PDA

View Full Version : As a player, should I hold back doing 'cool' move instead of a 'rational' move?



Garwain
2011-05-31, 06:47 AM
Doing something in character that might not always be the best rational choice, but will be so much fun if it works, is appealing to me. I rather take my chances even though sometimes they are less than 50% just because that option is so much cooler than the standard (prudent) one. But doing so, I introduce an element of risk for my character and thus the whole party. Last session, I had a great daring plan, but didn't execute it and we went for the rational (boring) plan. A few days later, I'm still regretting not pushing my idea through.

What happened:
4 kobolds and their pet were on lower grounds, 20 feet below. The sneaky types of the group did some good hide and move silently checks to get a look over the edge down. I'm playing the Cleric in medium armor, so naturally, I suck at sneaking. My plan was to run to the edge, jump down onto a kobold and whack it in the process. The others would make a surprise round shooting/sneaking at the others. The DM allowed my daring plan. With a bit of luck, most of the kobolds would be down before they knew what happened.

The rest of the group decided that I wasn't in the shape of doing stunts and preferred to all get into position, lean over the edge and start shooting. With cover and all that, it was a good plan. I did failed the move silently checks, we lost the surprise round, the pet was released but we nailed them anyway, because, yeh, we rock.

So we were alright, survived etc. But still I'm left with the naggin feeling what would have happened if.... So my question to the board: should I have pushed on my idea and do something daring, against the better judgement? Because frankly, next time, I'll jump....

Tengu_temp
2011-05-31, 06:57 AM
It depends heavily on the group and DM. Some DMs reward doing the cool but reckless thing, some penalize it. Personally, I'm in the reward camp - it's much more fun than playing it safe.

lady_arrogance
2011-05-31, 07:02 AM
I'd say there is two factors in this problem.

First is, that who much of tactical gaming versus role-playing your group is doing? If you are tactics-heavy, and lighter side on RP, then you could at least to inform your fellow players, that you are going to do something not-so-safe.

Second is your character. Is s/he prone to thinking ahead, or will s/he rush into fight even if it's not the best option available?

And you should also ask your fellow players, that do they mind, if you continue to risk whole party for sake of fun/cool...

RebelRogue
2011-05-31, 07:20 AM
My group has a basic way of determining courses of action: Would it look good in a movie? If the answer is yes, do it!

Morph Bark
2011-05-31, 07:22 AM
It depends heavily on the group and DM. Some DMs reward doing the cool but reckless thing, some penalize it. Personally, I'm in the reward camp - it's much more fun than playing it safe.

I find it even worse when DMs outright have the cool action not work at all. In the only 4E campaign I was in, I tried my best to come up with cool stuff to do and resolve conflicts in different ways, but it never worked.

DeadManSleeping
2011-05-31, 07:59 AM
If your group says "no", they mean it. Keep asking for chances to do cool things, and you'll probably get some. However, if they like their tactics, do tactics. It's all about everyone having fun, and it's a lot less fun when people are grumbling about losing a health potion because somebody wouldn't play it safe.

Serpentine
2011-05-31, 08:07 AM
As already said, it depends a lot on group and circumstances, but personally: Cool every time.
In fact, I so wish my players would get more creative that I give them "Cool Points" for doing something awesome*.


*Also for cooperation, and clever use of skills, spells and abilities.

Seb Wiers
2011-05-31, 08:40 AM
One person's cool move is anothers spot light hogging. If your character isn't good at something, and others have a plan that will work that makes use of talents they ARE good at, you should let them carry it out. There's plenty of cool movies with stealthy ambush scenes, right?

Jay R
2011-05-31, 08:44 AM
First, find out how your DM feels about cool moves. Some people think they're dumb, and punish you for them. If your DM is in that group, drop the idea.

Then find out how the party feels about it. They don't get a veto, but they should have input, since they are sharing at least some of the risk.

Then, if it's worth trying in this campaign at all, there are four factors to consider in each specific case:
1. What's the probability of failure without the cool move?
2. What's the probability of failure with the cool move?
3. What's the penalty of failure? (Are you risking having to take an extra day to renew health and spells, or are you risking a TPK?)
4. What difference is there between winning with the rational tactic and winning with the cool move? (Will it potentially save more lives, or impress the princess, or build your heroic reputation?)

