TheRPGSite

Apparently the hot new secret "jeepform" game is this lovely piece of work:

Gang Rape (ADMIN Note: The link previously provided here has been removed after a complaint from the author that his material was being downloaded without his consent. Please do NOT re-post it)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/J_Arcane/1261086051124.png)

According to the author:  "I am trying to keep this one out of google's reach so
please refer to the game as GR if you discuss it online."  

Gang Rape, Gang Rape, Gang Rape.  This guy, made a game, an RPG, about gang rape.  

A LARP game about gang rape.

The depths truly are bottomless.

"It is not meant to be fun to play."

WHAT-THE-FUCK?!?!

It seems odd that it's being pegged as a game rather than an activist/educational exercise.

:jaw-dropping:

What the fuck is this shit?!!!! :rant:

:banghead:

Quote from: two_fishes;349784It seems odd that it's being pegged as a game rather than an activist/educational exercise.

I am utterly baffled that any jeepform would be considered a 'game'.

Vulgar, unnecessary and disgusting.

Quote from: Drohem;349781"It is not meant to be fun to play."

WHAT-THE-FUCK?!?!

In before the "Tyranny of Unfun" comments...

Isn't this an automatic violation of their ToS agreement with GoP.am?

QuoteYou agree to not use the services of DepositFiles for the purpose of:

Loading, accommodation, sending by way of e-mail, transmission or publication by other means of information distributing for terrorist propagation, propagandizing of kindling interethnic, racial or religious break a set, representing violence or death;

Causing of harm to minors, including any form of child pornography; in the case that we shall regard this as sufficiently serious, it will be transferred to the corresponding administrative tribunals and/or members of the ISP;

Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

yeah, it seems pretty obvious that this is a method this group uses to discuss issues that are important to them. aside from the misnomer of calling it a "game" or a form of "play", the reaction here seems kind of histrionic.

I think it would be easier and more educational to just go ahead and get convicted of a felony. If you're tough enough, you could even trun it into a troupe play kind of thing, like Ars Magica.

From zero to apologetics and "OMG moral fag" in just 8 posts.

Even 4chan took far longer than that.

Way to lower the bar.

Quote from: J Arcane;349808From zero to apologetics and "OMG moral fag" in just 8 posts.

Even 4chan took far longer than that.

Way to lower the bar.

Who's apologizing?

Kneejerk moralism is still funny and quaint and old-fashioned, though. Way to raise the bar!

So.... jeepform.

Is it, like, 4-wheel drive or just a poser front-wheel drive jeep?

(wtf is jeepform?)

Quote from: Werekoala;349812So.... jeepform.

Is it, like, 4-wheel drive or just a poser front-wheel drive jeep?

(wtf is jeepform?)

It's just a poser word for "LARPing about stuff that's supposed to be all deep and arty but is mostly just misery porn and fap fiction", from what I can gather.

That is pathetic, just how low can the hobby go?

Quote from: Paul B;349804Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

And a call for bad taste is right out too?

Quote from: J Arcane;349780Gang Rape

A LARP game about gang rape.

I'm no fan of LARPing, but I do not want this representing any aspect of the role-playing hobby.

I don't know if it's the gang-rape that bothers me more, or that someone would actually use a game as a way to express social commentary.  If you've got social/political undertones to a game or a setting, sure, that's fine, it's hard to avoid all meaning within things as abstract as RPGs because people thrive off of meaning.  

But making the whole act of a game unfun and about disgusting, animalistic behavior as some sort of statement?  You may as well quit designing games and become a political activist.

Quote from: Mistwell;349798In before the "Tyranny of Unfun" comments...

What exactly does this post mean?  I'm not familar with whatever the "tyranny of Unfun" is.

Quote from: boulet;349815And a call for bad taste is right out too?

Uh...that's a pretty slippery slope. Do tacky fanservice RPG book covers get a pass? Howzabout thinly veiled racism? Genocide?

Quote from: Paul B;349804Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

Yes, we should think of the children.  I am not apologetic that I find rape, let alone gang rape, morally and ethically wrong on any level.  It's not a knee jerk reaction, it's a valid reaction for my personal compass.  I don't need to explore the horror of rape in any form, let alone in my hobby which is suppose to bring me fun and enjoyment

Quote from: Paul B;349820Uh...that's a pretty slippery slope. Do tacky fanservice RPG book covers get a pass? Howzabout thinly veiled racism? Genocide?

I call bullshit on your arguement.

The glorification of a morally and ethically reprehensible act by making a LARP game out of it does not a slippery slope make, it makes a cliff that you jump off of to your death.

Shit, this is news?  I guess I should have brought it up when I stumbled across this crap a few weeks ago.  I figured after Poison'd we'd all be jaded about this sort of ridiculosity.

Quote from: jrients;349840Shit, this is news?  I guess I should have brought it up when I stumbled across this crap a few weeks ago.  I figured after Poison'd we'd all be jaded about this sort of ridiculosity.

Which is more sad:

1) That a gang rape RPG may not actually be the worst thing these pretentious types have pulled
2) That regardless, someone always has to leap to it's defense no matter how horrid
3) 4chan was apparently more horrified by this than some of the people here

That's what I want to know.  ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;349828I call bullshit on your arguement.

The glorification of a morally and ethically reprehensible act by making a LARP game out of it does not a slippery slope make, it makes a cliff that you jump off of to your death.

I'll be sure to wag my disapproving finger at those damned boffer LARPers and SCAers next time they try and spread their filth.

Thanks for the tip!

what's a jeepform?
is a jeep not a car in sweden?

Quote from: Blackthorne;349849what's a jeepform?
is a jeep not a car in sweden?

Apparently its a bunch of fat sweaty dudes fucking each other while pretending its gaming.

Plus it's really funny that humans fuck anything that has legs.

Oh, WAIT, wrong thread.

Quote from: Paul B;349848I'll be sure to wag my disapproving finger at those damned boffer LARPers and SCAers next time they try and spread their filth.

Thanks for the tip!

Not even close to being morally or ethically equivalent.

Jeepform is a larpform that has its origin in Scandinavia. Someone called it "Its to LARP what Forge games are for traditional P&P games". As far as I know (which is little) it's more about playing a soap OR "something deep" (whatever that means).

I wouldn't play it, altough I have a little interest in that whole soap opera thing, because soap opera I have in my real life and that "deep shit" I don't wanna play. And I don't like LARP. This gang rape thing now is ... not meant to be fun, so it's not a game. I don't think anyone except the writers of that setting have ever ... played (?) this. If the found someone playing the victim.

Jeepform itself isn't bad (in my opinion), but this adventure crosses the line. Who would want to play that?

Quote from: Callisto;349860Who would want to play that?

Paul B, apparently.

Quote from: Paul B;349804Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

Y'know, for years I heard the phrase, "Sitck your head up your ass," but I'd never actually seen someone do it before now.

Quote from: Drohem;349818What exactly does this post mean?  I'm not familar with whatever the "tyranny of Unfun" is.

If you will look on the thread list for this forum, you will see a thread called "Tyranny of Fun" that talks about how a particular game focuses too much on the concept of fun.  I think it's an inane thread, for what that is worth.

Anyway, this game specifies it's NOT about fun.  So I was making a joke about a "Tyranny of Unfun".  The joke is at the expense of the people who groused about a "Tyranny of Fun", rather than actually being about this game, by the way.

It's encounter session therapy as entertainment.  It's like confusing medications for recreational drugs, but lots of people still do it.

!i!

I told you so.

Also, it'll be hilarious to see all the Usual Suspects now coming out to defend GANG fucking RAPE.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;349878I told you so.

Also, it'll be hilarious to see all the Usual Suspects now coming out to defend GANG fucking RAPE.

Well, hypothetically speaking... if it's me and the Dallas Cowboy's Cheerleaders...

I love these threads; they're like fucking flystrips for people to throw into the ignore function.

Quote from: RPGPundit;349878I told you so.

Also, it'll be hilarious to see all the Usual Suspects now coming out to defend GANG fucking RAPE.

RPGpundit

You cannot ignore their girth.

Wait - isn't "gang FUCKING rape" redundant?

Quote from: RPGPundit;349878Also, it'll be hilarious to see all the Usual Suspects now coming out to defend GANG fucking RAPE.

RPGpundit

But I haven't even said anythi....D'oh!

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Paul B;349804Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

Well, the rules for this jeepform on online there.  Set up a session, and let us know how it goes.  I have a fair hand at graphics design, I can whip up a couple of posters so you can advertise at the FLGS.

Quote from: Paul B;349820Uh...that's a pretty slippery slope.

Fuck that. This isn't, oh SPANK or Hot Chicks the RPG. Have moral sensibilities descended so low that a game about GANG RAPE is really undeserving of criticism for its inherent and extreme tackiness?

Thankfully, it does seem to just be you so far as this thread goes.

QuoteDo tacky fanservice RPG book covers get a pass?

When in company of this league: Yes.

QuoteHowzabout thinly veiled racism? Genocide?

No and no.

Now, are you going to tell me that my moral compass is somehow skewed?

QuoteI'll be sure to wag my disapproving finger at those damned boffer LARPers and SCAers next time they try and spread their filth.

Yeah, because LARPS and boffers are what's wrong with this game... NOT!

A few general comments.  You'll note that this is from 2008, rather than being a new thing.  It's made its rounds.  There were some people playing this at Knutepunkt 2009, and I've played other games with the author Tobias.  

For what it's worth, jeepform is not a "larp" in the sense of all action being mimed out physically.  Gang Rape uses an abstraction based on eye contact.  

That said, there's no arguing that it's fucked up.

I thought this thread was going to be about the return of F.A.T.A.L.

Imagine my disappointment.

Quote from: bin Sayf;349897I thought this thread was going to be about the return of F.A.T.A.L.

Imagine my disappointment.

I'm disappointed that the abomination was ever created for there to be a thread started about it.

- Ed C.

This stuff has been around since 'Custer's Revenge' for the Atari 400...unfortunate, it reflects poorly on the magazine industry about as much as pornographic magazines reflect poorly on the magazine industry (if the latter still existed).

While it's probably unwise to generalize from a few forum poss, that's never stopped me before, so I'm going to hazard a guess many of the respondents so far have never been to an S&M gathering or a an S&M-inspired performance show. This shit is pretty mild by comparison.

Quote from: pawsplay;349907While it's probably unwise to generalize from a few forum poss, that's never stopped me before, so I'm going to hazard a guess many of the respondents so far have never been to an S&M gathering or a an S&M-inspired performance show. This shit is pretty mild by comparison.

Right,  but this turd is being presented as a "game" and not as an event at an S&M gathering.

Quote from: pawsplay;349907While it's probably unwise to generalize from a few forum poss, that's never stopped me before, so I'm going to hazard a guess many of the respondents so far have never been to an S&M gathering or a an S&M-inspired performance show. This shit is pretty mild by comparison.

In regards to the jeepform, possibly.  The part to remember about the S&M crowd is the way they self-identify: power exchange (or power exchange play).  In other words, the participants are willingly 'exchanging' the normalized levels of power between two people.  Even in these cases, is it not most frequently something of a ruse anyway?  The whole activity is delimited by a certain period of time, some safeword that ceases activity, or a previous agreement as to specific physical or emotional acts.

And of course, the BDSM folks have a different outlook on interpersonal relationships to begin with.  However, I think if you floated this idea to an experienced group of BDSM devotees, they would likely recoil in the same manner as would a 'mundane'.

Quote from: bin Sayf;349910Right,  but this turd is being presented as a "game" and not as an event at an S&M gathering.

My opinion.

Well, "freedom of expression" is still a valued right (as long as one remembers that "freedom" doesn't make the expression interesting, smart or valuable). And these dudes claim to have created the game because (I quote from the rules):

I have several itches I am scratching
with this game. For one, a thing that
has been severely bugging me the last
couple of years is that it seems nearly
impossible to get convicted for rape
or gang rape, at least in contemporary
Sweden.

[...]

Going back to Sweden, possibly as a
consequence of the lack of convictions,
we hear the word rape in the news often
enough for us to stop taking it in anymore.
Rape is fast becoming a four letter
word. And it sure as hell ain't.

HOWEVER

By putting together some other items found in the rulebook...

Gang rape is a short, game
master-less jeepform game
centred around the idea of
using fiat as a means of
oppression. The game mechanics
were conceived for the purpose
of playing gang rape, but are equally
useful for playing any kind of oppression,
like for example bullying/mobbing.

[...]

The term "GM fiat" means that the
GM decides what happens in the game
without consulting the players or "the objective
rueles." It is a term with negative
connotations—especially for players that
thinks role-playing is a struggle between
the players and the GM. The term fiat is
not a pun on "We go by jeep" but plain
English for "a formal authorization or
proposition; a decree."

[...]

Additionally, and naturally, the game is
also about admitting that we all have
the capacity to fantasise about these
things. And just maybe, or so I imagine,
you might find nuances of things in here
that actually turns you on. For some,
control can be a great turn-on. Naturally,
I am only saying this to raise the
stakes of playing.

...It seems to me that this is only a slight variation of the usual "GMs are sexual molesters!!!!" forgite rally cry. A really sad state of affairs (and minds) IMHO.

This game has been around for years. I've actually mentioned it on this very forum several times as an example of jeepforms. Its existence isn't news.

Quote from: Reckall;349912My opinion.

Well, "freedom of expression" is still a valued right (as long as one remembers that "freedom" doesn't make the expression interesting, smart or valuable).

A good point that often gets lost in discussions of freedom of expression.  If these clowns really wanted to tackle the issue of Swedish gang-rapists getting off scot-free, perhaps a LARPish RPG was not the most effective vehicle to use.

But, judging by your quotes from the game itself, I'm inclined to think that my joking reference to F.A.T.A.L. above wasn't so far off the mark.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;349913This game has been around for years. I've actually mentioned it on this very forum several times as an example of jeepforms. Its existence isn't news.

Same here.

Nice to see Skarka's Law in full swing, though.

Quote from: One Horse Town;349928Same here.

Nice to see Skarka's Law in full swing, though.

What's Skarka's law?  

Someone had brought jeepform previously and I had spent a few minutes looking at them but was quickly turned off by the lame and/or awful games in the genre - in scanning the descriptions of ~20 I didn't see one that I was interested in playing.

Jeepform seems to be a larp for lazy people who like melodrama.  They sit around a table and don't have cool costumes but they also don't have any crunch like tabletop.

Quote from: Nicephorus;349932What's Skarka's law?  

Coined by Gareth Micheal Skarka (GMS on this forum), it is thusly paraphrased: "In internet discourse, no matter how fucked up the subject matter, there will always be someone around to defend it."

Meh, this was going to happen some time. Not too impressive, at least Poison'd had some flair about the gross-out.

Quote from: two_fishes;349806yeah, it seems pretty obvious that this is a method this group uses to discuss issues that are important to them. aside from the misnomer of calling it a "game" or a form of "play", the reaction here seems kind of histrionic.

I agree.

I find the idea disgusting, and absolutely fucking retarded. I have yet to find any Jeepform game with a premise which is not a pile of shit. And I understand that many persons won't like that stupid shit to be associated with RPGs.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;349877It's encounter session therapy as entertainment.  It's like confusing medications for recreational drugs, but lots of people still do it.

!i!

Ditto.

Quote from: jhkim;349896For what it's worth, jeepform is not a "larp" in the sense of all action being mimed out physically.  Gang Rape uses an abstraction based on eye contact.

This sounds really really weird. How does it work?

Quote from: StormBringer;349911In regards to the jeepform, possibly.  The part to remember about the S&M crowd is the way they self-identify: power exchange (or power exchange play).  In other words, the participants are willingly 'exchanging' the normalized levels of power between two people.  Even in these cases, is it not most frequently something of a ruse anyway?  The whole activity is delimited by a certain period of time, some safeword that ceases activity, or a previous agreement as to specific physical or emotional acts.

