Quote from: gleichmanA very poor answer this. What am I to make of it?

I see three options

I see at least one other option:  David's positions are sufficiently nuanced that rewriting them in concise form would be an effort ... and he doesn't feel like doing you any favors.

To be fair, you're really not projecting an internet persona that's likely to make people want to do you favors.  Somebody blowing you off is not necessarily a sign that they're acting in bad faith ... it might just be a sign that they don't like you very much.

Quote from: David RAnyone who has read my posts here or there (tBP) know that gleichman's options are all wrong.

Regards,
David R

 I DID read several of David R.'s posts over there. Not sure exactly where he stands in some ways - but his posts were some of more reasonable ones over there. He did seem to be calling people on their shit , tho.

 I have to stop posting over there for awhile I guess, Nina the mod is giving me warnings in PMs and on the public side.


- Ed C.

You can explore complex issues in a sensitive, mature way with some forms of expression (if you like, some forms of "Art"), but only in a very cursory and possibly exploitive or immature way with other forms of expression.

It's unquestionable that you'll be able to explore an issue more sensitively and maturely if take the time to think about the issue, do your research, talk to you collaborators, and get advice from others.  This would be the approach for writing a novel, or a play, or a screenplay.  That's not the same approach for improvisation though.  With improv you can't tackle an issue with the same degree of depth and sensitivity, but it's great for improving your problem solving skills and being more creative.*

If I were asked to put on a performance about "family violence" or "racism" I certainly wouldn't consider doing it through improv.  The outcome would be trite at best, and offensive at worst.

So the increased improvisation that's a key aspect of many Storytelling games is not in fact more likely to deal with issues in a mature, sensitive way.  It's actually a bit ironic that the technique most likely to deal with issues more maturely is exactly the technique most derided by many current RPG designers and players: removing the improvisation and using pre-scripted (or at least pre-plotted) events and narrative.  In short:  "Railroading".  

Just like Dragonlance.

And really, you can fault the Dragonlance era of D&D for changing the game and removing player choice, but what you can't really fault it for is the author(s) attempts to deal with moral issues in a (somewhat) more sensitive and mature manner.

Very interesting...

* I studied Film & Theatre in University, and have done a fair bit of acting -- both on stage in front of an audience, as well as doing improv and theatre sports type activities (in the same vein as "Who's Line is it Anyway").  So I'm basing this on actual academics and experience.  I know that sort of thing is very important to some folk.

Quote from: David RI participated in the Poison'd thread (tBP) and my views are there, am I on the hostile/degenerate gamer list too, James?

Regards,
David R

I have a list? I was unaware. Perhaps you mixed my post up?

I was simply informing Tony that if he wants to respond to me I prefer he do it in public.  Also, that if he can't find a way to point at that AP and be appalled, we probably have too little in common to continue to try to find common ground on topics.

If you can't point at that AP thread and see the infantile stupidity and the faux-poseur-loo-at-us-explore-rape, I'm sad for you.  And if you can't see how it totally undermines one of the foundations of GNS/TBM, then we'll never find common ground on the usefulness/uselessness of that those theories. However, since you don't want to discuss it here (fair enough, I've had just about enough of the topic...almost), I don't know.

If you participated in the AP, then yes, you are degenerate, IMHO.  If not, why would I put you on that list?  Hell, Tony's not even on that list - even though I do think he is/was being disengenuous with this poll. Though I do find his inability to judge people as having gone too far for particpating in that kind of masturbatory emotourist S&M porn to be a weakness, I doubt he loses sleep over it.

Quote from: James J SkachI have a list? I was unaware. Perhaps you mixed my post up?

Guess I did. I thought the in thing now was making list of folks to ignore.

QuoteIf you can't point at that AP thread and see the infantile stupidity and the faux-poseur-loo-at-us-explore-rape, I'm sad for you.  And if you can't see how it totally undermines one of the foundations of GNS/TBM, then we'll never find common ground on the usefulness/uselessness of that those theories. However, since you don't want to discuss it here (fair enough, I've had just about enough of the topic...almost), I don't know.

Well I noticed some of the posing, some interesting comments and some shitstirring on the tBP AP thread. As far as theory talk - James it's me, I don't really give a shit about that, although I do admit, I thought Gleichman's OP about "the Forge having it both ways" thread did have some interesting possibilities in terms of theory talk in the few opening posts at least.

