Quote from: Kyle AaronYou'll have to ask walkerp about them. He's the one who brought 'em up.

Not me.  That's that blue blob guy just putting words into my mouth based on his own biases.  I said it's easy to be moralistic when you're not hungry.

Quote from: walkerpNot me.  That's that blue blob guy just putting words into my mouth based on his own biases.  I said it's easy to be moralistic when you're not hungry.

Being hungry has nothing to do with tearing someones head off and throatfucking them.

Quote from: Erik BoielleStill - its an interesting line of attack - the vanity press boys are all about really classy games like RaHoWa and Panty Explosion.

Classy.

Come on, Erik! You're a bigger fan of Dogs than me! You know as well as I do that this could be interesting.

Quote from: Pakadefending someone else's right to play a game with content that, though many of us are disgusted by, feel that each table should define their own level of squick isn't okay?

First, I'd never seen the word 'squick' before, and had to look it up on Wikipedia.

Quote from: WikipediaAn element of fanfiction is squick, most often used as a warning to refer to a reader's possible negative reaction to scenes in the text (often sexual) that some might find offensive or distressing. This may include, but is not limited to, incest, BDSM, rape, scat, or torture. The term originated in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.bondage in 1991.[6] Squicks are often listed as a warning in the header of a fanfiction story.

Not sure why we're using such an obscure term in regular conversation...  

Anyway.

Let's keep in mind that we're not talking about consenting adults behind closed doors.  We're talking about:

* A public game demonstration at Gen-Con, the largest Role-playing Game convention in North America.
* A post describing the game / story on RPG.net, the largest public Role-playing Game site on the web.
* Vincent Baker confirmed that "system matters", and his game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which that kind of story would occur

When we're talking about public places, and publishing (both print and online) there are actual laws governing what is, and isn't an acceptable level of obscenity.

The FBI's Anti-obscenity squad was specifically created to accumulate evidence to use against those that produce and distribute criminally obscene content. They have shut down websites that published criminally obscene text stories.

What's criminally obscene content?

Quote from: Washington PostSo what constitutes criminal obscenity, and how does that relate to our first amendment rights? Under current American law, the Miller test is the means by which the courts determine if content is obscene and consequently not eligible for first amendment protection. The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

I'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization.  I mean... how much worse that that could you really get?

Public demos and posts to message boards with that type of content are  against the law.

Quote from: StuartLet's keep in mind that we're not talking about consenting adults behind closed doors.  We're talking about:

* A public game demonstration at Gen-Con, the largest Role-playing Game convention in North America.
* A post describing the game / story on RPG.net, the largest public Role-playing Game site on the web.
* Vincent Baker confirmed that "system matters", and his game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which that kind of story would occur

When we're talking about public places, and publishing (both print and online) there are actual laws governing what is, and isn't an acceptable level of obscenity.

The FBI's Anti-obscenity squad was specifically created to accumulate evidence to use against those that produce and distribute criminally obscene content. They have shut down websites that published criminally obscene text stories.

What's criminally obscene content?



I'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization.  I mean... how much worse that that could you really get?

Public demos and posts to message boards with that type of content are  against the law.

I'd like to see them define the RPG.net "community" as being accepting of neck-rape. I think they'd try to frame it that way as a defense, at least.

Quote from: WarthurI wonder whether many Forge designers worry that there aren't actually enough Narrativists out there to put together all-Narrativist groups, so they slip these mechanics in to tempt the Gamists in and to make them behave once they're there.

I think part of being a "narrativist" is not-being-a-team-player (someone once said "Narrativist is a meaningful designation: it's a *warning* label") ; if you look at the profile*, you see people who are prone to power struggle (and then blame the game) and who seem to have authority issues (the GM-as-tyrant meme).

I don't think those guys 1) have a lot of people they can game regularly with and 2) probably walked out on "good faith" a long time ago (check out some of the attitudes toward competitive play -- especially the asymmetric belief systems).

Given that kind of background, I think Nar folks see gamists as easy-to-manipulate... well, that may be a bit harsh: maybe "easy to align with." After all, if you're playing with someone who slaughters townsfolk for the XP-mechanical-reward, it's clear that they don't care about the in-game action and they might as well be racking up "story points" or whatever.

If you can convince them to play a Nar game, they'll probably play along for in-game points. I'm not sure I'd consider that a "win."