And of course, the BDSM folks have a different outlook on interpersonal relationships to begin with.  However, I think if you floated this idea to an experienced group of BDSM devotees, they would likely recoil in the same manner as would a 'mundane'.

Maybe. I've seen rape as well as father-daughter sexual contact presented as interpretive dance. Jeepform is certainly a "ruse" unless you are suggesting they actually find an unwilling participant to rape.

Does anyone know when the Underage Sourcebook is coming out?


*runs*




Sorry, resisted posting that for a day, but the joke was just too bad to miss. Which could also be said about the whole gangrape RPG thing.

Quote from: bin Sayf;349910Right,  but this turd is being presented as a "game" and not as an event at an S&M gathering.

But not a fun game.

If nothing else, it would be nice if more designers were up front about that.  I owned a Batman video game for about a day that had you swinging from rooftops, but you had no camera control.  On the third roof or so, you were really swinging blind.  After about four tries and dying each time, I took it back.  If the designers had just said up front "Look, this is more to just screw with you, I would have grabbed a different game and skipped the whole exercise."

Quote from: One Horse Town;349936Coined by Gareth Micheal Skarka (GMS on this forum), it is thusly paraphrased: "In internet discourse, no matter how fucked up the subject matter, there will always be someone around to defend it."

Around here, there could also be the Pundit Variant: "Any position the pundit takes on a subject will inevitably lead to several of his professional detractors taking the opposite position, even if doing so demands defending the most unthinkably disgusting or evil ideas".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;349966Around here, there could also be the Pundit Variant: "Any position the pundit takes on a subject will inevitably lead to several of his professional detractors taking the opposite position, even if doing so demands defending the most unthinkably disgusting or evil ideas".

RPGPundit

Do the nails in your hands hurt? Have you gotten any slivers from the wood?

Sometimes it seems your really do think IT is all about you.

Hint - IT is not about you.

Well, if it wasn't before, it is now.  Does this mean that the thread can officially be moved to "Pundit's Own Forum"?

!i!

Hey, so let's get real for a sec.

Anyone here go through the BADD old days? Show of hands please. Thank you.

Ever have a red-faced housewife show up on your parents' doorstep and demand they talk about your immoral, Satanic habits? Ever have your shit taken away from you because, well, all the other parents thought it was a good idea? And did having your shit taken from you save your soul? Your morality?

Here's the thing. Self-righteous moralists are never in it for the saving. Never. Ever. They don't give a flying fuck about protecting anyone from anything. They're self-righteous moralists because it's a way to earn points, to draw lines, to win some specious fight you didn't even know you were in.

So when I see some kneejerk moralist going off on something so utterly irrelevant, that's what's happening: They're at it again. Them. Oh please just fucking shoot me already, it's 1985 all over again.

For the record, since reading comprehension seems to be at an all-time low (either in this thread or on this board in general), I've never actually stated my opinion on this piece. Go ahead, check the record. I'll wait. Are you done?

If you were curious -- and if you were, you'd have asked me -- I personally think the gang rape thing is fucked up. But whatever. Who cares? Parents shouldn't -- they're the ones responsible for instilling values into their kids, not some misguided, pretentious "game" creator. Gamers worried about how a "gang rape gang" will make roleplaying look? OH PLEASE: first off, generating a dozen pages of talk about it means you've just given this piece of shit more traction than the last few FtA! threads gave that game; second off, gamers have way more pressing issues with image (http://failblog.org/2009/12/11/hygiene-fail/) than an obscure experimental RPing exercise actually played by...tens of people.

Please, for fuck's sake, just read. Ask me questions! But don't you go putting bullshit into my mouth that I never said.

And the kneejerk moralists can blow me. You're serving nobody but yourselves.

Quote from: Paul BHey, so let's get real for a sec...

I detect a hint of irritation with moral systems.

Quote from: Paul B;349985And the kneejerk moralists can blow me. You're serving nobody but yourselves.

Did you get a chance to set up a session of this jeepform at your local FLGS yet?

Having your son commit suicide and thinking it was caused by a game is kneejerk moralism?  That's more misguided than kneejerk, methinks.

That aside, I'm admiring the irony of a person having a kneejerk reaction to kneejerk "moralists".  Let's all jerk our knees on the internets.

Quote from: StormBringer;349991Did you get a chance to set up a session of this jeepform at your local FLGS yet?

Why on earth would I? I have no interest at all in spending my time playing through this piece of pretentious crap.

This is that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it?

someone doth protest too much, methinks.

My mother WAS one of those people.  I got "banned" from playing RPGs for about a month when a friend made the mistake of mentioning we'd played D&D at the house. It was stupid, and ignorant, and had nothing really to do with reality, and it also didn't really work either.

None of this means I have to suspend all sense of basic taste or propriety, or that I should want to share my hobby space with a bunch of fucking perverts who're determined to drag the form into very real mud, following in the footsteps of furry cons before them only this time with more pretention.  There is no logical connection between those two events at all.

Frankly, "Paul B", whoever you are, you can take your pathetic Internet generation amorality and shove it where the sun don't shine.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, or open mockery, or disgust.  If you broadcast your filth to the world, don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

Quote from: J Arcane;349997Frankly, "Paul B", whoever you are, you can take your pathetic Internet generation amorality and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Ugh. Could we keep this focused, rather than generalizing, please? And maybe with fewer insults? That'd be cool.

This could be an interesting discussion of the perception of morality, or it could devolve into a flamefest. We have enough of the latter. Maybe a useful and constructive conversation would be a nice change of pace?

So you don't see the irony of that, J Arcane, whoever you are?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350000Ugh. Could we keep this focused, rather than generalizing, please? And maybe with fewer insults? That'd be cool.

This could be an interesting discussion of the perception of morality, or it could devolve into a flamefest. We have enough of the latter. Maybe a useful and constructive conversation would be a nice change of pace?

Aw, where the fun in that? It might lead to, you know, understanding and common ground and all that happy hippy horseshit.

DEATH BY FIRE.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Paul B;349994Why on earth would I? I have no interest at all in spending my time playing through this piece of pretentious crap.

This is that reading comprehension thing again, isn't it?

But, it shouldn't be a problem, right?  I mean, you don't even really have to play, you can just organize the event and let us know how it turned out.  I am sure the average game store customer will be swayed by your cogent moral argument when you explain that you are hosting a event that simulates the aftermath of gang rape.

OK, here's my take:

It's pretty clear to me, from reading the thing, that the jeepform here isn't meant to be some idle entertainment or jolly lark. Quite the opposite. It's meant to be a carefully managed and guided exploration of serious issues, between a group of people who mutually trust each other, with the intent of helping everyone learn about an issue, raise awareness of it, and challenge their own assumptions. These guys do not think rape is cool: precisely the opposite. As far as goals go, raising awareness of such an issue is a noble one.

The question I'd have is this: what's the point of doing it as a game?

I can't see what the participants would get out of this exercise which they couldn't just take away from an open and honest discussion about the topic. You can't pretend that one's experiences in even the most immersive of LARPs is in any sense comparable to actually being raped or participating in a rape - to pretend you enjoy a deeper understanding of rape victims because you played a game once is just plain offensive. All you end up learning about in this exercise is how the participants (and, to an extent, the designer) feels about the subject. And if you wanted to learn that, why not just ask 'em?

If none of the participants has ever been raped, then none of the participants in the exercise can really say "I know what it is like to be raped". And if one of the participants has been raped, I can't see how playing this jeepform through could be anything other than deeply harmful and traumatic.

Bottom line: this is an exercise intended for education, not entertainment. On that basis some might question the application of the word "game" to it - I note that they avoid using the term themselves - and it certainly shouldn't be compared with recreational RPGs on that basis. As far as educational tools for teaching people about rape goes, it seems dubious at best.

Ah. I'm seeing the basic problem here.

There's a fundamental difference between:

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit." That's criticism.

and

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit that they made," using said pretentious, offensive shit as a means of earning points against them. That's moralising against them.

I'm deeply critical of this game. The OP is not. He's critical of them.

Hey so J Arcane, whoever you are, who are "they" anyway? The Swedes?

Quote from: Warthur;350007If none of the participants has ever been raped, then none of the participants in the exercise can really say "I know what it is like to be raped". And if one of the participants has been raped, I can't see how playing this jeepform through could be anything other than deeply harmful and traumatic.

Does the fact that we can never truly know what it means to be a bat necessarily invalidate attempts to understand how a bat perceives the world?

Quote from: Paul B;349848I'll be sure to wag my disapproving finger at those damned boffer LARPers and SCAers next time they try and spread their filth.

Thanks for the tip!

Saying that an objection to this game is a disapproval of LARPING is like saying that an objection to gang rape is a disapproval of team sports. The objection is about the subject matter, not the mechanism, and the fact that some psycho-Swede felt the need to use the pretense of making a game in order for him and his idiot friends to have a legitimate outlet for their sick desire to engage in illegal activities.

There is no comparison between objections to this twisted crap and the over-reaction of many parents in the 80's to roleplaying games as tools of the devil.

And then the author's added insult to our intelligence by trying to imply that he created this to raise awareness of gang rape. That is like going on a shooting rampage to raise awareness of gun safety.  The term "jeepform" should refer to the act of making the players of this tripe line up so they can get run over with a f'ing Jeep.

Now I feel the need to go back to the feminism thread to apologize to Tehana for saying that feminism has outlived its usefulness.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350010Does the fact that we can never truly know what it means to be a bat necessarily invalidate attempts to understand how a bat perceives the world?

We can speculate. But running around in a dark room squeaking at each other isn't going to give us any new insight we don't already have.

Quote from: Grimjack;350011And then the author's added insult to our intelligence by trying to imply that he created this to raise awareness of gang rape. That is like going on a shooting rampage to raise awareness of gun safety.

Surely it's more like pretending to go on a shooting rampage.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350000Ugh. Could we keep this focused, rather than generalizing, please? And maybe with fewer insults? That'd be cool.

This could be an interesting discussion of the perception of morality, or it could devolve into a flamefest. We have enough of the latter. Maybe a useful and constructive conversation would be a nice change of pace?

Exactly what purpose would that serve, besides giving you the ego boost from having played white knight for some amoral jackass with severe mommy issues?

He's already decided I'm the living embodiment of some dead movement, despite knowing not a goddamn thing about me or my history, or even, it seems, the reality of the situation he's so eager to project on my frame.

Why should I give him the tiniest ounce of respect, when it's obvious he has none for anyone but himself.

Never play the hero for people who don't want to be saved, it usually bites you in the ass at the end of the day.

Quote from: Halfjack;350016Surely it's more like pretending to go on a shooting rampage.

Thanks for the clarification cousin Halfjack.  You are correct.

Quote from: J Arcane;350020Exactly what purpose would that serve, besides giving you the ego boost from having played white knight for some amoral jackass with severe mommy issues?

...oh, right, we're on the 'tubes.

Fine, then, keep being a jackass. I'd just like to see useful conversation, for once, rather than the bullshit you all keep shoveling at each other back and forth.

Heaven forbid a messageboard have some useful content.

The idea that I have a horse in this race is somewhat hilarious. I read these boards infrequently, and post even more infrequently.

QuoteHe's already decided I'm the living embodiment of some dead movement, despite knowing not a goddamn thing about me or my history, or even, it seems, the reality of the situation he's so eager to project on my frame.

Not going to disagree that AM is a jackass a large amount of the time. So two wrongs make a right, now?

QuoteNever play the hero for people who don't want to be saved, it usually bites you in the ass at the end of the day.

I don't need your jaded "wisdom" any more than I need an "ego boost" from "white knighting" someone.

WTF does AM have to do with anything?  I don't see him posting in this thread?

Bottom line is, I'll post how I bloody like, it's the reason I post here and not on some utopia of forced politeness like RPGnet, so if you don't like it, why not just skip the post instead of presuming to give me instructions on how I do so.

I have no interest in playing pretend polite with gang rapists or their supporters.

Quote from: J Arcane;350025WTF does AM have to do with anything?  I don't see him posting in this thread?

So I mistakenly forgot that we were talking about someone else. (My prior post edited, J Arcane isn't crazy.)

I still made other valid points. Are you going to respond to them, or just conveniently ignore them?...

Quote from: J Arcane;350025Bottom line is, I'll post how I bloody like, it's the reason I post here and not on some utopia of forced politeness like RPGnet, so if you don't like it, why not just skip the post instead of presuming to give me instructions on how I do so.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say I go into a family diner, say around dinner, and start swearing at the top of my lungs. There's no rule clearly posted, anywhere, indicating that this is against any sort of rules of the establishment. But I am getting funny looks from the kids and irritated looks from their parents and the waitstaff.

I'm going to look like a jackass. I am a jackass, in this scenario.

Just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Jesus, dude, how do you get along with people? I mean, I'm all for doing what you will, but... damn.

QuoteI have no interest in playing pretend polite with gang rapists or their supporters.

I don't understand your complete unwillingness to even investigate the question. You can contemplate things, their reasons for being and their ramifications, without supporting them.

I'm not even asking you to play devil's advocate, here. Just... some kind of actual argument for your position would be cool.

What special version of this board have you been reading?  Or do you just have a very large ignore list.  Because I don't see your analogy as remotely comparable to the situation, unless you append it to include, say, the diner manager who routinely screams obscenities at his customers, the cook who shits in the waffle batter, and a wait staff that routinely pours hot coffee on it's patrons simply for the fun of it.

You're making this place out to be some magical land of niceness and light, and I'm just the evil bastard ruining it for everyone, but even in this thread that's not what happened.  I'm not the one who started in with the kneejerk attacks in this thread, I just posted something I found on 4chan that even 4chan thought was fucked up, and I thought given past discussions that the userbase here would be interested in it, simply as a target to point and mock like so many similarly ridiculous pieces of shit that have come before.    

I was insulted, I responded in turn.  I've never been big on "turn the other cheek", I leave that to the carpenters.  I was named for John the Baptist, and he had a far different way of dealing with people.  

There's nothing to "investigate" here.  It's a pretentious piece of twaddle deliberately designed to be as offensive and unpleasant as possible, by the designers own admission.  I probably would've even ignored it, but the author's weak attempts to shield his name through codewords and clandestine distribution methods was amusing to me, so I took it as a challenge.  

I don't think any argument needs to be made that the thing is a gross affront to basic taste, and while I expected it, it still baffles me that some people apparently lack even that.  I don't know what kind of fucked up social circles some of you people run in, but the ones I do would have zero interest in this, and probably reconsider their willingness to associate with anyone who seriously suggested we play it.  And I wouldn't remotely see them as wrong for doing so.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350027Let me ask you a question. Let's say I go into a family diner, say around dinner, and start swearing at the top of my lungs. There's no rule clearly posted, anywhere, indicating that this is against any sort of rules of the establishment. But I am getting funny looks from the kids and irritated looks from their parents and the waitstaff.

In fact, no.  You would be kicked out of the establishment, and likely instructed to never come back.  The police would be called, if necessary.  A family diner is a private establishment, and they can kick you out for just about any reason at all.  They have the right to refuse service on any number of justifiably legal grounds.  And the police would haul you away for disturbing the peace.

Quote from: J Arcane;350031What special version of this board have you been reading?  Or do you just have a very large ignore list.  Because I don't see your analogy as remotely comparable to the situation, unless you append it to include, say, the diner manager who routinely screams obscenities at his customers, the cook who shits in the waffle batter, and a wait staff that routinely pours hot coffee on it's patrons simply for the fun of it.

Thanks for running with the analogy!

I don't keep ignore lists, they irk me. Even people who piss me off constantly say something useful every now and again - that and I usually forget why I had them on there in the first place.

