Quote from: noisms;354260the point is that lots of things in lots of games are offensive to lots of people, and that doesn't earn them the kind of approbrium being heaped on the creators of Gang Rape here.

Case 1:- a game is designed for X, and sometimes sick shit happens in it
Case 2:- a game is designed to have sick shit happen in it.

The two cases are not identical.

And that's why you should read a thread before posting to it.

Quote from: noisms;354260I haven't been keeping up with the thread, but isn't the point of the argument that some parts of Werewolf are likely offensive to a majority of Christians? (It seemed to arise there, anyway, I haven't kept up.) In that case I think what's more relevant is what Christians actually believe rather than the official doctrine of whatever denomination they belong to.

To an extent.  The argument was presented, however, that Christianity as a whole believes in demonic possession as a core tenet, when it clearly isn't.  And because of that core tenet, the Gang Rape jeepform has the exact moral equivalence of Werewolf.  Obviously a wrongheaded conclusion.

QuoteIf I can put words into pawsplay's mouth, I think the point is that lots of things in lots of games are offensive to lots of people, and that doesn't earn them the kind of approbrium being heaped on the creators of Gang Rape here. There are plenty of game designers who can be tarred with the same brush, if tarring is what you're into.(I'm not; I think Gang Rape is utterly ludicrous and can't imagine anybody ever playing it, but I can't really summon up much outrage about it. So jeepform players and writers are caricatures of uber-leftist avant garde drama school students; what else is new?)

I think you have the form correct.  As you note, the content is utter garbage.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;354261Case 1:- a game is designed for X, and sometimes sick shit happens in it
Case 2:- a game is designed to have sick shit happen in it.

The two cases are not identical.

And that's why you should read a thread before posting to it.

No, I gathered that you think that those two cases are not identical even from my cursory reading of the thread. (Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean he doesn't understand or hasn't read your argument, mate.)

I'm just amazed that you think W:tA (let's continue to use that example) can't be put into Case 2. W:tA requires the players to buy into the possibility that they might go into a frenzy at any moment and start slaughtering innocent people. This is intrinsic to the game. It may not happen in every gaming session, but it is what happens in it by dint of its very conception. Even setting aside the whole "demonic possession" thing.

There are plenty of other examples if we want to stretch a little. Take Dogs in the Vineyard. This is a game which sets up the protagonists as enforcers of God's Will - essentially as religious ordained tyrants. Some (Richard Dawkins, maybe) would interpret that as a game designed to have sick shit happen in it, putting it firmly in your "Case 2" according to them.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Werewolf or Dogs in the Vineyard. There is something wrong with Gang Rape in that it's self-evidently both a childish attempt to court controversy and an idiotic attempt to promote a naff political agenda. But let's not pretend there's much more morally repugnant about a game geared around gang rape than a game geared around turning into a vampire and living off the blood of mortals to perpetuate your own life, or a game geared around turning into a werewolf who may or may not slaughter innocent bystanders in a frenzy, or whatever.

EDIT: Actually, I'll caveat that by saying that I think Gang Rape is in some ways more moralistic than most other games, because I believe the designer when he says that he's attempting to make a point about how terrible rape is and how the conviction rate for rape should be higher. This point may be crushingly banal and it's absolutely lunatic to imagine that this game could have any effect, but you can't dispute it is a moral platform of a kind.

Quote from: noisms;354267But let's not pretend there's much more morally repugnant about a game geared around gang rape than a game geared around turning into a vampire and living off the blood of mortals to perpetuate your own life, or a game geared around turning into a werewolf who may or may not slaughter innocent bystanders in a frenzy, or whatever.

Except for the possibility of the former, and the impossibility of the latter two.  In fact, odds are fairly good that you have had a player at your table that has been a victim or perpetrator of rape, just going by the percentages.  I think that sets up a huge difference, possibly insurmountable, in comparing the two.

But the really fucked up part is that vampires are the metaphor for rape since the beginning of vampire stories, but Vampire wasn't used as the example!  I am not sure if I am more irritated by the argument itself, or the utter incompetence with which it was prosecuted.

Quote from: StormBringer;354268Except for the possibility of the former, and the impossibility of the latter two.  In fact, odds are fairly good that you have had a player at your table that has been a victim or perpetrator of rape, just going by the percentages.  I think that sets up a huge difference, possibly insurmountable, in comparing the two.

