.

Cause ok, if I have a "rogue" leading the way, who is experienced in trapfinding, the GM shouldn't be requiring them to be meticulously explaining how he is searching for the traps. The character is the one who knows what they are doing, not me. The reality is that whatever tricks I would think up would probably not even be how someone who regularly engages in that kind of activity would interact with it.

They probably know information about various types of trapbuilders based on culture, and what they tended to do, and what clues that would leave in the construction. And why would I, as a player, know that?

What exactly is clever about just poking everything with a ten foot pole? What does it add to the game?

I just assume that competent characters are taking competent precautions unless they are intentionally rushing.

They are just different play styles, some groups like for players to describe how they are looking for traps, often if they player nails it no roll will be needed, and other groups just play their character sheet and roll for it. I will give you that the second method is faster so I suppose it has that going for it. I tend to fall into the first camp myself but neither is a wrong way to play.

And I think to is definitely fair to have a pressure plate offset to foil the common ways to locate it although I wouldn’t use something like that very often.

 

[Lofgeornost]

#Off topic, but why specifically a 10' pole? Was there some damage effect that had a 9' blast radius? Or to reach across two 5' squares? The longest object to fit in a Bag of Holding? Or something else?/# (never played old D&D)

Well, it was listed in the books as a 10' pole. But yeah, five-foot squares, 10' pole, works out so you don't step on a trap. If you're lucky.

movement was in ten foot increments, and the ten foot pole was the only pole on the equipment sheet.

no love for the 6-8 foot spear.

I always assumed it was a joke, too, at least in part. "I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole" is--or used to be, long before D&D--an idiom for "I wouldn't have anything to do with that."

 

[SavAce]

In my opinion, the strength of RPGs compared to other games is in the "I'm roleplaying a character in an imaginary world, interacting with it and its inhabitants", which means that their weakness tends to be having a well designed arena of play where you can satisfyingly play a tactical game with clear win/lose conditions. Or, sometimes you end up in situations where the desire to "win" the RPG results in characters doing odd things that makes the fiction look dumb, or not in line with what people would like to experience. In these cases, I'd prefer to play a non-RPG rather than play an RPG tying to do things RPGs don't thrive at.

For example, I know it's a bit of an exaggerated example, but this theoretical "Slowly moving down the corridor with a 10' pole poking at things" party. It's total weird game material. Do we have any historical evidence of people exploring things while poking with 10' poles? During the Vietnam war, were point men walking down jungle trails swinging with 10' poles to set off trip-wires? Did I miss the part in the Mines of Moria where they were tapping away with 10' poles like blind men with their walking sticks, scaled way up? The whole 10' pole thing is just some weird D&D nonsense I'm not interested in being involved with. I can see how it comes out of the oddness of the D&D dungeon with its weird logic. Doors that close on their own, traps in ancient tombs that stay armed forever, in areas where creatures would regularly come through. Maybe, given the rules of that and wanting to "beat the dungeon", these odd game-y behaviors can crop up. I'm just not that interested in playing or winning that game though, compared to the possibility of playing a game that is more focused on characters and their choices and interactions in regards to each other, and feeling the mythical or fantastical vibes in a fantasy RPG (or whatever vibes I'm seeking from RPGs in other genres).

This gets at another thing. It's cool if someone's character is some kind of professional in dangerous situations and is tactical in their approach. On the other hand, if you're playing a horror scenario full of a random assortment of teenagers at camp, and as soon as the creepy scary stuff starts happening none of the characters are freaked out and they start acting like a SWAT team, that's garbage and I don't want to be there. I admit its a total personal preference, but I'm there to be immersed in the situation in a way where it's like we're the people in the book or movie or whatever, and "winning" is in how well each of us there evokes and inhabits that. The reason I choose this preference is that I think "winning" in the tactical game sense in an RPG tends to feel hollow to me, because sessions generally aren't 2 sides trying their best to win against each other. It's a group of players, and a GM whose goal isn't to "win" himself, it's to entertain those involved. A GM can play hard and try to make things challenging, but "winning" a scenario will never satisfy my competitive side in the same way as competing against other people I know are also trying their best to defeat me.

 

[EmperorNorton]

For example, I know it's a bit of an exaggerated example, but this theoretical "Slowly moving down the corridor with a 10' pole poking at things" party. It's total weird game material. Do we have any historical evidence of people exploring things while poking with 10' poles? During the Vietnam war, were point men walking down jungle trails swinging with 10' poles to set off trip-wires? Did I miss the part in the Mines of Moria where they were tapping away with 10' poles like blind men with their walking sticks, scaled way up? The whole 10' pole thing is just some weird D&D nonsense I'm not interested in being involved with.

Yeah, the big thing to me about the whole 10' pole mentality is that it is just plain out stupid anyway. There are like, 8 million trap mechanisms that wouldn't even be set off by a 10 foot pole anyway. A pressure plate that requires the weight of a person isn't going to be set off by someone tapping the floor with a pole for instance.