Then you make a judgment call each time based on the above.

Just_Ice
2011-05-31, 08:46 AM
(singing (badly)) DEEEEPEEENNNNDDDDSSS ONNNN THEEEE DMMMMMM ANNNDDDD YOURRRR PAAAAARTTTYYYYYY (/singing)

Some DMs are just boring as heck. There's not much to be done about it.

manyslayer
2011-05-31, 09:03 AM
Echoing the "depends on the DM/group" I'd also say it depends on the system. Some games are easier to do cool stuff (and some actually reward cool stuff) so that can also be a factor. But, as with so much, it all comes down to the DM/group.

I like cool stuff but it has to reasonably have a chance to work. Jumping off the 20 story building to land on the mook, while it might kill the mook, will also kill your 3rd level rogue (but I will give you sneak attack damage).

Conversely, if you pull off a cool move, I grant bonuses to effects and subsequent NPC reaction. In my last campaign (Spelljammer) had a sorcerer that swung across ship-to-ship to jump into a companionway and throw a bomb at the chain fighter locking down their main melee combat character. He had no proficiency with firearms (including bombs), no rope use, no jump and no tumble skill. Rolled a 19 to swing across, 20 to land where he wanted, and, while he missed the bomb throw, it scattered right to place the enemy in the blast. Granted a cool bonus to the save DC for the bomb and none of the NPC crew doubt that the sorcerer can do what he says he can now. Was it a good idea for him to try this? No. Was it cool? Absolutely (since it worked).

LrdoftheRngs
2011-05-31, 09:09 AM
Personally as a DM, I heavily encourage my players to do "cool" things, because the objective of D&D is, overall, to have fun. I will often give these acts "Rule of Cool" bonuses. However, I also play by the "if it's innovative enough, let it work/ give it a better chance of working" rule.

jpreem
2011-05-31, 09:12 AM
Lee-e--e-e-e-roy Jenkins! All the way!

Mastikator
2011-05-31, 09:39 AM
I'd like to say "yes", but the thing is, people aren't rational, PC's aren't different. Instead, do what seems reasonable to the PC.

Tengu_temp
2011-05-31, 10:16 AM
One person's cool move is anothers spot light hogging. If your character isn't good at something, and others have a plan that will work that makes use of talents they ARE good at, you should let them carry it out. There's plenty of cool movies with stealthy ambush scenes, right?

I played with a guy who complained that he gets no spotlight, even though he was given plenty of opportunities to use his character's unique talents and often ignored them, and shown very little initiative in other situations. If Player X complains that Player Y steals too much spotlight, and it's not because Player Y has an overpowered build or is favored by the DM but because he comes up with interesting and cool things more often, than most of the time Player X can only blame himself.

Delwugor
2011-05-31, 05:26 PM
The Rule of Cool reigns supreme for me, even if it doesn't for the GM.
The negative result of this comes when a GM says "No". I often want to do things no matter what, my character may fail, he may fail miserably but I want him to at least attempt it.

As a GM the Rule of Cool reigns supreme no matter what.

Garwain
2011-06-01, 01:59 AM
I played with a guy who complained that he gets no spotlight, even though he was given plenty of opportunities to use his character's unique talents and often ignored them, and shown very little initiative in other situations. If Player X complains that Player Y steals too much spotlight, and it's not because Player Y has an overpowered build or is favored by the DM but because he comes up with interesting and cool things more often, than most of the time Player X can only blame himself.
Thanks for the input guys. I did not consider the 'stealing the spotlight' aspect. Maybe I was more concerned about MY cool move. I know I can get excited when I'm convinced my idea will work, that's why I held back, and rolled with the party plan. And that's why i'm left with an unsatisfied feeling. To get into the spotlight, you have to grab it actively, and I'll do that next time I'm afraid.

Knaight
2011-06-01, 02:11 AM
I'd call this genre dependent more than anything. If the group is trying to play a high flying wuxia campaign, its cool move time. If they are trying to play a gritty sword and sorcery game, it is not cool move time.

Totally Guy
2011-06-01, 02:58 AM
I'm in two minds about this...

On the one hand I think that the existance of optimal choices are detrimental to roleplaying:

"Should I heal the warrior or kill the orc to avenge my family?" - That's an interesting choice.
"Should I heal the warrior and kill the orc to avenge my family?" - A choice with an optimal solution is not really a choice at all.