But the really fucked up part is that vampires are the metaphor for rape since the beginning of vampire stories, but Vampire wasn't used as the example!  I am not sure if I am more irritated by the argument itself, or the utter incompetence with which it was prosecuted.

Going by what percentages?

Now, admittedly, Gang Rape may offend or hurt people traumatised by rape in the past. (Though why this wouldn't apply to violence occurring in a game of D&D with respect to people traumatised by violence in the past, I don't know.)

But as I wrote above (in the edit), in some respects Gang Rape is MORE moralistic than any other game, not less so, with regard to the rape issue, because I believe the designer when he says that he's attempting to make a point about how terrible rape is and how the conviction rate for rape should be higher. Some rape victims may applaud him in this.

Now, however ridiculous the idea of trying to make such a point in this format is, it certainly has a heavy element of moral grandstanding to it that I don't think many other RPGs have. (This makes it worse in my opinion, because I hate moral grandstanding, but that's just me.)

Quote from: noisms;354267No, I gathered that you think that those two cases are not identical even from my cursory reading of the thread.

I don't think it, they are it.

There's a difference between a game in which the players, despite the game design, decide to do sick shit, and one where it's the entire point of the game.

I mean, when my pawn takes yours in chess I could put mine on top of yours and scream, "I'm fucking you in the arse without any lube, bitch!" Is that the fault of the rules of chess?

Whereas FATAL or Gang Rape, it's the whole damn point of the thing.

There's a difference. Now, it makes no difference in that the players who do it are sick fucks no sane gamer should associate with; but it makes a difference when we're judging the worth of the game. If during a game sick shit just happens to occur, well we can't blame the game. If it's the entire point of the game, and if in fact sick shit were refused by the players there'd be no game at all, well then we can definitely blame the game.

Quote from: noismsI'm just amazed that you think W:tA (let's continue to use that example) can't be put into Case 2. W:tA requires the players to buy into the possibility that they might go into a frenzy at any moment and start slaughtering innocent people. This is intrinsic to the game.

It doesn't just happen randomly at any time, there's a whole mechanic where if your character does nasty shit, they may go into a sort of psycho death spiral where they're forced to do yet more nasty shit.

That's a game mechanic designed to restrain the PCs from getting too crazy. Because when they zero out on the control stat, they lose control of their characters. Players tend to dislike that, since the whole point of roleplaying games is that you have a character you control, without your character you're just a lonely geek with cheetos-stained fingers.

So, whether the werewolf PC goes psycho is under the control of the player. All they have to do is not have their character do nasty shit. Eating little old ladies leads to more eating little old ladies. Being nice leads to more being nice.

Neither is mandatory. It's up to the players. Whereas in the Gang Rape non-game, rape is mandatory.

That's the difference. Player choice.

Quote from: noismsThere are plenty of other examples if we want to stretch a little. Take Dogs in the Vineyard. This is a game which sets up the protagonists as enforcers of God's Will - essentially as religious ordained tyrants. Some (Richard Dawkins, maybe) would interpret that as a game designed to have sick shit happen in it, putting it firmly in your "Case 2" according to them.

And I'd absolutely agree with that. Dogs in the Vineyard is a profoundly depressing and fucked-up game. What do you expect, it's a Forge game.

You really haven't been reading things I write if you think I'd ever defend Dogs in the Vineyard. Anyway, a better example would have been My Life With Master. You can burn that rubbish, too.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;354272I mean, when my pawn takes yours in chess I could put mine on top of yours and scream, "I'm fucking you in the arse without any lube, bitch!" Is that the fault of the rules of chess?

Not analagous at all; W:tA actually has rules about going into a frenzy and killing innocent people.

QuoteIt doesn't just happen randomly at any time, there's a whole mechanic where if your character does nasty shit, they may go into a sort of psycho death spiral where they're forced to do yet more nasty shit.

That's a game mechanic designed to restrain the PCs from getting too crazy. Because when they zero out on the control stat, they lose control of their characters. Players tend to dislike that, since the whole point of roleplaying games is that you have a character you control, without your character you're just a lonely geek with cheetos-stained fingers.

So, whether the werewolf PC goes psycho is under the control of the player. All they have to do is not have their character do nasty shit. Eating little old ladies leads to more eating little old ladies. Being nice leads to more being nice.