Regards,
David R

Stuart, I think that's a great observation. I like how you used the improv acting analogy to actually explain your stance in a much clearer way than the

QuoteRPGs are for fun, dumbass, and a bunch of fat balding nerds in their mama's basement couldn't possibly tell a story with any amount of depth

stance I tend to hear a bit too often.

I agree with you in some ways. My only arguments are these:

- Does it hurt to try? Even if the quality is inferior to a really good work of art? Some believe it does hurt. I generally disagree - I believe the human mind is pretty resistant to damage caused by exposure to media, and I also believe that most gaming groups are socially adept enough (at least within the group itself ) to speak up when really uncomfortable subjects are brought up.

- If it doesn't hurt to try, then why not? I guess that's my take on the subject of this whole thread.

- Finally, I tend to believe that the act of collaboration - that is, all players around the table making implicit commentary around a particular issue as part of the game - is the antidote to the problem you're describing. A single player trying to impose hir interpretation of the Issue to the rest of the group requires a damn capable player - like a renowned film director, script writer, editor, focus group etc. An "expert system".

- But if the individuals in the group are all able to introduce their own ideas surrounding the Issue into the game implicitly, through the act of play, it can provide the same effect as the individuals around the table sitting down and debating the Issue for 4-6 hours, with the system acting as a sort of moderator. It may not be fun for people who don't care about the Issue, and it may even turn into pornography if the people involved have a very voyeuristic and immature attitude towards the subject - perhaps because they're looking for "adventure gaming" in a game that has nothing to do with it, or perhaps they're just "dicks". But if it doesn't hurt anyone (see above) I don't see why we should have to prevent even the possibility of meaningful exploration and entertainment based on emotional responses.

Quote from: Serious PaulWhat's funny is you don't actually link to the game itself. As you'll see if you read that thread it's all pretty boring, compared to what you're thinking.

Yup. Well, not boring, but not lurid either.

Quote from: StuartYou can explore complex issues in a sensitive, mature way with some forms of expression (if you like, some forms of "Art"), but only in a very cursory and possibly exploitive or immature way with other forms of expression.

Precisely. Just because you go into an improv with the intent of exploring issues seriously, and you have an intense emotional experience during the session, does not mean you have bravely explored the issue in a meaningful way.

Trangression is not depth; those boundaries you are crossing are not levels of emotional depth - they're boundaries of norms and taste. It may feel liberating to be naughty, but being naughty is not the same as being mature.

Depicting awfulness for its own sake is not serious art.

Getting a cathartic jolt out of a play-acting session does not give you insight.

People who believe otherwise are, at best, pitifully misguided. At worst, they're juvenile jack-offs who want to put a gloss of sophistication on their sewer-diving.

Just because we don't set any limits doesn't mean we're out to win any creepy awards. Shrugs. Everyone has their own style-we try to be laid back, and have fun.

Quote from: HaffrungPrecisely. Just because you go into an improv with the intent of exploring issues seriously, and you have an intense emotional experience during the session, does not mean you have bravely explored the issue in a meaningful way.

Trangression is not depth; those boundaries you are crossing are not levels of emotional depth - they're boundaries of norms and taste. It may feel liberating to be naughty, but being naughty is not the same as being mature.

Depicting awfulness for its own sake is not serious art.

Getting a cathartic jolt out of a play-acting session does not give you insight.

People who believe otherwise are, at best, pitifully misguided. At worst, they're juvenile jack-offs who want to put a gloss of sophistication on their sewer-diving.

I've wanted to respond to several posts, and express my feelings on this issue several times, but every time Haffrung here does it first and does it better than I could most likely, so although I'm totally being a follower here, I hafta say...

:ditto:

:withstupid:

:hatsoff:

And I'll ditto what Sigmund just said, but expand that to include Elliot Wilen and Stuart.

Quote from: lachekDoes it hurt to try? Even if the quality is inferior to a really good work of art?

I think it does hurt.  Certainly creating and promoting a game that encourages treating sensitive topics in a trite or offensive way is hurtful.  It's also bad to hold up that inferior approach to dealing with sensitive topics as deep and meaningful - it's pretentious and misleading to those who might not be mature enough to know any better.  It's also hurtful to expose the general public to something that's trite or offensive.  

I'd hate to think of an actual abuse victim walking past a table at Gen-Con where a poorly conceived improv game dealing with "mature" issues was taking place.

