H7 feels like it’s becoming an RDM

[Luka]

Yes, I know, two posts in a row where I appeal to the community for healthier play, very cringe. But, OOC chat is p2p and people don’t really talk OOC so much unless they’re in the same clique, so it’s not so easy to just have a conversation with people without bringing it to the forums.

As title suggests, there’s a lot of RDMing going on. I’ve seen people, including myself (three times now), killed for the tiniest possible things. I’ve yet to see a kill that I felt contributed to a story, I’ve yet to see a kill that didn’t seem as if it was OOC motivated, and everyone who is getting killed is getting killed exclusively by people who aren’t even trying to involve themselves in that character’s story to begin with.

This is not what anyone has in mind when they envision a version of Haven where sanctuary doesn’t exist. I was in support of sanctuary being removed, and hopeful for the game we’d get when it was removed, but removing sanctuary was a risk and it looks like it’s not a risk going well. It feels like we’re very quickly sliding towards the worst case scenario of what people were concerned the game would be without sanctuary.

All that said, I STILL don’t think sanctuary should be re-instated. This isn’t a mechanics issue, this is a player issue. The players need to stop using that ‘execute’ command so goddamn much, and need to understand that if they don’t know the person they’re executing well, they are not in a position to make an accurate judgement on whether or not them using that execute command is going to tell a good story or a bad one.

This is not a league of legends match, this is a story telling game. Please keep this in mind.

[Rev]

I hear you on the frustration with the current state of play. You’re right, the game can’t tell a good story if people are just using the execute command to end every interaction.

But what you’re describing isn’t just a player issue, it’s a two-way street.

You mentioned people aren’t trying to get involved in your character’s story, but you have to give them something to work with. If a player tries to engage you as a prisoner and you consistently shut down the roleplay—whether it’s by spamming gestures to be ungagged twenty times or by just refusing to engage with the scene—you’re actively making it impossible for a story to happen.

When other players are met with that kind of resistance, where do you expect the story to go? Your character’s lack of cooperation doesn’t create tension; it creates a dead end. When you act like a difficult prisoner who won’t roleplay, you are effectively telling the other players that the only available outcome is to end the scene.

We all want to tell a good story. But if we’re not willing to accept the bad parts and the difficult scenarios as a chance to create a story, then we can’t be surprised when people get frustrated and decide to end the scene the only way you’ve allowed them.

[bean]

the problem as i see it is like this:

some people are playing a chill social game with horror elements that are largely opt-in, and approached through gradual, mutually desired escalation. something like, dracula tells me i’m pretty and to come home with him, and i decide to do that and then he bites me. or i just say no and we stay socialising at the bar.

but some people are playing a war game, something like a bunch of vampire cowboys bust down the door, and tell everyone they’re that they’re about to get bitten or else.

well, some people are definitely gonna be into that. but some people aren’t, they just wanted to hang out at the bar and have a nice chill social time, and you’re trying to force them to play a cowboy western war game. there are lots of reasons why they might not want that, maybe they don’t like cowboys or vampires, or maybe they do but think your desc is ugly and your emotes are trash and they’re picky about who they want biting them and how.

i hate to break it to you but they don’t owe you story. they don’t owe you ooc communication either. they owe themselves a chill time on the hobby, and if you’re making that hard they may say to each other, ‘hey, this cowboy sucks, let’s kill him so we can go back to our chill social time and hope sexy senpai dracula notices us instead’.

this is where you are going wrong. stop kicking doors down and maybe they’ll start inviting you in.

[Luka]

Rev, I 100% agree with everything you’ve said here. If someone is making it clear they don’t want to be in the scene, you should remove them from the scene.

However, whilst I agree with everything you said, there was an implication you didn’t say, which was “You should end the scene by killing their character”, which I do not agree with. There are several ways to end a scene with someone, up to and including wordlessly removing their binds and booting them out onto the street. I get that combat can be risky, and people are upset when they run those risks, and then don’t feel like they’re getting the IC rewards they want for having won after taking those risks, but RDMing is not the answer. There is lots you can do. You can adddesc, you can roughup, you can steal items, you can villain monologue for the two hours it takes for them to undo their binds. There’s lots of options here that don’t involve RDM. Saying that you only possible option for dealing with someone who wants out of a scene is to get them out of that scene by killing them seems awfully unimaginative to me.

Also, hundred percent agree with Bean. If you want people to give you good victim RP, you need to first give them good antag RP. Expecting someone to chug an energy drink and get on their A game to RP out their screams and squirms for you after you won a combat with them just because you won that combat is not enough.

That being said, this isn’t a personal attack against anyone who’s antagged me, I will 100% agree that losing combats often (But not always!) tilts the fuck out of my desire to RP and a large part of that IS ON ME, that is certainly a personal flaw of mine. But I also think a lot of people are like this at least a little and I don’t think this is something people deserve to be RDM’d over.

[Matias]

It is human nature when conflict arises and communication fails to err the side of caution and remove the threat. Those we cannot communicate with we cannot trust and those we cannot trust we cannot trust not to hurt us. This is the basis of a lot of misery in the world. As a pretty decent episode of Doctor Who once said. War is just the thing people do before they finally end up in the place they were always going to end up across the table from one another talking.

I personally think that characters in the archetype like Luka would have very high survivability if the players of those kind of characters can take it on the chin. Is it asking a lot? Maybe. But it costs so little to play bravado, show cracks in the mask of fear, and in the interest of survival compromise. I think in most hostage / prisoner scenes all people want is the following and not always in this order.

1. Acknowledgement they have won this fight and you have lost in the form of RP reaction signifying the precarious or vulnerable state you are in.