But on the other hand I appreciate that games and players tend to expect sub-optimal choices to be made occasionally.

"We bury him in his armour. He deserves his dignity in the grave" - That's good play but can also be considered a sub-optimal decision.

I like games that offer a metagame reward currency so that a rational player that makes optimal choices will produce fictionally sub-optimal results, like burying a friend in his armour.

averagejoe
2011-06-01, 03:37 AM
Thanks for the input guys. I did not consider the 'stealing the spotlight' aspect. Maybe I was more concerned about MY cool move. I know I can get excited when I'm convinced my idea will work, that's why I held back, and rolled with the party plan. And that's why i'm left with an unsatisfied feeling. To get into the spotlight, you have to grab it actively, and I'll do that next time I'm afraid.

Well, there are ways to do stuff without grabbing the spotlight. For example, one campaign I was in we were supposed to go into this mansion and rescue someone. I convinced everyone that we had to make a dramatic surprise entrance by busting through the ceiling. But the thing is, everyone got to bust through the ceiling together, and everyone got to feel really cool while doing. (Well, okay, it actually ended up taking a few more rounds to bust through than I'd hoped. Which alerted the guys inside and made the fight much harder for us. So it wasn't, "Cool," so much as it was, "Terrible." Ah, well, I regret nothing.)

Serpentine
2011-06-01, 04:04 AM
I like games that offer a metagame reward currency so that a rational player that makes optimal choices will produce fictionally sub-optimal results, like burying a friend in his armour.As well as my aforementioned Cool Points, I give substantial Roleplaying Experience bonuses for players who roleplay to their (mechanical and/or metagame) disadvantage.
So if you do something really really cool, that's perfectly in-character to do, you'll be rollin' in it :smallcool:

Totally Guy
2011-06-01, 04:21 AM
As well as my aforementioned Cool Points, I give substantial Roleplaying Experience bonuses for players who roleplay to their (mechanical and/or metagame) disadvantage.
So if you do something really really cool, that's perfectly in-character to do, you'll be rollin' in it :smallcool:

And your players know you do that?

I was suprised a few weeks back when a GM gave me some bonus Karma in a Shadowrun session for helping a contact with no expectation of reward. I think I would have preferred to know it upfront.

I'd like to experiment with bonus points being a team resource so that it'd never look selfish when one player risks a team asset for personal characterisation.

Serpentine
2011-06-01, 04:28 AM
And your players know you do that?Sure. I even ask anyone hanging around afterwards to jog my memory of what they think happened that game that might deserve it.
I wish they'd take advantage of it more often :smallsigh: The best at it was my ex, and he's long gone. He once cashed in a bunch of Cool Points to make a door he nicked be magical...

Necroticplague
2011-06-01, 05:18 AM
I'm a bit odd on this. I like doing the "cool" thing, but I'm a defensive type person who prefers to not take risks. I usually find a comfortable middle ground by getting regeneration that's hard to beat, which gives me an excuse to live through all kinds of stupid-but-awesome acts. Like the below example.

In a game, we had been captured by some kind of feral drider gang, and my character bargained his life for the release of his teammates. The driders try to interrogate my character, who makes it such a pain for them that they resort to tearing my character's arm off. They then taunt me with it, much hand puns were made. They get bored, and throw my arm at me. My response?" I reattach my arm to my socket, then flip them off with it."

Kurald Galain
2011-06-01, 06:31 AM
It depends heavily on the group and DM. Some DMs reward doing the cool but reckless thing, some penalize it. Personally, I'm in the reward camp - it's much more fun than playing it safe.
This. Also, I'm strongly in favor of RPGs where cool actions get a bonus to succeed.

Nero24200
2011-06-01, 07:21 AM
I prefer "You can do cool stuff, but it will be as hard as realisticly expected (or as realisitic as a fantasy game can get)". If someone wants to do a diving charge off of a 60ft high cliff onto a foe below I'll let them, but they'll still take the falling damage unless they have a way to negate it.

And well....at the end of the day, if the damage doesn't kill you and the fight's over theres little to worry about, so this option really comes across as "Sure, but if it could kill you that risk remains".