QuoteYou're making this place out to be some magical land of niceness and light, and I'm just the evil bastard ruining it for everyone...

In retrospect, it does sound like I'm singling you out; my apologies, that was not the intention.

You must admit, though, that you are more... direct, than a lot of other folk around here. Your posts do have a tendency to attract attention.

QuoteI was insulted, I responded in turn.  I've never been big on "turn the other cheek", I leave that to the carpenters.  I was named for John the Baptist, and he had a far different way of dealing with people.  

I recognize the name from Christian mythology, but I'm not terribly familiar with the individual beyond that.

I could tell you what I see as a problem with responding to insults in kind, but I imagine you already know what I'd say, so I'll leave it be.

QuoteThere's nothing to "investigate" here.  It's a pretentious piece of twaddle deliberately designed to be as offensive and unpleasant as possible, by the designers own admission.

But see, that raises even more questions! Why was it made in the first place, if even the designers say it's offensive and horrible?

That doesn't raise even a tiny bit of interest? Not in the game itself, but in the thought processes that went into it?

QuoteI don't think any argument needs to be made that the thing is a gross affront to basic taste, and while I expected it, it still baffles me that some people apparently lack even that.

"Basic" taste is not so "basic," much like common sense is not so common.

Intent matters, which is partly why I'm interested in the thought processes that went into it's creation. It is a rather disturbing subject matter... so why do it?

QuoteI don't know what kind of fucked up social circles some of you people run in, but the ones I do would have zero interest in this, and probably reconsider their willingness to associate with anyone who seriously suggested we play it.  And I wouldn't remotely see them as wrong for doing so.

Hmm. I'd ask you to not make presumptions about me from anything I say here, because I will - very often - play devil's advocate. I don't know if you included me in your "some of you people," but the instant you start attributing things to me personally rather than the arguments I make is when I start getting rather agitated. So kindly don't do it.

That aside, I, too, would be disturbed by anyone in my social circle who recommended we play this. I'm not interested in discussing the game itself, or even playing it. I'm interested in the reactions to it, and the thought processes behind them, as well as the thought processes that went into the design of the game.

Quote from: StormBringer;350034

Man, sometimes, you just gotta run with it, you know?

Quote from: Paul B;350008Ah. I'm seeing the basic problem here.

There's a fundamental difference between:

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit." That's criticism.

and

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit that they made," using said pretentious, offensive shit as a means of earning points against them. That's moralising against them.

That is because the game wasn't delivered to them by the universe at large.  There was an individual that wrote this out, involving a thought process and the effort to put pen to paper.  The entire time, this individual was so intent on instructing people about gang rape, they utterly forgot to consider other avenues for their information.  Like doing some actual research, and writing an article for the local paper.

In fact, they are so outraged at the local legal system giving a pass (in their opinion) to violent criminals, their first thought was to re-enact the consequences of a gang rape.  The exercise is offensive because the author willingly wrote a highly offensive exercise.  If that doesn't make sense to you, then you are likely so enamored of your own hipness, no discussion will ever break through the armour of your emo cynicism.

Did you contact your local game store and see if you can get a table to host a session about gang rape?  I am presuming you didn't, because you clearly lack the strength of your convictions.  Highly possible is that you also don't have much contact with the outside world.  You can certainly continue your thinly veiled diatribe about the 'thought police', but until you host one of these jeepforms, you have zero credibility, much like the authour of this particular scenario.

GnomeWorks

Ah, a part-time psychoanalyst. Super.

Also, just FYI saying you play, 'devils-advocate' rings the same alarm bells with me as a player around the table fucking things up for everyone and then saying, "But, it's what my character would do!"

Sorry JA, i'm fiddling with your chew-toy. ;)

Quote from: One Horse Town;350039Ah, a part-time psychoanalyst. Super.

That's... not really what I was going for, but sure. I'll run with it.

QuoteAlso, just FYI saying you play, 'devils-advocate' rings the same alarm bells with me as a player around the table fucking things up for everyone and then saying, "But, it's what my character would do!"

Yeah, that's kind of the point, isn't it? At least I'm being upfront about it.

Examine things from all angles. Take a proposition and run with it, explore all the ramifications. Find your assumptions, play around with them, see what happens. Ask the questions other folk aren't willing to ask, that they don't think to ask.

You might find it irritating. I find it intellectually intriguing.

Paul B., your BADD analogy fails because no version of D&D ever glorified or concentrated on Satan worship. This Gang Rape game does glorify and concentrate on gang rape, its the title of the game in fact!

And no matter how you dress it up, gang rape is not cool.

So, you need to try harder with your moral equivalency bullshit.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350040Examine things from all angles. Take a proposition and run with it, explore all the ramifications. Find your assumptions, play around with them, see what happens. Ask the questions other folk aren't willing to ask, that they don't think to ask.

You might find it irritating. I find it intellectually intriguing.

I find it an indication that the moral compass needs a new magnet.

I choose to take the stand that gang rape is wrong. From that, a game that concentrates and glorifies gang rape is also wrong and I do not want it representing any aspect of the role-playing hobby.

EDIT: Easing back from the personal on this. I understand the need to examine and analyze new material to refine a personal worldview, but once a baseline is achieved the new material must be measured against that baseline. What do you choose?

Quote from: jeff37923I find it an indication that your moral compass needs a new magnet.

You're really going to judge me, as an individual, from what I say on the 'tubes?

I find that laughable. Considering that in the very next paragraph in that post, I state that I would also be disturbed by anyone interested in playing this stuff.

Quote from: jeff37923;350041This Gang Rape game does glorify and concentrate on gang rape, its the title of the game in fact!

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a pretentious piece of twaddle deliberately designed to be as offensive and unpleasant as possible, by the designers own admission.

Emphasis mine.

One of these two statements is wrong.

Yeah, I knew about this game before this thread too. Is there a statute of limitations on calling shit shit?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350040Yeah, that's kind of the point, isn't it? At least I'm being upfront about it.

Devil's advocacy is quite often the retreat of the moral relativist though isn't it? Somewhere to retreat to where they can abdicate responsibility for what they are saying with a limp and lame rejoinder of, "i was playing devil's advocate!"

Claiming Devil's advocacy is also the easiest way to camourflage trolling.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350036so why do it?

Prurience, pretension, psuedointellectualism, childishness, hostility to morality, a desire to be seen as "edgy", the list could go on, and frankly, I don't care what the thought process is.

Deeds, not thoughts, are what matter, and the deed in question is that they made a game about gang rape to play with their friends.  

That's pretty goddamn fucked up no matter what the reason.  It is not a subject that should be made sport of.  

The only thing I feel I can say with certainty they didn't intend is, ironically, the very thing they wear as a shield against criticism, the claim it was a genuine awareness exercise, because it's clear no genuine public awareness will arise from it's existence.

If you want to make people aware of a major public issue, a handful of dorks at a gaming convention who couldn't care less is probably not a good place to start.

QuoteI don't know if you included me in your "some of you people,"

I didn't, for what it's worth.  I ascribe to you far different motives, that, while perhaps a kind of nobility, are mostly a waste of time.  ;)

Quote from: One Horse Town;350045Devil's advocacy is quite often the retreat of the moral relativist though isn't it? Somewhere to retreat to where they can abdicate responsibility for what they are saying with a limp and lame rejoinder of, "i was playing devil's advocate!"

It might be. It's been awhile since I honestly contemplated my moral system, and recent events in my life have caused whatever it was to be shaken up, anyhow.

And I usually don't pull the "I was just playing devil's advocate" phrase out, anyhow. However, using that thought process is often useful for continuing a discussion, and helps us to figure out base underlying principles about ourselves and the world around us. So long as it's understood that a lot of the things that I investigate don't necessarily agree with how I personally see the world, then it's all good.

QuoteClaiming Devil's advocacy is also the easiest way to camourflage trolling.

I'm also not the sort of douchebag who will keep making the same kinds of arguments over and over again, even when presented with a solid argument against what I'm saying. Give me a good reason to change my mind, and I will. Give my "devil's advocate" argument a solid, reasonable response, and I'll drop that line of inquiry, as it has been answered satisfactorily.

I fail to see what's trollish about this.

Most people tend to regard deliberately starting an argument where none was present as pretty much the Platonic form of trolling.

Quote from: J Arcane;350047Prurience, pretension, psuedointellectualism, childishness, hostility to morality, a desire to be seen as "edgy", the list could go on, and frankly, I don't care what the thought process is.

You might not, but I find it an interesting question, at least. It might be something as lame as "a desire to be seen as 'edgy,'" which wouldn't really be all that exciting as a rationale.

QuoteDeeds, not thoughts, are what matter, and the deed in question is that they made a game about gang rape to play with their friends.

I'm beginning to suspect that the word "play" might not be the best one to use to describe this particular... thing. I might be wrong, though.

QuoteThat's pretty goddamn fucked up no matter what the reason.  It is not a subject that should be made sport of.  

I concur. But the question is, did they do it to make sport of the subject matter?

QuoteThe only thing I feel I can say with certainty they didn't intend is, ironically, the very thing they wear as a shield against criticism, the claim it was a genuine awareness exercise, because it's clear no genuine public awareness will arise from it's existence.

You claim it's a shield. Why? What makes you so certain that they did it for any reason other than that one?

QuoteIf you want to make people aware of a major public issue, a handful of dorks at a gaming convention who couldn't care less is probably not a good place to start.

It does seem a little silly, yes. But if an artist wants to make a political statement, they paint. A writer writes a short story.

A game designer designs a game...

QuoteI didn't, for what it's worth.  I ascribe to you far different motives, that, while perhaps a kind of nobility, are mostly a waste of time.  ;)

Eh, I'm a philosophy student. You have no idea how often I hear that my efforts are a waste of time.

For the record i'm not suggesting GnomeWorks is either a moral relatavist or a troll. Just that the DA phrase often hides such things under a shield.

I found some footage of this LARP online...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNJur5i6zaw

Quote from: J Arcane;350049Most people tend to regard deliberately starting an argument where none was present as pretty much the Platonic form of trolling.

My complete and utter hatred of Platonic forms pretty much makes any reasonable response to this impossible... but I'll try.

I find the basic premise of this opinion very strange. Do you people not engage in discussion - argument, even - over a variety of topics with your social circle? I do this all the time, on a regular basis. I can't recall the last time a day went by where I didn't get in an argument.

Not all arguments are heated. My arguments in my live social circle are understood to - generally - not have much personal attachment; we throw out ideas, we discuss them, investigate some, refute others, and further the discourse.

If there is no conversation to be had - if we all agree - someone (usually myself) will investigate alternatives. I'll question our assumptions, try to figure out another angle, and work from there. I don't necessarily agree with anything I come up with, I do it for the sake of discussion.

There's no malice here, no spite. When I play devil's advocate, I do so simply for the purpose and joy of continuing an interesting conversation. I'm not trying to trick you, I'm not trying to egg you on. It really is just for the purpose of furthering conversation.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350050You claim it's a shield. Why? What makes you so certain that they did it for any reason other than that one?

Because of exactly what I said in the next paragraph.  Quoting by part does horrid things to context.  ;)

An RPG convention is a rubbish way to raise public awareness for a cause that isn't RPG-related already.  It's not a political forum, nor is it one with much influence or impact on the outside world.

There are many much better arenas one could broach the issue, and indeed, it seems the issue is already well known and widely debated in the country already.  

QuoteEh, I'm a philosophy student. You have no idea how often I hear that my efforts are a waste of time.

I'm going for a degree in computer history.  You've got nothing on me.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350055My complete and utter hatred of Platonic forms pretty much makes any reasonable response to this impossible... but I'll try.

Sub in "the very definition of trolling" then.  I was going for a touch of hyperbole.  

QuoteI find the basic premise of this opinion very strange. Do you people not engage in discussion - argument, even - over a variety of topics with your social circle? I do this all the time, on a regular basis. I can't recall the last time a day went by where I didn't get in an argument.

When there are people who disagree, of course arguments occur.

When no one does, but someone insists on arguing about it anyway?  They tend not to remain friends after a while, or at the very least create a lot of pointless strife and piss everyone off.  

I had a guy like that in one of my previous game groups.  He was a pain in the ass, and eventually quit the game because everyone was tired of his shit and he knew it.

The specific effects of sexual violence on victims are clearly observable in the form of lesions formed upon and within brain tissue. Consequently, anyone who, by accident or design, inflicts such violence is beating the victim not on the head but directly on 'exposed' brain tissue.

Care to offer me a philosphical defence of that?

Quote from: StormBringer;350003But, it shouldn't be a problem, right?  I mean, you don't even really have to play, you can just organize the event and let us know how it turned out.  I am sure the average game store customer will be swayed by your cogent moral argument when you explain that you are hosting a event that simulates the aftermath of gang rape.

Hey StormBringer, for my own clarification could you please state what you understand my cogent moral argument to be?

Quote from: paul b;350061hey stormbringer, for my own clarification could you please state what you understand my cogent moral argument to be?

"wah!  Mommy took my toys away!"

Quote from: J Arcane;350056Because of exactly what I said in the next paragraph.  Quoting by part does horrid things to context.  ;)

Fair enough.

QuoteAn RPG convention is a rubbish way to raise public awareness for a cause that isn't RPG-related already.  It's not a political forum, nor is it one with much influence or impact on the outside world.

There are many much better arenas one could broach the issue, and indeed, it seems the issue is already well known and widely debated in the country already.  

Doesn't it make sense, though, to use the medium you're most familiar with to make political points, if that is one's goal? Artists do it all the time, why not game design?

QuoteI'm going for a degree in computer history.  You've got nothing on me.

Hmm... perhaps, good sir. Perhaps.

QuoteSub in "the very definition of trolling" then. I was going for a touch of hyperbole.

I don't get it.

QuoteWhen no one does, but someone insists on arguing about it anyway? They tend not to remain friends after a while, or at the very least create a lot of pointless strife and piss everyone off.

You seem to be equating argument with anger. I don't understand that equivalence.

I argue about things all the time. It doesn't mean I'm emotionally attached to the things I'm arguing about. The same goes for the vast majority of my social circle, which covers a lot of ground in terms of employment, education, social status, background, and interests.

Quote from: Diavilo;350058Care to offer me a philosphical defence of that?

...of what, exactly?

Fact is fact. If that actually happens, then there's not really much more to be said about it than that. Since you're bringing it up, and I have little reason to doubt you, I'm willing to accept that that is a thing that happens.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350063Doesn't it make sense, though, to use the medium you're most familiar with to make political points, if that is one's goal? Artists do it all the time, why not game design?

I tend to think a lot of those similar artists in other mediums are also pillocks, so this line isn't liable to garner much sympathy from me.

This is about as meritorious as piss Christ and pregnant Britney.

QuoteI don't get it.

AS in, for your sake, read my line as "Most people tend to regard deliberately starting an argument where none was present as pretty much the very definition of trolling."

QuoteYou seem to be equating argument with anger. I don't understand that equivalence.

I argue about things all the time. It doesn't mean I'm emotionally attached to the things I'm arguing about. The same goes for the vast majority of my social circle, which covers a lot of ground in terms of employment, education, social status, background, and interests.

I think you're find most average people do not argue for fun, nor do they go out of their way to start them when they have no stake in either potential side.

Starting an argument for argument's sake is often a poor idea in most any of the social circles I've been apart of.

I personally find it more strange how some people apparently equate good conversation or discussion with argument.  As if the former is somehow impossible without the latter, which is frankly bollocks, and makes me wonder what their social lives are like.

Quote from: Paul B;350061Hey StormBringer, for my own clarification could you please state what you understand my cogent moral argument to be?

Clearly, you think that anyone who objects is some kind of prude or has an obsolete moral structure.  Let's see how your views survive contact with the real world.  If this is all just moral hysteria, when do you plan on setting up a session of the Gang Rape jeepform?

