Quote from: Kyle AaronOkay, I'll explore that moral issue:
   Should I rape?
No.

Well, that was a profound and memorable experience.

That's pretty funny, too, though.

Quote from: gleichmanSo...

Everyone shows up at Baker's house so they see in what creative ways they can be raped that night? I sense a degree of perversion in that.

Well, like I said, it's definitely disturbing. Maybe it could be perverted, but that's arguable, you'd need context and all that shit.

But to have their characters be the rapists, that's definitely fucked-up.

Quote from: walkerpThey are? I guess I missed that rule. I'm glad that you've decided to tell everyone else how we should play. Man, the double-standards. You guys are just as bad as your "enemies".

I'm quite happy for others to tell me how to play. I may or may not follow their suggestions, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a person saying, "you should play like this!"

I'll just assess their advice on its merits. That they told me how to play isn't a problem; the actual manner they told me to play in may or may not be a problem.

Here's the way I'll tell you to play:

• Your characters should be the ones whose actions determine how the events go along. This may or may not be how they intended things to go, but there should be a cause and effect. Thus, no railroading, GMPCs hogging the action, etc.
  
• Your characters should be relatively good people. That's relatively.

The relative goodness is the important thing. Michael Corleone is relatively good compared to his hot-headed brother or his treacherous brother, and relatively good compared to his "business rivals". But he still ends up doing bad things, it all comes back to him. He's not murderous for the sake of it. He doesn't go "woohoo, cool!" He's an adult, not an adolescent. His is an interesting story because it shows that trying to be the best of a bad lot, you still end up fucking everything up. It all comes back and destroys him, not in some abstract afterlife that we won't have to see, but here and now - holding his dead daughter in his arms at the steps of the opera. It would be interesting to roleplay a guy like that.

Whereas it would not be interesting to roleplay Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

Pure evil is not very interesting. It's quite banal. I recall that while the FBI was looking for the Green River murderer, they interviewed the condemned serial killer Ted Bundy. Now, what they told Bundy was that as a killer and a psychologist they valued his insight into the Green River killer, they wanted his help in catching him. That's obviously what Silence of the Lambs was based on. But the reality was different to the fiction. In the fiction, the imprisoned killer was actually useful. In reality, Ted Bundy gave no useful insights and was no help in catching the other killer. They knew and expected that, they were just using the issue to pump up his big ego so they could get him to confess to other killings he'd done and reveal where the victims' bodies were. And one thing the cops said about talking to him was that you got over the initial shock of him talking about fucking putrefying corpses, he was actually a pretty boring guy. Really full of himself.

Pure evil in fact gives you no interesting or useful insights, except into that particular instance of pure evil. Pure evil is not exciting. Pure evil is not cool. Pure evil is not badarsed. Pure evil is banal, ultimately boring and self-absorbed. Pure evil is for wankers.

What's interesting is the evil that people do when they're trying to be good, or when they try to compromise. Michael Corleone failed because he compromised. "They keep draggin' me back in!" Earlier in his life he had a choice as to whether to join "the family business." He chose to join it, "just for a little bit... in five years, the family will be completely legit." Now that's interesting.

It was interesting because it was a genuine choice. "Will I stay uninvolved and not do evil, or will I help the family in time of conflict?" That's a real choice, that's a dilemma. Interesting stories, and interesting roleplaying game campaigns, come about from those sorts of choices. "Will I go when the light is green or just sit here?" is not an interesting choice. "Will I save the baby from drowning, or stand there laughing?" is also not an interesting choice. "Will I save the princess, or save the kingdom?" is interesting. The key issue is that the stakes involved in the choice must be significant, and there must be a reasonable argument for each choice.

Pure evil is banal, and an interest in it is puerile. That's because it's not a real choice. "Will you molest this murdered child's corpse?" is not a real choice. Either you are a sick fuck and automatically say, "yes!" or you're a normal person and say, "why am I even being asked this question? What the FUCK?!"

I mean, honestly, we're not really talking about evil people here. We're talking about these guys.


I mean, this is not a profound thing we're talking about, as much as Baker wants to dress it up as a Special Private Experience We All Shared And Afterwards We Had Hoagies.

Again, whatever the Forgers at rpg.net are saying, we can't say anything about Poison'd itself. We haven't seen it, so we can't judge it as good or as bad in any way. But we can certainly judge the play reports, which are seriously fucked-up and adolescent. Now, according to Baker himself, that's come straight from the game book. So Baker would condemn or praise the system as producing that sort of play. I wouldn't. If your game is fucked-up, it's because of you. If your game is great, it's because of you. Baker doesn't want to admit this because no game designer is keen on the idea that they're the least important part of whether people have fun.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat's interesting is the evil that people do when they're trying to be good, or when they try to compromise.

And what makes you think that this isn't perfectly possible in Poison'd?