Additionally, carrying around a 10 foot pole in a winding dungeon would be a pain in the ass. It would be unwieldy and going around corners would be ridiculous. On top of the fact that it would ruin a lot of attempts at stealth, which is, imo, a way larger tactical advantage than tapping walls and floors.

The 10' pole thing has always been one of those things that it feels like a certain segment of the D&D population thinks is "thinking tactically" while to me it just feels like nonsensical garbage. It wouldn't catch enough things to be useful compared to just advancing carefully while keeping your eyes peeled to overcome the actual logistical issues with carrying around a 10 foot pole and waving it around in front of you for hours at a time.

 

[Lofgeornost]

The reason I choose this preference is that I think "winning" in the tactical game sense in an RPG tends to feel hollow to me, because sessions generally aren't 2 sides trying their best to win against each other. It's a group of players, and a GM whose goal isn't to "win" himself, it's to entertain those involved. A GM can play hard and try to make things challenging, but "winning" a scenario will never satisfy my competitive side in the same way as competing against other people I know are also trying their best to defeat me.

Yeah. In fact, the best RPG scenarios I've been involved in for straight competition involved the referee bringing in an outsider to control the opposition. That person could--and did--go all out and the referee was, well, the referee.

 

[sharps54]

But without the 10 foot pole trope we wouldn’t have cool miniatures like this one from Reaper and that would make me sad…

 

[Agemegos]

Yeah, the big thing to me about the whole 10' pole mentality is that it is just plain out stupid anyway. There are like, 8 million trap mechanisms that wouldn't even be set off by a 10 foot pole anyway. …
The 10' pole thing has always been one of those things that it feels like a certain segment of the D&D population thinks is "thinking tactically" while to me it just feels like nonsensical garbage.

I seldom express myself so forcefully, but I am compelled to agree. I have only played two dungeon-crawls in the past forty years, because I find them stupefyingly boring and unbearably nonsensical. They maybe exercise tactical thinking, but they absolutely frustrate logistical or engineering thinking. A "pressure plate" in an ancient rock-hewn tomb‽ How the fuck does that work?¹ How could it be hidden or disguised? What the fuck is it for? If the ancients wanted to seal this tomb, why did they not fill it with concrete?

I'm supposed to be super suspicious, observant, and clever about dumb traps that couldn't have been made with pre-industrial technology anyway, but I'm not allowed to apply logic to their purposes, mechanisms, or practicality. Why bother?

Just cast "Continual Light" on a couple of geese and then drive the whole flock in the main entrance.

---

¹ Pressure pads on the floor were techno-thriller stuff until about the mid-1950s. How are characters from a Renfaire-technology setting supposed to be familiar with them? And how many dangerous underground complexes have carpet on the floors that you could hide a pressure pad under?

 

[sharps54]

They probably just keep selling dungeon crawl games and convincing people to play them to raise the blood pressure of people that dislike them. I hate to say but it looks like it is working ...

The great thing about RPGs is that they are expansive enough to cover D&D style escapades, play out a Central American soap opera, or be some transhumanist octopus terraforming planets in a distant galaxy. There’s room for everyone and enough variety of games that hopefully we can all find something we enjoy.

 

[sharps54]

Does thay mean we all have to agree, nope. Does it mean we can’t complain about the things we don’t like? Of course not. But all that hate is going to burn y’all up

 

[sharps54]

To finish up 10 foot poles are no dumber than villain monologues and death traps for James Bond instead of just shooting him in the head but do we complain about that in our spy games? Each genre probably has some stupid tropes, maybe we just need to get it all out and have a thread of all the stupid genre tropes. It could be cathartic.

 

[Kage2020]

Hmmn. Perhaps my standard response of, "If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kill it just in case it's thinking of moving" maybe illustrative of the gamer paranoia? (Not mine; totally stolen from somewhere that I can no longer remember to give proper attribution.)

(I think that I may have done one "dungeon bash" in the last 30 years, and that was in Shadowrun.)

 

[SavAce]

To finish up 10 foot poles are no dumber than villain monologues and death traps for James Bond instead of just shooting him in the head but do we complain about that in our spy games? Each genre probably has some stupid tropes, maybe we just need to get it all out and have a thread of all the stupid genre tropes. It could be cathartic.

There is no blood pressure related reaction for me about any of this, it's just about my preferences and where I think the strengths of RPGs lie. I wouldn't say the 10 foot pole and the James Bond villain monologue are quite the same kind of thing though. If you're playing a James Bond RPG and a villain goes on an extended monologue, that evokes the source material, the books and movies (however sensible or not that may be). The 10 foot pole is not coming out of the fantastical/mythical source material, the books or movies. It comes out of the mechanics of the game and a desire to win the game of it, even if it results in play that doesn't really resemble the source material all that much. That's all fine for people who like that kind of gameplay, though I don't personally (for the reasons outlined in my post).

 

[Baron]

Well, we all play as we like. But the game is Dungeons and Dragons. An entire series of tropes evolved about dungeoneering: elaborate traps, crazy monsters, 10' poles. It's a game, but obviously only people who enjoy it should be playing those dungeon scenarios. If you prefer intrigue and politics, or whatever else is not dungeoneering, D&D can do that too.