Quote from: lachekFinally, I tend to believe that the act of collaboration - that is, all players around the table making implicit commentary around a particular issue as part of the game - is the antidote to the problem you're describing. A single player trying to impose hir interpretation of the Issue to the rest of the group requires a damn capable player - like a renowned film director, script writer, editor, focus group etc. An "expert system".

I think any of the individual gamers could produce something more deep and insightful if they sat down and gave it serious thought, rather than in the context of an improv session, and a game improv session at that.  If all the players sat down and wrote a story together then, as you say, it would be sum of their thoughts and insights would be applied to the issue.  In the improv session you'll have varying degrees of triteness and offensiveness depending on the player -- but the overall session will only be as strong as the weakest player.

That's why in improv it's so important to support the other actors, work as a team, and develop everyone's ability.  If you went on stage with Colin Mockery and tried to do an improv together, I'm quite sure it would be of less quality than if Colin went onstage by himself.  However, I think if you and Colin sat down to work on a story together, it would be of greater quality than you could achieve as individuals.

As for debate, that alone doesn't produce meaningful artistic expression.  Reflection on what you've seen and heard, learning from experiences and others, and maturity do.

Quote from: HaffrungExcellent point. The really offensive thing about Baker's Poison'd posts isn't so much the subject matter, which doesn't rise much above the depravities adolescent boys dream up to gross each other out. It's the attitude that making up vulgur sado-porn stories with your friends is an aesthetically and morally sophisticated way to spend a few yours. It isn't. It may be cathartic, especially if you have subliminated sado-masochistist urges that you can't bring out any other way. But it isn't sophisticated or beautiful or brave. It's really kinda pathetic.

Well, at this point I'm commenting more on the presentation of the AP, including--especially--the idea that readers would/should see it as something to recommend the game book, than I am on what happened at the table. Who knows, maybe it was as meaningful and sophisticated as Byron and the Shelleys engaging in an all night chat? But the AP as presented offers nothing to distinguish it from "adolescent depravities", and the implication that the game will give players a "meaningful experience" does border on advertising emo-tourism. This too has to be seen against a background of Forgist criticism of games which are just toolkits, and claims that "fun is portable" if you write games the right way.

Perhaps we lack the language to express the idea that games can open doors, but it's still up to people whether to step through them or not. Or it may be that games can be more or less responsible for transmitting a message, in which case, yes, the author of a game can't dodge responsibility for what's done with it.

Edit: Stuart just posted something that's along similar lines to what I'm trying to say. So, I agree.

Quote from: lachekFinally, I tend to believe that the act of collaboration - that is, all players around the table making implicit commentary around a particular issue as part of the game - is the antidote to the problem you're describing. A single player trying to impose hir interpretation of the Issue to the rest of the group requires a damn capable player - like a renowned film director, script writer, editor, focus group etc. An "expert system".

Stuart's doing a fine job of answering these, but this just caught my eye...

Are you saying that the people who sat around that table were the equivalent of a renowned film director, screen writer, editor - an expert system on rape/brutality/family abuse?

If you are, this is the problem: they are not. If the expectation of the game designer is that they are, then his audience should only be psychologists at worst, and those of that profession/training specializing in this field at best. Is he going to be running games at the next APA?

It's why Stuart's comments are so spot on.

Quote from: lachek- Does it hurt to try? Even if the quality is inferior to a really good work of art? Some believe it does hurt. I generally disagree - I believe the human mind is pretty resistant to damage caused by exposure to media, and I also believe that most gaming groups are socially adept enough (at least within the group itself ) to speak up when really uncomfortable subjects are brought up.

- If it doesn't hurt to try, then why not? I guess that's my take on the subject of this whole thread.

Because you're trivializing the very issue you're claiming to "explore."

(bah, work just got busy and I'm having to...work...so I'll repost my response from that other thread as to why it's stupid to think you could meaningfully explore rape in a game)

The best such an exercise can do is trivialize the act. None of the APs showed any meaningful exploration of the subject, only the trivialization. I'd even go so far as to say no one who hasn't been directly affected by such an act (as victim or as family member/close friend/significant other of the victim) could never meaningfully explore the subject.

I don't personally know the people involved, so I can't say how close they are to the subject. But judging by their posts and the enthusiasm they had for making their characters perpetrate such acts, it's safe to say that they don't understand it at all.

[EDIT: Damn me taking twenty minutes to post...again, it's been said better than I could say it already]