On the other hand, check out their attitude toward Simulationist: people who want immersion and internal game logic: hostility. That's because you can't really fake that stuff and system doesn't cut it either. For most Simulationists, system is all about modeling the character / world... the story and role-playing elements come from the creativity of the people involved.

In short: I completely agree with you: to the extent that forge-derived theory has any applicability at all, it's probably in the narrow space of getting people who care a lot about mechanical benefits to behave the way you want them to.

Cheers,
-E.

*I'm not talking about *you* -- you're an alpha who's well adjusted and certainly not a stereotype in any way.

Quote from: WerekoalaI'd like to see them define the RPG.net "community" as being accepting of neck-rape. I think they'd try to frame it that way as a defense, at least.

Actually, their moderators should have stepped in and shut that thread down after the [offending] post.  Most hosting companies and domain registrars say something similar to:

QuoteNetwork Solutions neither sanctions nor permits any web site content or the transmission of data that contains illegal or obscene material or fosters or promotes illegal activity. Network Solutions reserves the right to immediately suspend or terminate any site or transmission that violates this policy, without prior notice.

Edit:  I should have said offending post -- the first post was fine.

I'm pleased to see that Vincent is directly addressing the issue over on The Forge:

QuoteThanks for asking, Levi.

Before I even start, "rewarded for" isn't really it. Your character doing horrible things and having horrible things done to him has game-mechanical consequences, none of which are unequivocally to your benefit. Not doing horrible things and not having horrible things done to him has game-mechanical consequences too, as (equivocally) beneficial. What you're rewarded for is more complicated than that, and has to do with bargains and ambitions far more than it has to do with doing and done to. Doing and done to is a small piece.

But I'll fully grant that the design creates an atmosphere of brutality. That's on purpose, and that's what I'll tell you why for.

I remember, like, 1995 or whenever, me and Emily coming out of Cutthroat Island with Geena Davis. I was clutching my head. I said, "they'll never, ever, ever let me make a pirate movie. Know why? Because it'd be Reservoir Dogs on a boat." Look at Pirates of the stupid Caribbean, even. There's Elizabeth Swann on board the Black Pearl, and all the pirates are leering and closing around her, and she shouts out "parlay," right? There's a threat there. And we know that in Disney's Caribbean, the threat will never come true, but in my movie, my Reservoir Dogs on a boat? We don't know any such thing. In my movie Elizabeth Swann is in danger. When that scene starts, you in the audience don't know whether this is the scene where I (as writer-director) back away from brutality or the scene where the gloves come off.

And that's how Poison'd works. You can play it like Disney would if you want to - all that means is that every single time, you back away from brutality. I've played the game like that, and it's fine. Nobody wants to go there, so nobody does. The PCs' stats stay more or less how they were at the end of character creation and the reward system tears away on history, bargains and ambitions like it's supposed to. All good.

Or, sometimes, you see the violence implicit as a possibility in a given scene, and you're like, "crap. I knew my character was capable of brutality, and here it comes." Then your pirate's stats destabilize and the reward system tears away on history, bargains and ambitions like it's supposed to anyway. Also all good.

So, that's why. Given that I was going to make a pirate game, it was always going to be a game where rape and torture were on the table, available as elements in the fiction whether you choose to include them directly or leave them implicit.

Followup questions welcome!

-Vincent

That's even lamer than I thought it is.

Which ultimately still amounts to blaming the player, which is directly contradictory to his RPGnet post supporting the notion that "system matters".

Quote from: StuartI'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization.

Probably not, in many or even most jurisdictions...at least on the "how much worse can you get" part. [Lack of intrinsic value, maybe.]

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the content of the AP is irrelevent--heck, I just remembered that I used to read and enjoy S. Clay Wilson's "Captain Pissgums" comics. The only thing I can say at this remove is: (1) if the content's a problem, you don't erase that just by invoking "art" (a point I've made above), and (2) you also don't erase it by invoking "deep meaning" or some other moralizing (probably related to Pierce's comments).

And seriously, what the fuck is up with Baker's hard-on for outdated and primitive Christian theology?

The guy used to be an exorcist. He's exorcising his own demons.

Gotta love spiritual struggle. It produces some great shit!

Quote from: J ArcaneWhich ultimately still amounts to blaming the player, which is directly contradictory to his RPGnet post supporting the notion that "system matters".

There is no contradiction.

It's called "system matters", not "system is all that matters".