Quote from: J Arcane;350066I tend to think a lot of those similar artists in other mediums are also pillocks, so this line isn't liable to garner much sympathy from me.

This is about as meritorious as piss Christ and pregnant Britney.

Heh... I didn't say that I agreed with it, or thought it was effective. Just saying that perhaps that's what they were thinking.

I would tend to agree with you, though. It does seem a pretty craptastic way to try to get your message across. Certainly isn't the first thing that would cross my mind, that's for sure.

QuoteAS in, for your sake, read my line as "Most people tend to regard deliberately starting an argument where none was present as pretty much the very definition of trolling."

Which doesn't really make sense to me, because - while that certainly does seem to be part of trolling - trolling to me also implies a certain level of spite.

QuoteI think you're find most average people do not argue for fun, nor do they go out of their way to start them when they have no stake in either potential side.

Starting an argument for argument's sake is often a poor idea in most any of the social circles I've been apart of.

Fair enough, on both counts.

QuoteI personally find it more strange how some people apparently equate good conversation or discussion with argument.  As if the former is somehow impossible without the latter, which is frankly bollocks, and makes me wonder what their social lives are like.

It occurs to me that we may just be having a terminological issue, here. It's very possible that what I call an argument you would simply call a discussion.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350068Which doesn't really make sense to me, because - while that certainly does seem to be part of trolling - trolling to me also implies a certain level of spite.

I think most do it more for their own amusement than any sense of malice, although I suppose you could interpret that in itself as a kind of spite.

I've been known to wade in like a good 4channer and drop a trollpost now and again, and it certainly wasn't for any reason other than because it's hilarious fun.  

QuoteIt occurs to me that we may just be having a terminological issue, here. It's very possible that what I call an argument you would simply call a discussion.

Perhaps.  An argument to me implies a sense of two-sided verbal combat, of the sort that online seems to seek out as much as possible, but in terms of real life discussion usually leads nowhere good.  There's nothing wrong to me with two people discussing something on which they agree, or have no divisive opinion on, but to hear some people online tell it that would be the death of all talk.

Argument, discussion or whatever this has turned into, I'm afraid I've become lost.  My understanding is this:

J. Arcane posted a thread about some kind of weird pseudo-LARP game which uses gang rape as a theme while at the same time issuing a disclaimer saying it isn't supposed to be fun, presumably to deflect criticism by saying that it serves some higher moral purpose.

Paul B. equates the revulsion of multiple posters to this game to the reaction some parents had to early RPG's.

Stormbringer and several others criticize him for the comparison.

Gnomeworks urges civilized debate over name calling and gets into a long debate about it with J. Arcane.

My thoughts on this "game" as has been more eloquently stated by others, is that turning a violent criminal act which can cause great physical and mental harm to the victim into a game both diminishes the seriousness of the crime and tarnishes RPG's and LARP by associating itself with those genres.

Is anyone actually saying that this is an appropriate subject for a game?  Or that the person who did this, probably as an excuse to act out deviant impulses under the guise of jeepforming or whatever should be immune from criticism?

Holy shit, this is how they think they are educating people ? No, let's organize a march or support shelters or even inform people about shelters or hold seminars in schools or something, no, they choose to make a game where a normal rational person actually get's to play a rapist. This is what bothers me the most. Honestly, I am not too worried about the hobby. Now, I know you guys are gonna go all dogpile mode on me, so GnomeWorks, just chill out for a moment and go read Anais Nin or something.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: StormBringer;350067Clearly, you think that anyone who objects is some kind of prude or has an obsolete moral structure.

Ah, I see.

I'm having trouble reconciling your understanding with the fact that I actually said the opposite, repeatedly, throughout this very thread. Please do go ahead and check.

I'll wait. It won't take long, buttercup.

Quote from: David R;350082Holy shit, this is how they think they are educating people ? No, let's organize a march or support shelters or even inform people about shelters or hold seminars in schools or something, no, they choose to make a game where a normal rational person actually get's to play a rapist. This is what bothers me the most. Honestly, I am not too worried about the hobby. Now, I know you guys are gonna go all dogpile mode on me, so GnomeWorks, just chill out for a moment and go read Anais Nin or something.

Regards,
David R

No dogpile here, I agree fully.  It is I think worth further note that the authors have attempted a modicum of secrecy around the whole thing.

If you're seriously attempting to raise awareness of something, telling people to refer to it only by codewords to avoid Google, and hiding it in obscure filesharing sites, doesn't seem to be a good way of doing so either.  

If this is a thing to be proud of, as a genuine attempt towards a good faith analysis of the situation, you'd think the author wouldn't be so afraid to be associated with it.

However, I am personally proud to say, that this thread is now the #2 result on Google for "gang rape rpg", followed by links to stories about actual gang rapes, FATAL, and the Violence RPG.  So much for that plan.

Quote from: Paul B;349804Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

Quote from: Paul B;349810Who's apologizing?

Kneejerk moralism is still funny and quaint and old-fashioned, though. Way to raise the bar!

Quote from: Paul B;349820Uh...that's a pretty slippery slope. Do tacky fanservice RPG book covers get a pass? Howzabout thinly veiled racism? Genocide?

Quote from: Paul B;349848I'll be sure to wag my disapproving finger at those damned boffer LARPers and SCAers next time they try and spread their filth.

Thanks for the tip!

Quote from: Paul B;349985Hey, so let's get real for a sec.

Anyone here go through the BADD old days? Show of hands please. Thank you.

Ever have a red-faced housewife show up on your parents' doorstep and demand they talk about your immoral, Satanic habits? Ever have your shit taken away from you because, well, all the other parents thought it was a good idea? And did having your shit taken from you save your soul? Your morality?

Here's the thing. Self-righteous moralists are never in it for the saving. Never. Ever. They don't give a flying fuck about protecting anyone from anything. They're self-righteous moralists because it's a way to earn points, to draw lines, to win some specious fight you didn't even know you were in.

So when I see some kneejerk moralist going off on something so utterly irrelevant, that's what's happening: They're at it again. Them. Oh please just fucking shoot me already, it's 1985 all over again.

For the record, since reading comprehension seems to be at an all-time low (either in this thread or on this board in general), I've never actually stated my opinion on this piece. Go ahead, check the record. I'll wait. Are you done?

If you were curious -- and if you were, you'd have asked me -- I personally think the gang rape thing is fucked up. But whatever. Who cares? Parents shouldn't -- they're the ones responsible for instilling values into their kids, not some misguided, pretentious "game" creator. Gamers worried about how a "gang rape gang" will make roleplaying look? OH PLEASE: first off, generating a dozen pages of talk about it means you've just given this piece of shit more traction than the last few FtA! threads gave that game; second off, gamers have way more pressing issues with image (http://failblog.org/2009/12/11/hygiene-fail/) than an obscure experimental RPing exercise actually played by...tens of people.

Please, for fuck's sake, just read. Ask me questions! But don't you go putting bullshit into my mouth that I never said.

And the kneejerk moralists can blow me. You're serving nobody but yourselves.

Quote from: Paul B;350008Ah. I'm seeing the basic problem here.

There's a fundamental difference between:

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit." That's criticism.

and

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit that they made," using said pretentious, offensive shit as a means of earning points against them. That's moralising against them.

I'm deeply critical of this game. The OP is not. He's critical of them.

Hey so J Arcane, whoever you are, who are "they" anyway? The Swedes?

You're right, it didn't take long.

You start by dismissing people who find gross moral and ethical failures in a game wholly centered on gang rape as 'kneejerk moralists', then try to make an equivalence to people who were mistaken about Satanism in D&D with a game wholly centered on gang rape, spending the entire time downplaying the completely natural reaction of well-socialized gamers to the idea of a game wholly centered on gang rape.  While your well-polished emo cynicism likely plays well with the twats you associate with, you then fail to have the strength of your convictions by hosting a jeepform of this scenario to show the 'mundanes' what kind of hysterical moralists they are to their faces.

In short, you are a douchebag and a coward.  You think your high-minded defence of this jeepform in the name of 'Art' is the most moral position available, when in fact, it only further demonstrates what an indefensible and bankrupt ideology 'moral relativism' has always been.

Quote from: forgersthis game [...] is not meant to be fun to play.

The purpose of a game is to have fun. If it is designed specifically not to be fun, it is not a game.

Since this forum is about roleplaying games, this is off-topic for the rpg section. It could perhaps be shunted off to "media and other inspiration", though I'm not sure it deserves to be among "creative media."

Could we have a thread shift, please?

Quote from: StormBringer;350067Clearly, you think that anyone who objects is some kind of prude or has an obsolete moral structure.  Let's see how your views survive contact with the real world.  If this is all just moral hysteria, when do you plan on setting up a session of the Gang Rape jeepform?

Quote from: Paul B;350083Ah, I see.

I'm having trouble reconciling your understanding with the fact that I actually said the opposite, repeatedly, throughout this very thread. Please do go ahead and check.

I'll wait. It won't take long, buttercup.

No problem, man...I'm bored, so I checked for you:

Quote from: Paul B;349804Kneejerk moralists crack me up. It's BADD all over again!

OMG think of the children.

Quote from: Paul B;349985...Self-righteous moralists...self-righteous moralists...

So when I see some kneejerk moralist going off on something so utterly irrelevant...

And the kneejerk moralists can blow me. You're serving nobody but yourselves.

So...let me get this straight.  You object to this game, but you didn't bother mentioning this fact until page 6 or so, when you had previously called anyone who ALSO objected to this game a "kneejerk moralist", repeatedly, for expressing their objection to the game.

So what's the damn problem?  They didn't object in a manner that you found to your liking?

Huh. With reading comprehension skills like that, Stormbringer, it's a wonder you've ever made your way through an RPG book.

The name-calling was sweet, though. I'm glad you care so much.

Quote from: Paul B;350090Huh. With reading comprehension skills like that, Stormbringer, it's a wonder you've ever made your way through an RPG book.

The name-calling was sweet, though. I'm glad you care so much.

"You just don't understand me!  Waaaaahh!"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;350086The purpose of a game is to have fun. If it is designed specifically not to be fun, it is not a game.

Since this forum is about roleplaying games, this is off-topic for the rpg section. It could perhaps be shunted off to "media and other inspiration", though I'm not sure it deserves to be among "creative media."

Could we have a thread shift, please?

I agree. Based on an actual reading of the PDF posted in the original post, I think that Gang Rape - and maybe jeepforms in general - don't qualify as games so much as some sort of group pseudoeducational activity. Why anyone would want to do such a thing when there are presumably genuinely fun freeform LARPs available at the same convention, I have no fucking idea.

Quote from: Warthur;350114I agree. Based on an actual reading of the PDF posted in the original post, I think that Gang Rape - and maybe jeepforms in general - don't qualify as games so much as some sort of group pseudoeducational activity. Why anyone would want to do such a thing when there are presumably genuinely fun freeform LARPs available at the same convention, I have no fucking idea.

Their lives are boring and their work/home-life carries no meaning for them so they're forced to seek meaning elsewhere?

That's one of my own thoughts as to why "roleplaying" characters evolved out of D&D, and why there was a sort of refocusing on character and "plot" in 80's modules as D&D matured.  It's hard for people to divorce meaning from things, and so you end up with some people who enjoy playing a more "coherent" or "focused" type of game.  At the extreme end of that, you've got these guys, just as you've got the hardcore mega-killer-dungeon fans on the other end.

Exactly why people do deviant things isn't important.

Whats important is that this is not a game. It no more belongs in this subforum than does a transcript of the authour's last group therapy session.

Exploration of the darker side of human nature may or may not be a good or useful thing to do. But it's not fun, and is not a game. This forum is about roleplaying games.

Take it to rpg.net's Tangency Open, where it belongs.

After reading the .pdf in the first post all i could think of was how it seemed more like one of those arty pieces of crap morality filled amature drama club plays that i used to have to sit through in secondary school, well cept for the raping bit but i guess it'll be handled about as well by the idiots who plan to run this train wreck in waiting as the subjects covered in the "plays" i had to put up with back then.

Definitely not a game though under any conceivable context known to man(or beast) so i agree this topic needs to be moved to someplace non rpg related(a bin would be the best place imo).

I read the PDF too, and now I regret it. What a self-important, twee piece of crap. Not to mention off-the-scale creepy.

This thing shouldn't exist. The author waffles early on about whether or not he should have published it. He should have gone with his instincts and deleted the fucking thing.

This is not acceptable or excusable.

Quote from: ticopelp;350125The author waffles early on about whether or not he should have published it. He should have gone with his instincts and deleted the fucking thing.

We can help him out by ignoring him.

A lot of people are acting as if they were personally invited to try out this "game," which they were not. It's nasty, it's dark, and I really can't imagine who I would want to play this with, but in all honesty, if this float's someone's boat, so be it. As I've already said, it's not any creepier than stuff I've known people to do for their own sexual kicks, or as part of performance art for a certain kind of audience.

The reason people should be uncomfortable is the fact that one of the most popular mainstream LARPs (Vampire) necessarily addresses a number of metaphorical rape acts. If you want to argue that no one should ever play a vampire RPG of any sort, I'll agree the gang rape RPG is out of bounds by that criterion.

Adding fantastic elements may create distance and increase comfort, but it in no way changes the moral stakes of a game of pretend.

Ahh yes, the "D&D is genocide" argument.  

I'm sorry to say, but Paul B already beat you to that one.

Quote from: J Arcane;350143Ahh yes, the "D&D is genocide" argument.  

Wow, genocide? Do we have to go any further than armed robbery?

Quote from: Halfjack;350144Wow, genocide? Do we have to go any further than armed robbery?

Hey, I didn't write it first.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350064...of what, exactly?

Fact is fact. If that actually happens, then there's not really much more to be said about it than that. Since you're bringing it up, and I have little reason to doubt you, I'm willing to accept that that is a thing that happens.

The fact that the type of game under discussion causes real damage to real people, which is casually set aside by glib remarks which don't even address the question of how harmful they are to both individuals and the gaming community.

I'd suggest going and claiming a refund from your college, as they have neither taught you to address a question or follow a line of argument to its conclusion. These are the foundations of philosophy and psychology, and until you begin to grasp them there is no prospect of arriving at any understanding of concepts like moral imperatives and moral self-determination.

Until then, I''m afraid your self-absorbed conjecture is the figurative equivalent of the bum fluff on your chin.

Quote from: Paul B;350090Huh. With reading comprehension skills like that, Stormbringer, it's a wonder you've ever made your way through an RPG book.

The name-calling was sweet, though. I'm glad you care so much.

You poor guy, how are you ever going to get your enormous head out of your ass?

Quote from: Diavilo;350159Until then, I''m afraid your self-absorbed conjecture is the figurative equivalent of the bum fluff on your chin.

Hmm. If I used ignore lists, you'd be on mine.

Well, it does seem that the game was posted online without the author's consent. While I like to debate, I'm not happy if someone IP is violated. Was this the case?

Quote from: Halfjack;350016Surely it's more like pretending to go on a shooting rampage.

Oh, well that's MUCH better then... :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

Quote from: Reckall;350212Well, it does seem that the game was posted online without the author's consent. While I like to debate, I'm not happy if someone IP is violated. Was this the case?

I received a complaint from someone claiming to be the author, stating as much, yes. So to be safe I've removed the link.

I don't see how that actually derails the debate itself in any way, however.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;350044Yeah, I knew about this game before this thread too. Is there a statute of limitations on calling shit shit?

Not when the Storygamer Swine have actively tried to HIDE the existence of this game to those in the "unwashed masses", knowing that the vast majority of regular gamers would be disgusted with them, and trying to keep up their LIES that they are "just like us".

RPGPundit

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350165Hmm. If I used ignore lists, you'd be on mine.