2. Dialogue to understand why the conflict happened, that whoever lost the conflict knows they have lost, and some means assurance that FOR NOW you have won this battle HE-MAN and then skeletor escape after they let you go.

I don’t know if it will work 100% of the time but I feel like when a character / player makes themselves vulnerable they often (not always) get a lot of leeway to live another day.

[Luka]

You’re not wrong Matias, but I feel like you’re putting too much on the shoulders of the victims in this situation. Yes, there is stuff the victims can do to try and optimize for not getting RDM’d, in the same way women can optimize for not getting SA’d, but at the end of the day it really is just on the shoulders of the players with the power in the scene to make the choice themselves to not RDM, and I feel like for the same reasons it’s not very cool to contribute to a discussion about to respond to a discussion about SA by telling the victims how they could have ‘asked for it’ less, it’s also not cool to respond to a discussion about RDM by telling people how they could be ‘asking for it’ less. Obviously a very blunt metaphor I’m using here, but it makes the point.

[Luka]

Had an aneurism writing that post, let me try that again.

You’re not wrong Matias, but I feel like you’re putting too much on the shoulders of the victims in this situation. Yes, there is stuff the victims can do to try and optimize for not getting RDM’d, in the same way women can optimize for not getting SA’d, but at the end of the day it really is just on the shoulders of the players with the power in the scene to make the choice themselves to not RDM, and I feel like for the same reasons it’s not very cool to contribute to a discussion about SA by telling the victims how they could have ‘asked for it’ less, it’s also not cool to respond to a discussion about RDM by telling people how they could be ‘asking for it’ less. Obviously a very blunt metaphor I’m using here, but it makes the point.

[Matias]

My presumption when talking about characters in the archetype of Luka is aggressive antagonistic characters. Which are fine this is Haven antagonism is the name of the game. However because the archetype is predicated on threats and intimidation that means technically they are not normally the victims. I do not know what happened this time but to my knowledge (which is limited) the majority of significant injury or death have happened when the losing side triggered hostility either intentionally or unintentionally.

If you are hunted down by someone and attacked, kidnapped, and you were just chilling. They start talking about stuff you did 1-2 deaths ago. I would agree you are a victim. I think it is generally courtesy that if someone gets KILLED for their behaviour you kind of go okay well punishment delivered. No need to keep killing them ad infinity. In that case the onus of heavy lifting shifts from the aggressive/antagonistic character to the hunter. You gotta sell someone on why something they have already died for is getting them killed, again.

[bean]

it is funny to me that you compare the situation to women getting sa’d. because to me it reads like a dude getting unmatched on tinder, and then spending the next few weeks trying to track this woman down for an explanation on why he was unmatched, why he didn’t get a second date, why she didn’t acknowledge he’s nice. you are not the woman getting sa’d in this scenario, you are the man who winds up with a restraining order, still demanding an explanation from someone who wants to be left alone.

[Luka]

I’m sure I even agree with killing in that situation Matias. Even in a game where antagonism and even competitive antagonism are common, you still shouldn’t be RDMing. Luka is aggressive, and he is antagonistic, but he hasn’t ever killed anyone he’s gotten his hands on, and he wouldn’t because I don’t think it would create a good story if it did.

If we make the rule to be “You can kill people so long as you can come up with a reason for why you killed them” then people will just continue to RDM because it is not at all difficult to pull a casus belli out of your ass at any given moment for any given reason. The onus needs to be on players to not be trying to justify ways to kill people, and instead to be justifying ways to not steer the story in directions where everyone is enjoying the story being told. And if they can’t do that, they need to start trying to figure out how to extract themselves from that story as seamlessly as possible. RDM is not the answer.

[Luka]

Bean, you are a very confusing person. I can tell you’ve formed some sort of storyline in your head about what’s going on here but I can’t for the life of my follow it’s narrative so there isn’t much I can say to you about it. I hope you figure out whatever it is you’re trying to figure out.

[Matias]

Like I said. I think the majority of players will not kill someone they have won over if that person provides RP, communication, and some vulnerability. Give the victor their due. A little acknowledgement of being in a losing position or afraid earns a lot of good will. If you cannot do that to avoid death than its kind of like you are wanting an OOC consensus sanctuary in lieu of a mechanical sanctuary. Which is fine if that is the way we want to take the game.

[Luka]

I don’t want an OOC consensus sanctuary, I just think PC death should be something treated with more weight and done to support stories. There is a whole load of grey area because “No one can kill anyone ever because mechanics physically restrain you from doing so” and the RDM we’ve got going on right now.

[Luka]

I don’t want an OOC consensus sanctuary, I just think PC death should be something treated with more weight and done to support stories. There is a whole load of grey area BETWEEN* “No one can kill anyone ever because mechanics physically restrain you from doing so” and the RDM we’ve got going on right now.

[Matias]

In the Supernatural world death doesn’t have weight though. Every vampire/werewolf pretty much mercs 1 person a month right? The Hand probably has child slave labor and when the kids get to old they send them off to fae games and then when they are pscyhologically broken they send them to an aslyum with demonborn doctors to feed on their suffering. The Supernatural world is harsh and transactional and no one is safe. That is the scary part. I think the deaths (I know of) have created a lot of fallout RP. It isn’t like everyone went shrug well that happened lets go to happy hour! I think a lot of people have taken the deaths and made lemonade with them.

I still maintain if you do not want to make it ‘easy’ or even ‘desirable’ for someone to kill you. You need to give them a reason not too. That reason is RP. Alternatively if they have killed you without any good reason. Then you know maybe they are a dangerous lunatic and they need to be put down themselves?

[Author]

Posts