Jay R
2011-06-01, 08:35 AM
If the others in your party get annoyed at you stealing the spotlight by doing cool stuff that might kill your character, there's an easy solution.

Just invent cool stuff for them to do, that might kill their characters.

In the cause of fairness, I am more than willing to risk the lives of their characters instead of my own.

Knaight
2011-06-01, 08:42 AM
I prefer "You can do cool stuff, but it will be as hard as realisticly expected (or as realisitic as a fantasy game can get)". If someone wants to do a diving charge off of a 60ft high cliff onto a foe below I'll let them, but they'll still take the falling damage unless they have a way to negate it."

What works really well here is to use genre appropriateness as a gauge of difficulty. For instance, in my Archipelago's game, putting your rifle between a couple of rocks, poking the slightest bit of your head above them, and taking an aimed shot is a very easy and safe action, because that is how that incarnation of that setting rolls. In my Alchemquest game, which is the same setting in a different incarnation, jumping over the rocks wearing a gas mask while your friend triggers an alchemical array that turns all the nitrogen in the opponents position into chlorine, then cutting people down with your tungsten coated sword is easy, because that is how that incarnation of the setting rolls. In the Archipelago, taking the Alchemquest attempted action is suicide, and even if you have someone with alchemical capabilities they probably don't have the power to pull that off, though traps in advance are very common. In Alchemquest, taking the action described in Archipelago is nigh useless, because taking pot shots behind cover is simply not how that incarnation works.

valadil
2011-06-01, 08:43 AM
I tend towards cool if it's in character. Some of my characters would pole vault over the fire, others wouldn't even think of it. I guess I try to think of how cool the character thinks it is and use that instead of my own opinion.

Conners
2011-06-01, 09:48 AM
I'm of the opinion that rationality should be present--but well-done "cool" moments should also be allowed.

Example: Someone is playing a clumsy, comic-relief character. When they are being confronted by the BBEG, the comic-relief character steps forward, trips, then tumbles right into the BBEG, as their RP.
Now, should you say, "the guards surround and kill you, the end" to that player...? I'd find that terrible discouragement towards RPing. You will be shaping your players into munchkins who only do what makes them win!

What I feel you should do, is give a plausible but not necessarily bad response. In the given situation, it might work out to let the Comic-Relief character tumble onto your BBEG, then hold him hostage. But if it doesn't... have the BBEG and his guards side-step just in time to dodge the living projectile. The BBEG can find them so pitiful that they ignore them, for now. Then, you could continue the fight planned as before, except the comic character is in a different position.

Of course, if someone just says, "I jump into the pit of spikes, because I can take it... I have a lot of HP" that is NOT RPing.... Let them have the full, brutal reality of what they just did.


EDIT: Come to think of it, this was about what a Player should do... really depends on your GM. If he goes with my mentality as above, then I suggest doing cool RPing type things when a good chance presents itself. If they're very grim... I wouldn't suggest it, for love of your characters.

Asgardian
2011-06-01, 10:08 AM
Keep making the suggestions but remember the group rule is law

Besides... if you always do the cool thing.. its no longer special and just becomes standard fare

Just_Ice
2011-06-01, 10:19 AM
Oh, and don't forget to help set-up teammates for cool moves. People are definitely more tolerant of yours when you enable theirs.

Earthwalker
2011-06-01, 10:27 AM
I am agreeing with alot of posts so far. Depends on the group and system. This kind of thing is best sorted out before the game / campaign starts.

DnD maybe not so much (tho it can be done)
Torg in the the Nile Empire I would say cool moves have to be done.

mathemagician
2011-06-01, 10:39 AM
But doing so, I introduce an element of risk for my character and thus the whole party.

Well, I'm unlike the rest of the posts it seems, when I, as a player, am against this, and not only because it may be spotlight hogging. Unless I'm playing a very competitive character that is always looking for his companions to outdo him so he can outdo them, it jars me from my character and party cohesion...

My line of thinking is as follows, which is not based on my life, so don't read into it.

As a person, I take risks, no doubt. I have friends who drive like maniacs, and I do not feel safe in a car with them. I would never rely on them to be my only ride home from the bar; that's an unnecessary risk, especially given their history.

Unless there's a very, very compelling story reason why your character and my character must stay in the party for the rest of time, it makes no sense why my character would continually let your character unnecessarily risk his life; as you said your actions directly put the party in more danger.