That would be because you are unwilling to think through or explain how that game could be considered acceptable from any perspective. Which returns us to how you could hope to ever become a philosopher without tackling questions head on. Which is a legitimate question to ask when you present your arguments as being competent on the basis of your 'knowledge' of philosophy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;350228Not when the Storygamer Swine have actively tried to HIDE the existence of this game to those in the "unwashed masses", knowing that the vast majority of regular gamers would be disgusted with them, and trying to keep up their LIES that they are "just like us".

RPGPundit

If you don't call this kind of trash out every time it surfaces, it gets a chance to gain purchase among exactly the kind of intellectually challenged dunderheads who have been trying to defend it.

"dunderhead" - Glaswegian for stunningly stupid and self-absorbed

Quote from: RPGPundit;350227I received a complaint from someone claiming to be the author, stating as much, yes. So to be safe I've removed the link.

I don't see how that actually derails the debate itself in any way, however.

RPGPundit

Figures.

This kind of shit is so much easier to get away with when no one can read the thing for themselves, thus giving leeway to claim "Oh, but it's really not that bad, people are just exaggerating".

I'm disappointed.

Quote from: pawsplay;350137A lot of people are acting as if they were personally invited to try out this "game," which they were not.

When did personal invitations become a prerequisite for criticism?

Quote from: ticopelp;350245When did personal invitations become a prerequisite for criticism?

Exactly. I myself am a fan of the panopticon.

Quote from: J Arcane;350238Figures.

This kind of shit is so much easier to get away with when no one can read the thing for themselves, thus giving leeway to claim "Oh, but it's really not that bad, people are just exaggerating".

I'm disappointed.

Under fair use, people can still quote elements that are incriminatory; you just can't post a link to where someone can download the damn product.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Diavilo;350233That would be because you are unwilling to think through or explain how that game could be considered acceptable from any perspective.

Nope! It's because you're a pretentious douchebag who couldn't possibly comprehend the possibility that someone honestly didn't see a question in your weirdly-worded post, who then feels it necessary to shit all over individuals who don't think exactly like you.

But thanks for playing!

Quote from: Diavilo;350236If you don't call this kind of trash out every time it surfaces, it gets a chance to gain purchase among exactly the kind of intellectually challenged dunderheads who have been trying to defend it.

"dunderhead" - Glaswegian for stunningly stupid and self-absorbed

Well, yes... and your point is?

RPGPundit

My point is that like We All Had Names, this is not a game, and so is off-topic for therpgsite. I suppose it could go to Pundit's subforum, but it certainly doesn't belong in the Roleplaying Games subforum.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;350620My point is that like We All Had Names, this is not a game, and so is off-topic for therpgsite. I suppose it could go to Pundit's subforum, but it certainly doesn't belong in the Roleplaying Games subforum.

We're discussing neither the fine points of the game itself, nor of "game theory", but of the effect of this game on the hobby as a whole, therefore its fine here.

RPGPundit

An unpublished game can have no effect on the hobby as a whole.

Quote from: ticopelp;350245When did personal invitations become a prerequisite for criticism?

If you are going to protest that someone else's activity is offensive, I think first you have to demonstrate the presence of an audience to be offended.

Quote from: pawsplay;350716If you are going to protest that someone else's activity is offensive, I think first you have to demonstrate the presence of an audience to be offended.

Incorrect.  In this case, the 'audience' is pretty much anyone that would get wind of it, hence the authour's desire to keep the communications secretive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;350534Well, yes... and your point is?

RPGPundit

That apologists like holocaust deniers, gang rapists and animal torturers have to be called out every time, because ignorance spreads fast and apologists don't have to go to the trouble of putting their 'ideas' to the test.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350321Nope! It's because you're a pretentious douchebag who couldn't possibly comprehend the possibility that someone honestly didn't see a question in your weirdly-worded post, who then feels it necessary to shit all over individuals who don't think exactly like you.

But thanks for playing!

That'd be the sound of a rattle leaving the pram then :))

As for pretentious, that applies to people like yourself who claim to understand philosophy, or whatever, when they haven't learned to use a dictionary properly. I do know what I'm talking about in this instance so pretentious doesn't apply.

Quote from: Diavilo;350734That apologists like holocaust deniers, gang rapists and animal torturers have to be called out every time, because ignorance spreads fast and apologists don't have to go to the trouble of putting their 'ideas' to the test.

As amazing as it seems, freedom of thought and speech is still a constitutionally protected right in the USA and in many other countries, as it is the right to privacy. A crime is committed when the laws and regulations of the land are violated, not when simply practicing "whatever". This is why cops and departments find themselves in dire straits every time some "Satanists" are arrested just "because".

Quote from: Diavilo;350735As for pretentious, that applies to people like yourself who claim to understand philosophy, or whatever, when they haven't learned to use a dictionary properly. I do know what I'm talking about in this instance so pretentious doesn't apply.

No, you are pretentious, because you are making claims about me and what I do or do not know, when you know fuck-all about me.

And last I checked, I didn't make any such claim. Being a student of a thing sure as hell doesn't mean that I know everything about it or possibly related to it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350750No, you are pretentious, because you are making claims about me and what I do or do not know, when you know fuck-all about me.

And last I checked, I didn't make any such claim. Being a student of a thing sure as hell doesn't mean that I know everything about it or possibly related to it.

I'll have to pass. Started Christmas holidays and the season of goodwill is short enough as it is. Have a good one :)

Merry Christmas

Quote from: Reckall;350744As amazing as it seems, freedom of thought and speech is still a constitutionally protected right in the USA and in many other countries, as it is the right to privacy. A crime is committed when the laws and regulations of the land are violated, not when simply practicing "whatever". This is why cops and departments find themselves in dire straits every time some "Satanists" are arrested just "because".

And yet, you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.  There is an aspect of free speech that isn't protected, and that involves inciting criminal acts.

So, let's not invoke 'freedom of speech' as though it trumps all other concerns.

Quote from: StormBringer;350959So, let's not invoke 'freedom of speech' as though it trumps all other concerns.

It's a favourite of those who want to quash criticism.

Quote from: One Horse Town;350961It's a favourite of those who want to quash criticism.

That is why I wanted to nip it in the bud, if at all possible.  Another of those internets beliefs that I can't seem to stomach anymore.

The existence of this game does not surprise me. The fact that you asshats are giving it so much time, does.

Quote from: StormBringer;350959And yet, you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.  There is an aspect of free speech that isn't protected, and that involves inciting criminal acts.

This because yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a crime: disorderly behavior, causing unjustified concern or what else it is called in your country.

Expressing your opinion that it shouldn't be, or role-playing in a world where it isn't is not a crime.

Quote from: One Horse Town;350961It's a favourite of those who want to quash criticism.

If anything, this argument is a favorite of those who want to decide what "freedom of speech" is (read: quash it). "Freedom of speech" is just that: it still makes you responsible of what you say, makes you open to criticism, and maybe even makes you a pariah in a given context/cultural group.

And of course criticism is a form of freedom of speech, and as such it open to the same kind of responsibilities and to criticism itself: thus it can be founded on ignorance, pretentiousness, cluelessness and narrowmindedness - as One Horse Town just graciously demonstrated :D

3 out of 4 ain't bad.

Quote from: Reckall;351042Expressing your opinion that it shouldn't be, or role-playing in a world where it isn't is not a crime.

No kidding?

Anyway, your right to express yourself does not also provide the right to be utterly protected from the expressions of others.

Hence, you can say these guys shouldn't be criticized for making a game about gang rape all day long.  But you will find that the vast majority will then exercise their right to speech, calling out someone defending this design to be a despicable asshole.

Quote from: StormBringer;351267No kidding?

Anyway, your right to express yourself does not also provide the right to be utterly protected from the expressions of others.

You didn't really read the thread, did you?

This product seems like a fail to me.

I'm sticking with first edition. In the new one the point-buy Rapist template is totally nerfed.

Quote from: Reckall;351330You didn't really read the thread, did you?

Despite it being a repeat of the last five times it has come up.

At any rate, you want to say the gang rape guys have the freedom of speech to make a 'session' about gang rape, fine.  But I will exercise my freedom of speech and note that your attempt to be edgy has fallen utterly flat, and you are now simply a douchebag exemplifying Skarka's Law.

Quote from: StormBringer;351437Despite it being a repeat of the last five times it has come up.

At any rate, you want to say the gang rape guys have the freedom of speech to make a 'session' about gang rape, fine.  But I will exercise my freedom of speech and note that your attempt to be edgy has fallen utterly flat, and you are now simply a douchebag exemplifying Skarka's Law.

We, it seems then that we agree on how "freedom of speech" does't bar a dude from showing his cluessness. Thanks for being the second guy posting here to exemplify a point.

Ah, BTW, it's not me who tries to be "edgy" by stating that "the gang rape guys have the freedom of speech to make a 'session' about gang rape", or that satanists have the freedom to practice satanism, or that organized religions have the right to kill animals: it's the US Law, upheld by the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah). And before sputtering some righteous stupidity about the killing of animals due to religious beliefs, think of Kosher: many smartasses wannabes break their noses right here.

Try reading a book (http://www.amazon.com/Cops-Guide-Occult-Investigations-Understanding/dp/1581604254).

Quote from: Reckall;351475We, it seems then that we agree on how "freedom of speech" does't bar a dude from showing his cluessness. Thanks for being the second guy posting here to exemplify a point.

Ah, BTW, it's not me who tries to be "edgy" by stating that "the gang rape guys have the freedom of speech to make a 'session' about gang rape", or that satanists have the freedom to practice satanism, or that organized religions have the right to kill animals: it's the US Law, upheld by the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah). And before sputtering some righteous stupidity about the killing of animals due to religious beliefs, think of Kosher: many smartasses wannabes break their noses right here.

Try reading a book (http://www.amazon.com/Cops-Guide-Occult-Investigations-Understanding/dp/1581604254).

Go ahead and find the post where I talk about Satanism. While you are at it, find the post where I claim they shouldn't be allowed to publish a game about gang rape.

 If you just want to spout verbal diarrhea around freedom of speech, get a blog.  Otherwise, you are continuing to defend a highly offensive topic to your own detriment.

Quote from: StormBringer;351489If you just want to spout verbal diarrhea around freedom of speech, get a blog.  Otherwise, you are continuing to defend a highly offensive topic to your own detriment.

Freedom of Speech is "an highly offensive topic"?! Since when?? I'm not sure you are having a grip on what you are writing. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Reckall;351494Freedom of Speech is "an highly offensive topic"?! Since when?? I'm not sure you are having a grip on what you are writing. :rolleyes:

Holy shit, you are just going to take the role of douchebag and run with it, then?

Seriously, you are pretty much the only one who would have posted that first sentence, and your reasons have nothing to do with good faith.  Take your need to be edgy over to tBP, where your passive-aggressive bullshit is tolerated.  Over here, you are just a douchebag.

Quote from: StormBringer;351497Holy shit, you are just going to take the role of douchebag and run with it, then?

Seriously, you are pretty much the only one who would have posted that first sentence, and your reasons have nothing to do with good faith.  Take your need to be edgy over to tBP, where your passive-aggressive bullshit is tolerated.  Over here, you are just a douchebag.

No kidding. :rolleyes:

Reckall, don't be a cocksmock.

Freedom of speech means people can write and publish a gang rape experience if they want to, they can even wrongly call it a "game" if they want to.

Freedom of speech also means people can then call the first lot reprehensible and puerile wankers.

You know this. Stop being a cocksmock about it. As Stormy said, that's rpg.net behaviour, it doesn't fly here because we really do have freedom of speech here. Which of course upsets reprehensible and puerile wankers, but there you go. This is therpgsite, where people are called on their bullshit.

I'm calling you on your bullshit. If you want to defend this non-game, go ahead. Don't be a wuss about it and babble on about the unrelated issue of freedom of speech.

I'll just wait for the 4th edition version, which will certainly be Disney-fied.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351527Reckall, don't be a cocksmock.

Freedom of speech means people can write and publish a gang rape experience if they want to, they can even wrongly call it a "game" if they want to.

Freedom of speech also means people can then call the first lot reprehensible and puerile wankers.

There's a whole subclass of people on the internet who conflate freedom of speech issues about published material with censorship issues about published material.

No matter how many times you tell them that if you want your freedom to talk about your child nazi rapist necrophilliac game, then i also have the freedom to call you a freak, they fall back on 'calling' freedom of speech as if the critic shouldn't have any.

It's only censorship, fuckwads, if whatever you are peddling is altered by outside forces against the will of the originator. Calling it fucked up should not be conflated with calling for it to be censored, those are two different flavours of ice-cream.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351533There's a whole subclass of people on the internet who conflate freedom of speech issues about published material with censorship issues about published material.

No matter how many times you tell them that if you want your freedom to talk about your child nazi rapist necrophilliac game, then i also have the freedom to call you a freak, they fall back on 'calling' freedom of speech as if the critic shouldn't have any.

It's only censorship, fuckwads, if whatever you are peddling is altered by outside forces against the will of the originator. Calling it fucked up should not be conflated with calling for it to be censored, those are two different flavours of ice-cream.

 Allow the scum to speak, flip em off when they do, and shoot them when they act upon the bullshit they speak.
 
   Furthermore, how is one supposed to know if this is a roleplayed gangrape or real? I mean, if I see somebody getting assaulted like this, my first reaction would be to start swinging a crowbar at the assailants.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351527Reckall, don't be a cocksmock.

Freedom of speech means people can write and publish a gang rape experience if they want to, they can even wrongly call it a "game" if they want to.

Freedom of speech also means people can then call the first lot reprehensible and puerile wankers.

Since it seems that more than one people is posting without reading this thread, I'll quote some relevant parts by myself

Quote from: Reckall;349912My opinion.

Well, "freedom of expression" is still a valued right (as long as one remembers that "freedom" doesn't make the expression interesting, smart or valuable).

So, thank you for underlying what I already said, like, one week ago.

And my overall idea of the game:

Quote from: Reckall;349912...It seems to me that this is only a slight variation of the usual "GMs are sexual molesters!!!!" forgite rally cry. A really sad state of affairs (and minds) IMHO.

Same post by me - the above conclusion justified with quotes from the very text of the product we are talking about.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351527I'm calling you on your bullshit. If you want to defend this non-game, go ahead.

See above about my opinion on the product, my (unexistant) willingness to defend it, and why I came to my conclusions about it. As I said, one only had to read the thread.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351527Don't be a wuss about it and babble on about the unrelated issue of freedom of speech.

Except, however, that it is not unrelated. Actually, you are taking advantage of this right to express your opinion right here - something on which, I see, we all agree.

Then, since I defended "Freedom of Speech" as a principle, I'm invited to speak about it elsewhere. Whoa! what a forgite approach to the idea! "We don't deny FoS: we simply consider it something to be brought elsewhere if we don't like what you say!" One can imagine on some other much-despised-over-here boards people "explaining" how you should speak of things, and what is considered acceptable in what you say about them.

Actually, I don't even have to imagine it. I came here after an almost month long debate on the Italian RPG newsgroup against some "New Wave Prophets" who simply couldn't accept... yup! my right to exercise "FoS", and choose to be the GM (in my private life) in games that could be compared to child molesting. Something which, to them, is totally true: they say so :rolleyes:

And I didn't even went into a slightly more deep analysis of the topic being discussed here. The creators of "Gang Rape" state that they created an active narrative experience, not meant to be fun, because they want to explore some of the darker areas of human soul, via creative expression, in a protected environment (and it is worth mentioning how it turned out their game was diffused without their consent; if it true that it is damaging, then the ones diffusing it spread the damage much more than the game authors ever did  - under the righteous shield of "informing the unshaven masses about these horripilations!", of course...)