Neither is mandatory. It's up to the players. Whereas in the Gang Rape non-game, rape is mandatory.

This makes me think you haven't at all grasped what the creators of Gang Rape were trying to do. In the same way that going frenzied in W:tA is a bad thing, SO IS GANG RAPE IN GANG RAPE. The entire point of the game, from the horse's mouth, is that it is anti-gang rape, that it has some sort of political agenda to do with the low conviction rate for rapes in Sweden, and that is not not supposed to be fun to play. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about that. It may be stupid, childish and misguided, but the game is explicity about how terrible rape is and providing a way of allowing players to understand that.

QuoteAnd I'd absolutely agree with that. Dogs in the Vineyard is a profoundly depressing and fucked-up game. What do you expect, it's a Forge game.

You really haven't been reading things I write if you think I'd ever defend Dogs in the Vineyard. Anyway, a better example would have been My Life With Master. You can burn that rubbish, too.

Dogs in the Vineyard is just an example. There are very few RPGs which can't be construed as being geared towards doing sick shit if that's what you want to construe them to be.

Gang Rape may be more explicit than most in doing so, but as I said, what really sets it apart from other RPGs is not a lack of morals; rather in having too much moralizing for its own good. Let me repeat, this is not a game about facilitating gang rape, it is a game about moralizing about gang rape. That's incredibly silly in my view, but the very opposite of immoral.

Once I saw a female player's gnome character get put on the inn table and gang raped by most of the party. Har har.

Therefore D&D is all about gang rape, too.

Or maybe not.

Don't be fucking stupid, take that shit to rpg.net where it belongs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;354277Once I saw a female player's gnome character get put on the inn table and gang raped by most of the party. Har har.

Therefore D&D is all about gang rape, too.

Or maybe not.

Don't be fucking stupid, take that shit to rpg.net where it belongs.

Toys, pram, thrown.

Quote from: noisms;354267EDIT: Actually, I'll caveat that by saying that I think Gang Rape is in some ways more moralistic than most other games, because I believe the designer when he says that he's attempting to make a point about how terrible rape is and how the conviction rate for rape should be higher. This point may be crushingly banal and it's absolutely lunatic to imagine that this game could have any effect, but you can't dispute it is a moral platform of a kind.

Gang Rape is as much an effective moral platform as Faith and Blood by Louis Porter Jr was an effective way to raise awareness about the abortion debate in America. You don't raise awareness on social issues by trivializing them into a game. That just desensitizes people to the actual issue.

Quote from: pawsplay;354210There you go. Kyle Aaron said it, and further that Catholics and Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession.

You are an idiot.

Quote from: jeff37923;354299
Gang Rape is as much an effective moral platform as Faith and Blood by Louis Porter Jr was an effective way to raise awareness about the abortion debate in America. You don't raise awareness on social issues by trivializing them into a game. That just desensitizes people to the actual issue.

True, but I don't doubt that the designer is earnest (however misguided) in his endeavour.

Quote from: noisms;354373True, but I don't doubt that the designer is earnest (however misguided) in his endeavour.

I wonder how many guys that have played the game have said, "wow, being gang raped is bad. I should stop supporting it."

Quote from: Cranewings;354501I wonder how many guys that have played the game have said, "wow, being gang raped is bad. I should stop supporting it."

I know. It's like all those people who walk around with bracelets saying Make Poverty History. I always feel like saying to them "Wow! I was totally like pro-poverty until I saw that bracelet!"

It's all about making the wearer feel better about themselves, just like Gang Rape is a way for the designer and players to feel self-righteous about how right-on they are for being anti-rape. Rank hypocrisy, of course, but then again we are talking about a jeepform game.

Quote from: noisms;354510I know. It's like all those people who walk around with bracelets saying Make Poverty History. I always feel like saying to them "Wow! I was totally like pro-poverty until I saw that bracelet!"

It's all about making the wearer feel better about themselves, just like Gang Rape is a way for the designer and players to feel self-righteous about how right-on they are for being anti-rape. Rank hypocrisy, of course, but then again we are talking about a jeepform game.

This seems to be a Gross Conceptual Error. How can something that encourages the emulation of the behaviors of Gang Rape be considered anti-rape?