If there's a good risk and a tangible reward scenario, ok, it makes sense, your character is inclined to feats of daring. But if it's just to be cool, it makes me think "Our characters are in the same party because we are sitting at the same table, no other reason".

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 10:48 AM
For me, to do the "cool" is all about the RP.

Don't worry about if it's 'cool' or 'safe', worry about building your character's persona and work with that. If characters are played well, then reasons to be together should flow naturally, and what you do and don't do should as well.

Play your character, and after a while the party should know what to expect and how to work to each person's strengths/tendencies/etc.

If you find yourself changing what you want to do, then you aren't really playing the character you want to be playing, and that doesn't sound much fun to me.

wayfare
2011-06-01, 10:49 AM
Well...

1) You are playing with a group, so keep that in mind

but

2) If you are not having fun, then why bother playing at all

I am playing a weaponsmith in an earthdawn game. I have crummy dexterity, since it wasn't listed in the list o' things that weaponsmiths need to be good at their jobs. As a consequence, I am crummy at combat (easily hit, rarely hit opponents). And our campaign revolves around combat -- specifically, fighting horrors.

To make matters worse, our game takes place in a very concentrated time line. We rarely, if ever, have downtime. I need downtime to use my signature ability "forge blade," at least 1 week of downtime to use it once.

Essentially, the only contribution i can make to the game is "random cool stuff." So, my character is a scholar, and a negotiator, and a magical philosopher (despite not being a spellcaster) who is recruiting the greatest minds across Baersaive (the campaign setting) to create a living airship. In the process, he is creating trade routes with the purpose of unifying the country against invasion.

So, yeah, whatever gets you though the session.

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 11:14 AM
A lot of this goes back to why character creation is one of the most important things ever. Do it as a group. As a DM, tell your players some vital facts about the world/campaign (like say, "no downtime" or "lots of combat") so they can plan accordingly. In your example, I'd be pissed at the DM. It's cool if you want to make a weaponsmith with crappy dex in a combat-heavy campaign to see how you do and explore the RP. It sucks if you're forced to not play/explore the character you wanted (a low-dex weaponsmith with a neat forge ability) because the DM failed to tell you "oh btw, COMBAT HEAVY".

ClockShock
2011-06-01, 11:57 AM
There's a Giant article with a similar vein to this:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

I don't think you should have done differently.
The key part here is getting talked out of things. As long as you're being given a reasonable opportunity to express your (potentially) suicidal plans, and the party has a valid argument against it, you're doing ok.
You still get to define your character, and people won't be surprised when situation gives you complete control over a decision.

Loki_42
2011-06-01, 02:01 PM
In the OP's case, I kind of don't get it. What he was doing actually was a pretty good plan. He was really just playing to strengths in order to maximize the potential for success, he was just doing it in a cool way. He would be able to do something neat, and the Sneak Attackers still got to Sneak Attack. What's irrational about that?

averagejoe
2011-06-01, 02:47 PM
I have to say, I'm kind of dubious about systems that reward, "Cool," stuff. I'll admit I've never played one, but it seems like if the out of game rewards aren't good enough to risk potential in-game disaster, it wasn't very cool to begin with. "Cool," isn't something that can be artificially fabricated; it's about how the people playing the game react as much as it's about the in-game characters. I suppose you could use stuff like this to set up a more cinematic game, or something, but if the reason you do something cool is to get in-game rewards, it was never cool.

Hazzardevil
2011-06-01, 03:17 PM
I played an Iron Golem and tryed doing some cool things.

1. I was in a party with a Beholder and shot a crossbow bolt so it went between 2 eyestalks and hit a wall.
The players and the DM didn't like this, so nobody let me get unchained from a wall, so I think they were planning on doing a runner and abandoning me.

2. We were in a wagon and I didn't relise I wasn't unchained. I said my golem broke a hole in the ceiling and then full attacked with both crossbows on something.
Nodody liked that and then the whole game died.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-01, 03:35 PM
I have to say, I'm kind of dubious about systems that reward, "Cool," stuff. I'll admit I've never played one, but it seems like if the out of game rewards aren't good enough to risk potential in-game disaster, it wasn't very cool to begin with. "Cool," isn't something that can be artificially fabricated; it's about how the people playing the game react as much as it's about the in-game characters. I suppose you could use stuff like this to set up a more cinematic game, or something, but if the reason you do something cool is to get in-game rewards, it was never cool.