Anyway, shame and rejection on the creators of GR the RPG!!! Fine. And I even agree! - mostly thank the very unfortunate parallelism the game explicitly traces between gang rape and a GM running a traditional game.

But, since the context is explore some of the darker areas of human soul, via creative expression, in a protected environment what about an actor interested in an evil and disturbing role, then? Should Bruno Ganz be put on trial for the best portrayal of Hitler ever put on screen? Should Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page be arrested for their excellent impersonation of a child molester and a creepily disturbed teen-ager in "Hard Candy". What about a writer writing a serial killer novel all from the killer's point of view? What about Damien Hirst (http://images.google.it/images?hl=it&um=1&sa=1&q=%22damien+hirst%22&btnG=Cerca+immagini&aq=f&oq=&start=0)? Since the dawn of time artists are interested in exploring the darker sides of the human being via creative expression. And they can do so, in advanced societies, due to Freedom of Speech - sometimes even getting ugly cultural reaction for that. Do you apply the same "boiling righteousness" to their craft? If yes, why? If no, why not? What about their public?

Is a forgite right and commendable when he intrudes in your private matters and accuses you of rendering people "unable to create by violating their young gamers' minds" - then diffusing to the four winds what happens in your private games along with his "commentary"?

At the end of the day, the story is always the same: a lot of people (but not all, thanks to God) are perfectly happy to judge things according to principles they wouldn't remotely accept were they the one judged. Interestingly enough, this is the first thing I noticed the first time I clashed with some forgite fundamentalist.

Sorry, Kyle, objections rejected. Next.

Reckall, I have to say, reading about your games, you're exactly the kind of cocksmock that would do very well in my crew, but what the fuck are you going on about ?

Could you point where anyone here has called for a ban of this game ? Could you point out where anyone mentioned this game within the context of freedom of speech (besides you, that is) ? Nobody is saying they can't create a game like this, talk about it (although the designers do seem to have a problem, with folks talking about their game) or even play it.

They just think it's a reprehensible product and want to talk about it. I think this game will have zero effect on the hobby. I get that this whole Forge/Swine war is BS. I get that the Pundit is a complete wanker, but what I don't get is why you seem to think that this is a free speech issue ?

Regards,
David R

Still, what would your first reaction be if you saw a group of people "playing" this?  What would actually happen if by "playing" this, it was used to actually perform a gang-rape?  What are the legal implications?  
 
 Unfuckingacceptable.

Quote from: David R;351539(although the designers do seem to have a problem, with folks talking about their game) or even play it.

Regards,
David R

Quite, almost as if they were ashamed.

That's pretty sad for several reasons, really.

Either -

A) They're freaks that don't want to be identified for their freaky fun and games involving role-playing gang-rape.

B) It actually is a 'therapy' excersise, but they are savvy enough to know that there are actual wierdos out there creating games in the same vein to be played for fun and they don't want to be associated with them.

C) They're freaks that don't have the courage of their designing convictions. Some forgites would be pimping this all over the place (under an assumed name like Lotus Blossoms, or something), but these guys lost their bottle and now fiddle with themselves in the basement.

Quote from: shalvayez;351540Still, what would your first reaction be if you saw a group of people "playing" this?  What would actually happen if by "playing" this, it was used to actually perform a gang-rape?  What are the legal implications?  
 
 Unfuckingacceptable.

There are two answers to this:

If the gang rape happens as a part of the game, then it is a crime and it will be prosecuted. The book I mentioned about the relationship between the US Law, religious belief, occult and even RPGs (!) is quite clear on this point: if a criminal act is part of these activities, then the crime is prosecuted - end of the story. However, the activity by itself isn't. This is why, for example, the practice of Satanism is still legal in the US even if some followers perpetrated dire things in the past.

If gang-rape is perpetrated by someone who played the game, then things are much less clear-cut - but there are many similar examples one can refer to. People playing FPS on the PC all-day long and then going out on a rampage and gunning down a score of classmates. People playing "Stormbringer" by Chaosium and then "sacrificing the cat to evoke Arioch". I won't even go into the whole religious polemics that surrounded D&D during the dark ages.

In all these instances you can find people pointing screaming to the former "recreative experience" as the culprit that turned the poor guy into a death-dealing sociopath. Sane opinion, as of 2009, is that the poor guy was probably a sociopath all along - pointing to the latest FPS/RPG/whatever session being only an easy scapegoat for denying the responsibilities both of the family and the society he grew up in.

EDIT: My first reaction, should I happen on a stray game, would be to observe the proceedings with curiosity. My gut feeling is that I wouldn't try it, and that I'll probably neither decide to ever play it nor to actively seek someone who plays it.

Quote from: Reckall;351543There are two answers to this:

If the gang rape happens as a part of the game, then it is a crime and it will be prosecuted. The book I mentioned about the relationship between the US Law, religious belief, occult and even RPGs (!) is quite clear on this point: if a criminal act is part of these activities, then the crime is prosecuted - end of the story. However, the activity by itself isn't. This is why, for example, the practice of Satanism is still legal in the US even if some followers perpetrated dire things in the past.

If gang-rape is perpetrated by someone who played the game, then things are much less clear-cut - but there are many similar examples one can refer to. People playing FPS on the PC all-day long and then going out on a rampage and gunning down a score of classmates. People playing "Stormbringer" by Chaosium and then "sacrificing the cat to evoke Arioch". I won't even go into the whole religious polemics that surrounded D&D during the dark ages.

In all these instances you can find people pointing screaming to the former "recreative experience" as the culprit that turned the poor guy into a death-dealing sociopath. Sane opinion, as of 2009, is that the poor guy was probably a sociopath all along - pointing to the latest FPS/RPG/whatever session being only an easy scapegoat fora denying the responsibilities both of the family and the society he grew up in.

Except: "Your honor, she agreed to play Gang Rape with us, and one thing lead to another, and she was WILLING."  Rape is already rather difficult to prosecute if all directions lead to SEEMING willingness..

And even worse yet, you still have recent memory of that little twat at Duke U. claiming the lacrosse team had gang raped her. She admitted she lied after a few months, and it still SCREWED w/ their lives. This "game" is irresponsible on so many levels, it makes F.A.T.A.L. and RaHoWa seem appealing..

Quote from: shalvayez;351544Except: "Your honor, she agreed to play Gang Rape with us, and one thing lead to another, and she was WILLING."

Again, you could just find a lawyer that points to the rulebook - which clearly states no physical contact, and that she was willing to act - like in a reharsal for a play, in a role she was interested exploring. Then one thing lend to a crime - which is still a crime.

 

QuoteRape is already rather difficult to prosecute if all directions lead to SEEMING willingness..

"Rape" is such an evasive crime that non-rape can be transformed into rape as easily. Many guys who have consensual sex with a girl can find themselves accused of rape. Then either the girl or her parents point out to the authorities that the aforementioned guy has a game called "Gang Rape" in his home. There: poetic justice in action.

Beside, the rules also state that the game should be played with people you are confortable with. If someone frequents such a circle and still ends up being raped for real, my opinion is that soon or later it would have been happened anyway, probably in another occourrence. Belief is more often than not the justification for something one wants to do anyway - not the cause.

Quote from: Reckall;351549Again, you could just find a lawyer that points to the rulebook - which clearly states no physical contact, and that she was willing to act - like in a reharsal for a play, in a role she was interested exploring. Then one thing lend to a crime - which is still a crime.

 

"Rape" is such an evasive crime that non-rape can be transformed into rape as easily. Many guys who have consensual sex with a girl can find themselves accused of rape. Then either the girl or her parents point out to the authorities that the aforementioned guy has a game called "Gang Rape" in his home. There: poetic justice in action.

Beside, the rules also state that the game should be played with people you are confortable with. If someone frequents such a circle and still ends up being raped for real, my opinion is that soon or later it would have been happened anyway, probably in another occourrence. Belief is more often than not the justification for something one wants to do anyway - not the cause.

Then, why muddy it up even further with a stupid game?

Quote from: David R;351539I get that the Pundit is a complete wanker, but what I don't get is why you seem to think that this is a free speech issue ?

Regards,
David R

???????????????????????  

No answer, old boy.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351551???????????????????????  

No answer, old boy.

Well I'm a professional Pundit detractor (mind you, this is merely a side job to my regular NBNG gig), so I thought I'd just take a couple of random shots ! Y'know, for consistency.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;351553Well I'm a professional Pundit detractor (mind you, this is merely a side job to my regular NBNG gig), so I thought I'd just take a couple of random shots ! Y'know, for consistency.

Regards,
David R

I was referring to no answer from Reckall to your question.

D'oh

Regards,
David R

Can you guys IMAGINE what invitations to play Gang Rape would be like?
 
 Holy crap, I would imagine some hilarity....

Quote from: Reckall;351543In all these instances you can find people pointing screaming to the former "recreative experience" as the culprit that turned the poor guy into a death-dealing sociopath. Sane opinion, as of 2009, is that the poor guy was probably a sociopath all along - pointing to the latest FPS/RPG/whatever session being only an easy scapegoat for denying the responsibilities both of the family and the society he grew up in.

I don't think Gang Rape might cause people to actually commit gang rape. That scenario strikes me as unlikely to say the least. (I mean, come on guys - how many women do you know who would agree to participate in this game as a victim with all the other players being men who she doesn't know? In a place where there are no witnesses? In what world does that happen? And in what world are men who LARP not the meekest, mildest and least-likely-to-commit-rape men who ever existed?) Gang rape the game is reprehensibly moronic and preposterous and in that sense, yes, it is reprehensible. But this moral panic is a step too far.

Quote from: noisms;351564I don't think Gang Rape might cause people to actually commit gang rape. That scenario strikes me as unlikely to say the least. (I mean, come on guys - how many women do you know who would agree to participate in this game as a victim with all the other players being men who she doesn't know? In a place where there are no witnesses? In what world does that happen? And in what world are men who LARP not the meekest, mildest and least-likely-to-commit-rape men who ever existed?) Gang rape the game is reprehensibly moronic and preposterous and in that sense, yes, it is reprehensible. But this moral panic is a step too far.

 You have too much faith in your fellow human. Don't assume everybody has common sense.

What the fuck is Reckall on about? I just said he was a cocksmock for defending the game, and he started rabbitting on about being silenced and told to go elsewhere, and some actor portraying Hitler in a movie. None of which had been mentioned by anyone.

What the fuck?

This is the problem with the internet. You can't just have a conversation with a person, they don't reply to you, they reply to the last twenty people they spoke to on a vaguely related topic, and drag all this other bullshit in you never said.

Read the fucking post and respond to it and it alone, how hard is that? Drongo.

Quote from: shalvayez;351565You have too much faith in your fellow human. Don't assume everybody has common sense.

People who have common sense won't be playing Gang Rape the game, by definition, so that point's moot. But I can't imagine even the ditziest woman putting herself in the position of playing a LARP entitled "Gang Rape" with a group otherwise entirely composed of men. In a place with no witnesses. Without telling anyone.

(To be frank, I can't imagine any woman wanting to play said LARP in any event, except perhaps for shits and giggles. Something tells me it wasn't written with women in mind - it rather seems like one of those things that a certain breed of hyper-liberal emo boy does in order to handwring about how awful his own sex is and gain insight into male dominance of women or some rubbish like that.)

Quote from: noisms;351598People who have common sense won't be playing Gang Rape the game, by definition, so that point's moot. But I can't imagine even the ditziest woman putting herself in the position of playing a LARP entitled "Gang Rape" with a group otherwise entirely composed of men. In a place with no witnesses. Without telling anyone.

(To be frank, I can't imagine any woman wanting to play said LARP in any event, except perhaps for shits and giggles. Something tells me it wasn't written with women in mind - it rather seems like one of those things that a certain breed of hyper-liberal emo boy does in order to handwring about how awful his own sex is and gain insight into male dominance of women or some rubbish like that.)

Emo: new scapegoat for a new millennium.

But emos enjoy being scapegoats!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351603But emos enjoy being scapegoats!

 By your understanding of their subculture, they do. Of course then again, I understand the Greek/Frat/Sorority culture to be WAY more into rape then Emo culture to be.

Quote from: shalvayez;351602Emo: new scapegoat for a new millennium.

I'm kind of defending emo inasmuch as I'm arguing that people who like it are probably much less likely to be rapists than the average.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351579What the fuck is Reckall on about? I just said he was a cocksmock for defending the game, and he started rabbitting on about being silenced and told to go elsewhere, and some actor portraying Hitler in a movie. None of which had been mentioned by anyone.

What the fuck?

This is the problem with the internet. You can't just have a conversation with a person, they don't reply to you, they reply to the last twenty people they spoke to on a vaguely related topic, and drag all this other bullshit in you never said.

Read the fucking post and respond to it and it alone, how hard is that? Drongo.

No shit.

I think people get this notion that we censor or something over here because their shitty conclusions don't survive in the marketplace of ideas.  Which of course, can't possibly be due to the fact that their ideas are simply shitty and poorly thought out.  It has to be because theRPGsite is censoring.  Or we hate n00bs.  Or we can't handle the truth!

Whether it is ideas, money, or product, do you know who hates competing in the free market the most?  Vehement advocates of the Free Market.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351551???????????????????????  

No answer, old boy.

Just to give an example of the depth of thought shown by OHT in this thread, a glance at my "location" shows in which timezone I live in, while a simple search on Wikipedia would have shown how Italians go to sleep like people do in all the rest of the world.

There, it was not difficult.

David: I started talking about Freedom of Speech and Thought when, in this thread, those playing the game were explicitly lumped up with "holocaust deniers, gang rapists and animal torturers" - and then spoken about like if they actually did these things.

Personally, I was bothered to discover that the "incriminating document" was a private possession leaked without the owner consent. This allowed to a lot of people to jump on some moral high horse after doing something that could very well be illegal. The aforementioned reasons ("calling out neo-Hitlers etc.") were put forward as a justification for the act. I simply pointed out how (and why) there is nothing illegal in what those who practice "Gang Rape" do. Whereas a copyright violation or an invasion of privacy could very well be.

Does this mean that I defend the game or that I like it? No, as I explicitly wrote (and it is telling how many people are still confusing the two issues in this thread). Does this mean that some abhorrent phenomenon should be let off the hook of criticism? Not at all. As we saw, there are already social mechanisms at work that do that. However, these mechanisms should work at the level of the society where the phenomenon is diffused. In the case of a private and legal activity, only those invited to take part in it should be entitled to express their criticism (even if only because - you know - they experienced the thing). Even in my criticism of the game I limited myself to what I could objectively experience: the explicit analogies made in writing between gang rape and a traditional way to be the GM in an RPG.

Either that, or those screaming against D&D "being a tool of Satan" because they open a book and read about "demon summoning" (maybe an incubus, there) would be right in an absolute sense. Because, you know, the book says so, so it is real and done by people who want to do it for real. And I think that we all share the same opinion about these kinds of judgements.

Kyle: Please, bear with me for a while.

As I wrote, I came here after a month-long battle against some forgite fundamentalists who wanted to "better the world" by explaining to everyone else how things should be done, how they should think, and why. Like: defining GMs as tyrants who dominate theirs subject creative freedom and the like. I actually found some solace in reading the " OK, I almost hate to ask this..." thread, since it made me feel... let's say "less lonely" :D (beside allowing me to discover some more moronisms spewed by Edwards & co.)

However, at the end of the day, I discard the forgite "explanations" about why what I do is wrong, and evil, and corrupting for young psyches for the same reasons why, in the past, I discarded "D&D as Satanism" and "D&D as an highway to financial ruin by gambling!" (I'm not making this up). Other people intruding in your personal freedom justifying the act as being done in the name of "an higher good" - an higher good as defined by them, of course.