Because Poison'd encourages fucked up stuff.


 Zheesh!!


 After TWO threads or more that should be obvious by now.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarBecause Poison'd encourages fucked up stuff.

Yeah, but you the player gets to define what's fucked up stuff.  That's relative to the people playing it.  If Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?

Quote from: KoltarBecause Poison'd encourages fucked up stuff.


 Zheesh!!


 After TWO threads or more that should be obvious by now.

Consider this. Your graying sailor may have done some disagreeable things in the past, but he's a changed man now: for long months he's been trying to stay on the straight and narrow, never hurting anyone, never soiling his soul, and desperately trying to find the courage to leave the pirate's life at the next port, or at the very least the one after that, for good. But at the moment the Navy is closing in on your ship, and the only one who could get you all to safety is the first mate, who really is pure evil on peglegs. He just might save the whole crew... if you agree to do whatever he says is necessary. How much of your noble ideals are you willing to risk if it takes a compromise to reach a safe harbour?

I think there were rapes by the dozen in my friend Colin's 'Psycho Bikers' GURPS campaign.

Quote from: droogI think there were rapes by the dozen in my friend Colin's 'Psycho Bikers' GURPS campaign.

One more thread and it will be obvious to Koltar!

You don't think it would be fun to play Darth Vader?  Or Lord Humongous?

Quote from: GrimGentAnd what makes you think that this isn't perfectly possible in Poison'd?

I didn't say it wasn't. In fact, I said:

Again, whatever the Forgers at rpg.net are saying, we can't say anything about Poison'd itself. We haven't seen it, so we can't judge it as good or as bad in any way. But we can certainly judge the play reports [...] If your game is fucked-up, it's because of you.

Conversations always go more smoothly when you read what people are actually saying.

Quote from: GunslingerIf Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?

Not mine, no. But that's because I think that System Doesn't Matter That Much, Really. Not compared to who you're playing with. People matter - system, not so much.

And that's actually the point of the thread, way back a zillion posts ago. That the Forgers - not Baker himself, but the apologists - say, "System Does Matter... well, unless it's one of our systems and you do it "wrong", then it's your fault."

Quote from: GunslingerYeah, but you the player gets to define what's fucked up stuff.  That's relative to the people playing it.  If Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?

I'd certainly consider Steve Jackson sick, and I'd likely stop buying his products as a result (easy enough, GURPS sucks anyway).

But there's a serious difference here, Steve Jackson didn't design his game mechanics to encourage that type of play. Baker did. And he's gloating about it.

I suppose that's true, though. We might not be able to judge a system based on what a few drooling fanboys say about it, but it's probably fair to judge it based on what the authour says about it. And Baker says his system "at least contributed to" the fucked-up play, and that that's a good thing.

I dunno, really. I think he's probably giving himself too much credit or blame. I mean, it doesn't matter what the system is, it's just not going to occur to most players to murder a child, cut off his head and molest his corpse. It just wouldn't pop into their head. At least FATAL gave you charts and tables for that sort of thing to inspire you. Baker expects you to come up with sick shit all by yourself.

Quote from: Kyle AaronConversations always go more smoothly when you read what people are actually saying.

I suspect that paragraph was edited in after I quoted the message for the reply: at the time, it ended at "Hoagies." In any case, it's been obvious for quite a while now that there's more to the game than random mayhem, and that the PC options aren't limited to playing evil bastards.

Quote from: GunslingerYeah, but you the player gets to define what's fucked up stuff.  

That's relative to the people playing it.
 If Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?

 Aw Fuck!!

 Now we're back into moral relativism shit again.

1) No it ISN'T RELATIVE to the people playing it.  - If your system seems to encourage sick shit...then thats what you get. Baker even appeared to brag about it afterwards.


2) I've met Steve Jackson  years ago at a con where I was working  security.("Klingons" get asked to work security quite often over the years) He would never describe crap like that - Hell, his version of "Pirates" are the Lego kind or the romantocized kind.


3) GURPS has already done a "Pirates" book  - its called SWASHBUCKLERS.


...and again , as someone else pointed out, even "real pirates" had standards and codes among themselves. They weren't Quentin Tarantino criminals with codenames.  Brutal bastards of the kind that Baker seems to think they were arent the type to set up compacts and ship's articles of agreement - which real pirates DID.

Even current day  prison convicts have a line that they won't cross - they did in Jeffrey Dahmer because they couldn't stand what he had done.


- Ed C.

Quote from: GrimGentI suspect that paragraph was edited in after I quoted the message for the reply: at the time, it ended at "Hoagies." In any case, it's been obvious for quite a while now that there's more to the game than random mayhem, and that the PC options aren't limited to playing evil bastards.

I'm unclear - are you accusing Kyle of editing his post so it would look good to respond to you that way?

I that's the case, I have to say I seem to remember Kyle's post exactly as he quoted it here downthread....