You'd be surprised. When you play a game like Spirit of the Century, everyone is always trying their best to do cool stuff - they're not forcing it, it comes naturally. This is because the players know they can let loose, that the system won't punish them for doing cool things but the opposite, reward them, and this motivation gives a huge boost to creativity. At the same time, a game where you have to be extremely careful and worry about many factors, or else you might end up dead instantly, and where doing the cool but reckless thing gives you penalties and no bonuses, will be a huge discouragement to the same people. After several attempts they will just stop trying and focus on playing it safe instead. And in most cases, playing it safe is very boring.

jseah
2011-06-01, 04:15 PM
And in most cases, playing it safe is very boring.
Really? Then all those people playing it as safe as possible in various RTS and strategy games must not be having fun.

By giving the game strategic depth and making application of tactics a *very* important part of the game, you can make playing it safe fun, because you don't know what you just did was the "safest" and you can't tell because you don't know everything.
More importantly, even the "safest" route can fail, and you have to "do all the running you can just to stay in the same place" and not die.

DontEatRawHagis
2011-06-01, 04:24 PM
I have to say rewarding reckless action with in-game perks is a good way to keep players happy in my group. In Serenity and Spycraft 2.0 our GMs both decided to give us points(serenity has it already in the game). I stayed in character for the most part in both campaigns and have been rewarded pretty well.

In Spycraft 2.0 I was the only person on a solo mission so I slipped a piece of paper to the GM describing how I monologued at Major Awesome, I set fire to a parade float of Lincoln and called for the downfall of Capitalism then was air lifted onto an Apache helicopter. The resulting reward allowed me to get a few perks, which I didn't use at all.

Totally Guy
2011-06-01, 04:24 PM
Turtling is one mode of gaming I just can't stand to do.

There was one time when we were in a cyberpunk game trying to find a way through a maze without a military spec robotic bee getting us. The solution we came up with was moving around under the cover of a bathtub... quite literally turtling.

I considered leaving that game.

But then I re-evaluated my play style and changed how I acted.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-01, 04:46 PM
Really? Then all those people playing it as safe as possible in various RTS and strategy games must not be having fun.

RPGs are not video games and I don't really play them for strategic challenge. And yes, I consider turtling in RTSes pretty boring too.

averagejoe
2011-06-01, 04:51 PM
You'd be surprised. When you play a game like Spirit of the Century, everyone is always trying their best to do cool stuff - they're not forcing it, it comes naturally. This is because the players know they can let loose, that the system won't punish them for doing cool things but the opposite, reward them, and this motivation gives a huge boost to creativity. At the same time, a game where you have to be extremely careful and worry about many factors, or else you might end up dead instantly, and where doing the cool but reckless thing gives you penalties and no bonuses, will be a huge discouragement to the same people. After several attempts they will just stop trying and focus on playing it safe instead. And in most cases, playing it safe is very boring.

I see what you're saying, and not disagreeing, but, as the person who regularly DM's for my group, I think those moments when I get to say, "Okay, there are no rules to deal with this/the rules are against you, but that idea was too cool not to work," are pretty rewarding for me, and for the group as a whole. I guess I'm somewhat afraid that such things would lose their whimsy spontaneity. I'm not saying that such mechanics would never work (heck, I'm pretty lucky to play with the people I do, and I might just be spoiled in terms of players who are willing to get into the game). I'm not even saying I'd never try one. In fact, now that I think about it, saying, "This game mechanic encourages you to have fun, and I find that suspicious," is kind of a ridiculous stance for me to take.

jseah
2011-06-02, 06:18 AM
RPGs are not video games and I don't really play them for strategic challenge. And yes, I consider turtling in RTSes pretty boring too.
Turtling in rtses usually isn't the safest route, most rtses are balanced to make turtling lose.
Not to disagree that alot of non-good players use it.

But you see, some people do play RPGs to solve the worlds' problems. Emphasis on the solve. And finding what the safest route is can be challenge unto itself, much less treading it.

Qwertystop
2011-06-02, 10:49 AM
"I reattach my arm to my socket, then flip them off with it."


Can I sig?