However, by the very same principle, I won't never, ever, tell a forgite or to anybody else how he should play, why the way he plays is wrong and damaging, or even question his personal gaming experiences and how them led him to seek a different way of playing. For what I care they can play their games, publish them and even pimp them around. This because behaving differently would mean behaving exactly like them. And the last thing I want is to behave like them. The crutch, here, is that once you embrace a principle, and you are proud about it, you are also bound to all the implications deriving from it. And some people just don't think to all the implications in advance.

Still with me? Good. You ask me "why I talk about some actor playing Hitler". I wrote it explicitly: if one condemns someone else because the latter wants to explore a dark side of the human being via a creative pursuit, the righteous condemner can be my guest. But I would then point out the implications of the principle he just bound himself to: What about an actor? A painter? A writer? Where does one trace the line?

[Of course, talking about the case in point, it could be objected that "Gang Rape" is one of those "pretentious swineish pursuits that justify their existence by being branded around as 'works of art'". If so, I would simply point out how no one came here to brand around anything - as we saw it was done without the author's permission (and, again, probably illegally).]

One could then simply state how his personal opinion is that "the line" is traced when the activity is labeled "as a game". Fine. I even agree with that. Still, this doesn't makes both of us "images of the world": i.e. what we think being right and wrong becomes "right and wrong in an absolute sense". This would be, again, forgespeak. It isn't that their experiences with traditional RPGs left them traumatized: no, they left traumatized the whole world. If you deny it then you are lying. Honest. Why? Because if they experienced so, then it is true in an absolute sense. They are thus speaking the obvious truth, which must then be applied by everybody.

I concluded my debate against the forgites on the Italian NG by stating: "Should the whole world - except three people - embrace The Forge, agree that those playing in different ways are child molesters, and condemn any other way of playing, those three people would still be entitled to the right to play D&D in the privacy of their homes with other consensual gamers, and to have fun from doing it". And I stand by same principle also here.

What a month :rant::D

The difference between us and the Forgers, Reckall, is that we're right and they're wrong.

Because we're right and they're wrong, we can tell them how to play. Obviously.

The reason that the Forgers' way of play is wrong is that almost nobody wants to do it. In this, they are like the denizens of the Traveller Mailing List, or the Ars Magica Berkeley Mailing List, or most of the residents of Tangency Open on rpg.net - lonely basement-dwellers with no game groups, their only involvement in gaming in the last several years (up to 20 years in some cases) being arguing about pointless minutae on their mailing lists, and caressing their glossy books lovingly late at night.

A game's purpose in existence is to be played. If no-one will join you in playing it, the game is meaningless, and may as well not exist. Likewise, if no-one is interested in your playstyle and you never game, your opinion on gaming is meaningless.

A preference in games nobody wants to play, a playstyle nobody wants to share, makes you not a gamer. The Forgers wondering why nobody listens to them is like the guy writing to his MP saying, "I don't vote, but -" and then wondering why the MP read no further.

The Forgers are not wrong because their games or playstyles are nasty. They're wrong because they're irrelevant. Forgers are the emo niche of a subculture.

Gang Rape: the rpg is, it says, designed not to be fun, and therefore is not a game. It has no more relevance to gaming than a Men's Weekend away where we all get naked, bang on drums and wail in tears, "my father never loved me!" The use of our imaginations is part of gaming, but is not sufficient for gaming - especially when the only imaginative part is "in what way can we become more miserable?"

Forgers are not gamers. They are lonely wankers without game groups. Remember the founding essay of the Forger movement said that "Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated." As we now know, most people who try to game with Forgers become tired, bitter and frustrated.

That's why they hate us, because as stupid as many of our campaigns are, as adolescent and simple-minded as The Descent into the Deadly Dark Dangerous Demonic Deeps of the Dungeon of Devilish Denizens may be, we have FUN with our mates rolling dice and eating snacks.

While we have fun, the Forgers are left lonely in their basements, masturbating into their week-old socks with one hand while cutting themselves with the other, crying, "Tell me I'm supershockedgycool, mummy, tell me!"

All you need remember is that the Forger is the guy who got picked last for the team in school, even in Chess Club.

That's why they're wrong. And yes, the right to be wrong and fuck up is an essential part of democracy. But so is pointing and laughing. I mean, the leader of the Forgers is a professor of bat penises. This is the guy they rely on for profound insights into our hobby of pretending to be elven princesses while rolling dice and eating cheetos. A doctor of bat bollocks.

Now that's funny.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut emos enjoy being scapegoats!

Quote from: shalvayez;351604By your understanding of their subculture, they do.

I'm sorry, are you an emo and I hurt your feelings?

(http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/motivation/keepyourchinup.jpg)

Quote from: Reckall;351611David: I started talking about Freedom of Speech and Thought when, in this thread, those playing the game were explicitly lumped up with "holocaust deniers, gang rapists and animal torturers" - and then spoken about like if they actually did these things.

Reckall implying gamers who play Forge games are deviants is par for the course around these parts and is an example of freedom of speech in action. I disagree with kyle (and most posters here) when it comes to Forger games/gamers but I do think he's right when he says that they are irrelevent in the sense that a vast majority of gamers don't play their games. They seem to have some relevence here, though, because of the Swine War and all that.

I do get where you're coming from but you still have not put forward a convincing argument as to why you brought up freedom of speech. It seems clear to me (and I have been known to be wrong) that freedom of speech of any kind was not threatened here.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Reckall;351611Just to give an example of the depth of thought shown by OHT in this thread, a glance at my "location" shows in which timezone I live in, while a simple search on Wikipedia would have shown how Italians go to sleep like people do in all the rest of the world.

You can throw those dismissive stones of yours as much as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that you're arguing about something that isn't relevant to what is being discussed.

You brought up freedom of speech in this thread. It's irrelevant. Everyone has been expressing it - the people who authored the game, and the people in this thread.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351617You brought up freedom of speech in this thread. It's irrelevant. Everyone has been expressing it - the people who authored the game, and the people in this thread.

Quite right.


"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee that the speech will be listened to by an adoring audience, or even an audience. It also is not a shield against being mocked, ridiculed, dissected, or ignore.

The non-game"game" everyone is talking about is getting disparaged and mocked - as it should be for the piece of excrement idea that it is.
Thats also a part of "Freedom of Speech!!"


- Ed C.

Nope, I'm too pissed off to be emo. I just don't GET emo hate.

Quote from: shalvayez;351534Allow the scum to speak, flip em off when they do, and shoot them when they act upon the bullshit they speak.
 
   Furthermore, how is one supposed to know if this is a roleplayed gangrape or real? I mean, if I see somebody getting assaulted like this, my first reaction would be to start swinging a crowbar at the assailants.

The game document, as posted in the OP, is extremely specific about the fact that the rape itself isn't actually played out LARP-style. It's basically narrated by the participants in the abstract. If you came across some people playing the "rape" phase of the game, it'd just look like some people sitting down and talking to each other. The subject matter would sound fucking creepy if you were close enough to overhear it, but it certainly wouldn't be grounds for going in swinging.

I don't like this game. There's plenty of reasons to object to this game without departing from the facts entirely. I'm not trying to defend GR against the very real and well-founded objections against it, all I'm saying is that people's objections against the game look a hell of a lot weaker if they actually fly in the face of what's written there.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351617You can throw those dismissive stones of yours as much as you like

More to the point, OHT, I didn't find that answering to you was something to lose sleep over. :rolleyes:

Quote from: David R;351615It seems clear to me (and I have been known to be wrong) that freedom of speech of any kind was not threatened here.

OK, now I think I see where the confusion came from. I was not implying that FoS was threatened here - far from this :D

But I brought up the matter (and freedom of thought) after discovering how the posting of the rulebook could have been a violation both of copyright and privacy. Being this the case, the "they must be denounced!" justification doesn't hold water: they are protected in their imagined, private activities for the very same reason we are in ours (killing people, evoking demons...) by the freedom of speech (and though) rights.

I felt important to underline this, when expressing my opinions on the matter, because speaking from a moral high horse about something not illegal after committing an illegal act is really not my cup of tea. Others' opinion may vary.

EDITS: My EnGRish is what it is...

Quote from: shalvayez;351621Nope, I'm too pissed off to be emo. I just don't GET emo hate.

Emos are like furries, Goths and Trekkies. People who dress ridiculously but take themselves seriously are inherently comical. And emos take themselves very, very seriously. Thus we point and laugh.

Plus with emos there's the whole overlap with the angst-ridden adolescent thing, "oh I'm from such a pampered middle-class background and have never known anything vaguely resembling real suffering, woe is me." Which is always fun to laugh at.

Hatred and mockery overlap, but are not the same thing.

Quote from: ReckallI brought up the matter (and freedom of thought) after discovering how the posting of the rulebook could have been a violation both of copyright and privacy.

I find it hard to summon up righteous indignation for copyright violations of things which are of little or no aesthetic or informative value. If someone pirates Calculus 101 or Citizen Kane, as dull as I find them both, I recognise their aesthetic or informative value, and it seems wrong.

But if someone pirates pr0n... honestly, who cares. Likewise with, say, copies of Da Vinci Code. Copyright violation dilutes the value of a thing. But when it had no value to begin with... So if people pirate Gang Rape: the rpg or Poison'd or FATAL or Sorcerer, well I say "what on Earth for? But oh well, go for it."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351720.....or Citizen Kane, as dull as I find them.....

:eek:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;351723:eek:

Regards,
David R

"ditto".

 Citizen Kane is a damn good movie.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Reckall;351718More to the point, OHT, I didn't find that answering to you was something to lose sleep over. :rolleyes:

Have i personally pissed in your breakfast cereal or something?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351613The difference between us and the Forgers, Reckall, is that we're right and they're wrong.

Ah, well, no s**t :D

[Snip on a lot of thoughts about the Forgers]

In my experience, they are a most interesting phenomenon (for various reasons, none related to gaming). They have an unique way to mistake their own experiences (which I respect) for those of the whole wide world (which is delusional). Almost everything in the way they act can be explained by this simple observation.

Back in the day, when "The Forge" was just a new buzzword on Italian RPG forums, I was genuinely interested in these "new ideas". I'm always are. I was stopped cold maybe five minutes into my foray by what I feel still being the key principle sprouted by Edwards:

"No wonder people either idealize or vilify their youthful experiences playing D&D."

[...]

"In other words, you remember it fondly not because the game itself was good, but because it wasn't"

I.e.: "What I experienced, you experienced too".

Which made the rest totally unuseful, but, in turn, became an help to understand the whole phenomenon: when someone with this outlook describes something (from a gaming experience to someone else who disagrees with him) he is usually describing himself.

What happened then (I want to underline that I'm still theorizing) is that a lot of people who shared Edwards' negative experiences flocked to him. Which is still fine with me: new ideas are born this way.

The unfortunate side-effect was that a critical mass of people sharing the belief that what was true for them was true in an absolute sense found themselves together. The results are known.

However:

QuoteA game's purpose in existence is to be played. If no-one will join you in playing it, the game is meaningless, and may as well not exist. Likewise, if no-one is interested in your playstyle and you never game, your opinion on gaming is meaningless.

I fully agree with this principle. But, at least in my experience, it doesn't apply to all the games that came out from "The Forge". Case in point, I know a group of remarkable players (they wash, some of them are married, they like games ranging from Cthulhu Munchin to D&D 3.5, they like to have me as GM... ;) ) who had a blast playing "Primetime Adventures". I personally found "Don't Rest Your Head"/"Don't Lose Your Mind" an interesting read that made me willing to try the game (maybe because I really like the "Kult/Silent Hill"-ish settings).

My superficial opinion re: DRYH is that its own specificity cannot really sustain a prolonged campaign. "Primetime Adventures", instead, has a really intriguing premise, and, from what I'm told, can be a way to whip together a fast 'n' furious mini-campaign in whatever setting fancies the gamers.

But, in speaking in a general sense, I still like more to judge a product by what it is, and not from the background it sprang from. Mostly because I don't know at all the background of the things I like. For what I know, my favorite game or piece of music could have been created by a rapist, or conceived during an orgy (http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/26/wizards_part2/index.html). Who cares?

QuoteGang Rape: the rpg is, it says, designed not to be fun, and therefore is not a game. It has no more relevance to gaming than a Men's Weekend away where we all get naked, bang on drums and wail in tears, "my father never loved me!" The use of our imaginations is part of gaming, but is not sufficient for gaming - especially when the only imaginative part is "in what way can we become more miserable?"

Which, I'm sorry, but begs even more the question "Why, then, a link to THE WHOLE BOOK was posted here?"

And more than that, why, in heaven, making something obscure and private totally public - thus giving it both a wider exposition and tons of free publicity?! As you said: "if no one is interested in your game, no one will play it". Scandal generates interest. You do the math.

QuoteI mean, the leader of the Forgers is a professor of bat penises.

Now, this is news to me! Do you have a link?

QuoteThis is the guy they rely on for profound insights into our hobby of pretending to be elven princesses while rolling dice and eating cheetos. A doctor of bat bollocks.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351727Have i personally pissed in your breakfast cereal or something?

No. I'm simply used to lose sleep over important things.

So let me get this straight. You pop into the thread and accuse me of 4 negative personality traits in a no-content ad hominem attack when i haven't even exhanged a word with you before that. When asked by David R why you are arguing about free speech, you ignore his question and continue to talk to shalvayez after that question was posed - but i'm the bad guy for calling you on it and accused of being a poopyhead again (whilst simultaneously you fib about being in bed - you were talking to shalvayez after David R's question, mate).

Then two more posts of being incredibly arrogant.

I can only assume there's some history here i don't know about or that you are harbouring some kind of wierd grudge over something i may have said 3 years ago or something.

Granted, this place attracts this kind of behaviour, but usually there's some reason for it. I'm baffled with this one.

Quote from: One Horse Town;351739I'm baffled with this one.

This happens, mostly, because you are still not reading the thread.

Quote from: Reckall;351743This happens, mostly, because you are still not reading the thread.

Dude, I just read all 23 pages, and I'm STILL trying to figure out what windmill you're tilting at...

Quote from: kythri;351745Dude, I just read all 23 pages, and I'm STILL trying to figure out what windmill you're tilting at...

At this point, given the changing of goalposts, being disingenuous whilst totally ignoring the fact that he is the originator of an argument that is irrelevant and somehow thinking that any and/or all posts are directed at him, i think it is safe to say that he isn't worth reading.

Haven't used this function since CavScout.

Quote from: StormBringer;350718Incorrect.  In this case, the 'audience' is pretty much anyone that would get wind of it, hence the authour's desire to keep the communications secretive.

No, I'm sorry, anyone who goes looking for this stuff gets what they deserve. The fact that people can merely find out about things that bother them does not entitle them to be offended, unless you can describe an "offense." People doing things i don't like is just that. Private LARPing sessions are not a spectator event. Merely because some Jehovah's Witness finds Werewolf LARPs to be degenerate and offensive does not mean it is.

Even from the most exacting standard of viewing pornography or dominance-tainted sexual expressions as contributing to violence against women, this game just does not fit the bill. It's really more closely related to fiction written by people from a critical feminist perspective. Could it be used for coercive, un-artistic purposes? Sure, but football more often leads to rape and I don't see anyone banning that.

Private activity, not your cuppa, end of story. I could see how an advertising campaign for this game could be viewed as threatening, but the game itself?

Quote from: kythri;351745Dude, I just read all 23 pages, and I'm STILL trying to figure out what windmill you're tilting at...

As best I can figure, he's got some sort of weird grudge against, well, something, and apparently sees it wherever he goes regardless of whether it's actually there or not.

Quote from: Koltar;351618Quite right.


"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee that the speech will be listened to by an adoring audience, or even an audience. It also is not a shield against being mocked, ridiculed, dissected, or ignore.

The non-game"game" everyone is talking about is getting disparaged and mocked - as it should be for the piece of excrement idea that it is.
Thats also a part of "Freedom of Speech!!"


- Ed C.

Koltar, I salute you. If everyone grokked it like you did, the world would be a better place!

Quote from: Reckall;351736[Forgers] have an unique way to mistake their own experiences (which I respect) for those of the whole wide world (which is delusional). Almost everything in the way they act can be explained by this simple observation.

This is why they're called "forgers". They lie about or mistake their experiences and those of others.

I wrote a Socratic dialogue with Uncle Ronny here (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html). It's worth noting that the essays I linked to are no longer available on indie-rpgs.com. I've not kept track of Forger internal politics so I'm not sure what the story is there. However, virtually all words of Edwards in that piece are actually quoted from him. I think the only ones I made up are "fuck you" at the end.

QuoteI fully agree with this principle. But, at least in my experience, it doesn't apply to all the games that came out from "The Forge". [...] "Primetime Adventures". [...] "Don't Rest Your Head"/"Don't Lose Your Mind"

It's worth remembering that there are two classes of "Forge" games. There are those which were created there entirely, and those where the authour had an idea, developed it a lot, then passed it through the Forge in draft form and for moral support. The latter games are more widely-played and generally less depressing than the former.

Sorcerer or My Life With Master are examples of entirely-Forge created games, Burning Wheel or HeroQuest are examples of Forge-fiddled games. I would argue that apart from the moral support, these games lost more than they gained by being fiddled with by the Forgers. Luke Crane with his BW, for example, would have benefited from someone who'd cut out a lot of the game design chatter and needless duplication in his text, instead he got the Forgers who made it more rambling and elaborate.

QuoteI still like more to judge a product by what it is, and not from the background it sprang from. Mostly because I don't know at all the background of the things I like.

I do, too. I'm not one of those fuckwits who'll refuse to buy a game, book or movie because that guy was part of it. If Adolf Hitler wrote an episode of Darling Buds of May it would still be a nice and fun telly show.

However, what I've found is that the more Forgers are involved in the creation of an rpg, the more narrowly-focused, pretentious and depressing it is.

There are certain authours whose work we can be fairly sure we'll like, and certain we'll be fairly sure we'll dislike. Written by so-and-so, worth checking out, written by this other person, not worth opening the cover. Preudice? Absolutely - but necessary.

There exist over 2,000 rpgs published in print in the English language. Even if we gamed as a full-time job 5 days a week, 40 weeks a year, at just one day a game we'd take ten years to play them all. And then someone would say, "yeah but you only played it for 8 hours, so you don't really understand it." So by necessity we must prejudge most rpgs. We must be prejudiced.

QuoteWhich, I'm sorry, but begs even more the question "Why, then, a link to THE WHOLE BOOK was posted here?"

Don't ask me, I didn't post the link, nor would I have. I believe the proper treatment for vile stuff is obscurity. Were I running a tv station or newspaper, I would give only plain text and boring descriptions of serial killings and the like. Publicity encourages the deviant.

QuoteNow, this is news to me! Do you have a link?

Somewhere in Pundit's blog. God knows how he found out. Here (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/551887782//).

Quote from: kythri;351745Dude, I just read all 23 pages, and I'm STILL trying to figure out what windmill you're tilting at...

Probably because there isn't one.

Hm. No. Probably there are a couple. When I discuss with a Forgite, the archetipal debate goes like this:

ME: Play what you want and let me do the same.

FORGITE: You want to impose your way to do things to the world!!

ME: Dude, did you READ what I wrote?

As it happens, when people "explain" to me that FoS doesn't shields someone from criticism when I wrote the same thing two posts before I wonder the same thing.

The reasons why I bought the matter up of FoS was not related to this forum. Maybe the first time I wasn't clear about this, so I furter clarified the point later. I felt important to mention the issue after reading some posts that criticized "Gang Rape" by lumping it up with illegal acts. It isn't. In turn, posting the book here without permission was.

[Not to mention clueless: one labels something as "dangerous" and then makes sure that the thing has the best possible diffusion and free publicity :rolleyes:]

I'm sorry if OTH is offended because I'm not available to answer to him 24/7. But my par for losing sleep is still either the girlfriend having surgery or an earthquake. Beside, I wonder why he choose to plonk me, seeing that he already didn't bothered to read what I wrote.

So, here are your windmills: I have no problems with criticism about something I wrote - I simply expect from the other guy that he read it. And I don't find smart starting an "holy crusade" that only ends up with giving to the "crusaded" more visibility and ammo. As always, others' mileage may vary :)

You do realize there are no Forgites here, right?

The closest thing we have is David R and even he doesn't know what the fuck you're smoking.

Quote from: pawsplay;351774No, I'm sorry, anyone who goes looking for this stuff gets what they deserve. The fact that people can merely find out about things that bother them does not entitle them to be offended, unless you can describe an "offense." People doing things i don't like is just that. Private LARPing sessions are not a spectator event. Merely because some Jehovah's Witness finds Werewolf LARPs to be degenerate and offensive does not mean it is.

Werewolf LARPs are not specifically designed to simulate gang rape.

Quote from: Reckall;351800Probably because there isn't one.

Hm. No. Probably there are a couple. When I discuss with a Forgite, the archetipal debate goes like this:

Get a fucking blog.

Quote from: StormBringer;351816Get a fucking blog.

He certainly doesn't actually seem to be conversing with anyone here, so may as well.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351797I wrote a Socratic dialogue with Uncle Ronny here (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html).

He! That was funny :D

More than that, I see that, even when broken down piece by piece, it is still amazingly difficult to understand what Edwards wants to say in the first place. Maybe those "understanding" him simply share his basic experiences. If this is the case, I'm happy I don't.

By re-reading what he wrote, however, I'm even more amazed at the number of wrong basic assumptions you can find in his "teachings". For example, IMHO the "extreme GM experience" is when someone writes a novel or a script, something where you apparently have control over everything. Try to do it and you will see how you are lucky if you actually control half of the stuff. Characters will tell you how, given the situation, they logically behave. Events will tell you how they logically evolve... For every thing you want to put in your story there will be a consequence out of your control that you must face. And this when you are the GM and the characters at the same time, and where you can ever go back in the manuscript and change events if you don't like their outcome. Imagine when other active minds are involved...

If Edwards fails to grasp something so fundamental in the craft of storytelling, it's no wonder that he is so fixated against "the omnipotence of the GM!!", and that he then develops ways to prevent something that doesn't exists in the first place.

[Which is, BTW, why I instead find being a GM so relaxing: you come up with the basic premise of a story and a bunch of villains/locations/stuff, and then you throw the players in the water with the sharks and watch the show... :D]

QuoteIt's worth noting that the essays I linked to are no longer available on indie-rpgs.com. I've not kept track of Forger internal politics so I'm not sure what the story is there. However, virtually all words of Edwards in that piece are actually quoted from him. I think the only ones I made up are "fuck you" at the end.

I looked for "A Hard Look to Dungeons & Dragons" (still his pinnacle, IMHO) and I wasn't able to find it. Something strange in the era of internet. However, that no one bothered to copy the essay when it was available and to post it elsewhere may be telling.

QuoteSorcerer or My Life With Master are examples of entirely-Forge created games, Burning Wheel or HeroQuest are examples of Forge-fiddled games. I would argue that apart from the moral support, these games lost more than they gained by being fiddled with by the Forgers.

Talking about My Life With Master there is a reason why I'm considering to buy it. If I understood correctly, the game uses a basic structure: A Master (the GM) the Minions (the players) and the Townfolks (the victims). This structure can then be adapted to a variety of settings: for example, the dynamics within a modern megacorporation.

Now, I would find extremely interesting to play a game at MLWM where the Master is Edwards, the Minions are his Evangelizers, and the Victims are all the other innocent role-players. Just to see, you know, what happens when you short.circuit the thing.

Actually, by reading on Wikipedia descriptions like:

"Self-loathing is a measure of the power that a minion has to intimidate the Townsfolk, while Weariness limits their abilities to complete their tasks. Love allows minions to resist their Master and his demands on them."


I wonder if the game wasn't conceived from the beginning as an inside joke.

QuoteSomewhere in Pundit's blog. God knows how he found out. Here (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/551887782//).

Well, reading the list of "academic papers" Edwards wrote make still more amazing his incapacity (or unwillingness) to explain concepts and ideas in a simple form. But maybe it is just me.

At last FATAL has a rival forge game...

Is this the GNS version of FATAL?

Quote from: J Arcane;351803You do realize there are no Forgites here, right?

You're funny. What's the next hoax? Nobody here reads threads on storygames and nobody there reads therpgsite? You are all hilarious, on both sides of the fence :)

Quote from: boulet;351832You're funny. What's the next hoax? Nobody here reads threads on storygames and nobody there reads therpgsite? You are all hilarious, on both sides of the fence :)

I just meant in the sense that he seems to see the Forge everywhere, but short of a few sympathizers who rear up and throw fits occasionally, or pop up to shill hard now and then, there really aren't a lot of Forge folks at all here, and pretty much none of them are in this thread at this point.

So his wandering in and swinging blindly, and constantly rambling on about his personal little vendetta from some forum somewhere, makes him look on the whole to be less coherent than Pundit, and half as entertaining.

Quote from: J Arcane;351861So his wandering in and swinging blindly, and constantly rambling on about his personal little vendetta from some forum somewhere, makes him look on the whole to be less coherent than Pundit, and half as entertaining.

I would say 'half' is being a bit generous.

Quote from: Reckall;351829Well, reading the list of "academic papers" Edwards wrote make still more amazing his incapacity (or unwillingness) to explain concepts and ideas in a simple form. But maybe it is just me.

It's not unusual at all. Remember that those involved in the sciences do not need to do any kind of essay-writing in university, they only have to have the expression and comprehension skills given them by high school. And anyone who's done science at uni will tell you that the lecturers and their textbooks are not often clear, and certainly not concise.

Remember also that at PhD and post-doctorate level, you're not writing for the layman, you're writing for other specialists. Not many people know about or are interested in bat penises, so anyone reading his papers is going to know heaps already, Edwards will just be extending their knowledge slightly.

However, it is true that the muddled thought present in the GNS essays - the old words given new definitions which contradict themselves, the arbitrary and inconsistent categories - is inconsistent with good science. He's divisive, not incisive.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351890It's not unusual at all. Remember that those involved in the sciences do not need to do any kind of essay-writing in university, they only have to have the expression and comprehension skills given them by high school.

Excuse me while I clean up the coffee I just spit all over my keyboard, but I think you'll find that universities have increased their general requirements for writing subsantially.  

I have no idea what it's like in Aussie-land, but I can tell you I wrote more in my first semester of engineering than I ever did in high-school -- and that's not including the writing courses you have to take for your major.

If you want to bust on people for poor writing skills, you can take a look at general liberal arts majors or business majors.  Trust me, the "writing intensive" courses that are offered outside of the sciences or more focused liberal arts majors are cakewalks.

I don't disagree with your comment about writing for specialists.  That, at least, is true.

Quote from: J Arcane;351861I just meant in the sense that he seems to see the Forge everywhere, but short of a few sympathizers who rear up and throw fits occasionally, or pop up to shill hard now and then, there really aren't a lot of Forge folks at all here, and pretty much none of them are in this thread at this point.

I don't know where I fit into the above, J, but I do think the Pundit and crew have brought more attention to the Forge than anything the shills and sympathizers could have ever hoped for.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;351897I don't know where I fit into the above, J, but I do think the Pundit and crew have brought more attention to the Forge than anything the shills and sympathizers could have ever hoped for.

Regards,
David R

That's true.  I didn't even know or care who the hell Ron Edwards was before reading some of the Pundit's blog. I had heard of the Burning Wheel, but technically that game's development precedes the Forge, so I don't know exactly where it stands on the imaginary "'Real' RPG" or "Swine Game" spectrum.

Other than that, the whole indie RPG movement was this tiny little thing I didn't have any motivation to explore.  I still wouldn't play something like Dogs, but I own more "indie" games now than before I knew who Pundit was.

Quote from: David R;351897I don't know where I fit into the above, J, but I do think the Pundit and crew have brought more attention to the Forge than anything the shills and sympathizers could have ever hoped for.

Regards,
David R

I did consider the possibility that he may have confused all the talk that goes on here about the Forge for positive, rather than negative chatter.

Still makes him an idiot though.

Quote from: Peregrin;351896Excuse me while I clean up the coffee I just spit all over my keyboard, but I think you'll find that universities have increased their general requirements for writing subsantially.

Maybe so. But we're talking about people like Ron Edwards, who already have their PhDs and are teaching, and who thus did their bachelor's a decade or more ago.

Perhaps the next generation of scientists are oratical geniuses who could express an entire first year course in a hundred lines of iambic pentameter. But this generation mumble their way through with jargon and generally muddled organisation of ideas.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351909Maybe so. But we're talking about people like Ron Edwards, who already have their PhDs and are teaching, and who thus did their bachelor's a decade or more ago.

Perhaps the next generation of scientists are oratical geniuses who could express an entire first year course in a hundred lines of iambic pentameter. But this generation mumble their way through with jargon and generally muddled organisation of ideas.

He's no Shakespeare, nor is he even a Stephen King (the self-proclaimed McDonald's of literature), but I can get through his stuff just fine.  He could cut down on the jargon and invented concepts and cut to the chase, but it's not really all that dense to begin with.  Like many people, it seems like he just likes the sound of his own voice (or his own words, in this case).

If Edwards is guilty of anything, it's that lovely Rein*Hagen holier-than-thou bullshit and the narrow-minded type of thinking that comes out of it.  I don't think all of his ideas are bad, but lets just say his attitude and the way he chooses to word himself are part of the reason I almost didn't give some indie games a chance.  But even assholes can have a few good ideas, even if other ideas suck.  At the very least, a few sane people can pick the good things out of the crap ones.

Many of the very worst writers I've ever seen are academics.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;351930Many of the very worst writers I've ever seen are academics.

RPGPundit

And most of them work in the humanities and social sciences.

Kyle, try picking up an academic journal in a field like human geography or anthropology or even English Lit sometime - I think it will be an eye opener. Clarity of expression was consigned to the dustbin of history long ago. Those people make the average science PhD look like Marcel Proust.

Mate, while my first year was Science - Maths, Physics, Chemistry, with one History subject to keep them company ("European Hegemony") - in the end I did a BA in English Lit and History, so I know all about shithouse academic writing :D

"The praxis of contemporaneous feminist dialectic -"
"You mean, the way feminists talked in those days?"
"Um... yes."
"Oh. I think they spoke in English."

Nonetheless, it remains true that the liberal arts teach people to express themselves clearly, while the sciences do not. The liberal arts may choose to ignore what they've learned, but they do at least have the choice...

I'm not surprised you find Edwards simple to understand, after all his basic message is simple: "Tradtional gamers are miserable, especially the ones who say they're happy, the cure for this is for them to play my games."

Looking at the texts as something more than advertisements, however, if you think Edwards is clear and understandable, you've not read his writing thoroughly (for which I cannot blame you, it is atrociously dull). Not only does he make up his own definitions, he doesn't even stick to them. The result is a hopeless muddle, as I showed in GNS Suxxorz: a Socratic Dialogue (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html) (link above).

Of all the faults, the most vile is simple fraud: "when data agrees with my conclusion, it is correct; when it disagrees, it is incorrect." Time and again in his essay he refers to gamers' reported experiences; but then at many other times, he asserts that gamers cannot report their experiences properly because they are "literally brain-damaged."

Data agrees with your conclusion, keep it; disagrees, bin it. This would certainly make the peer review process easier.

There are numerous other faults in his writing which I have already addressed elsewhere (link above), and which it would be tedious to recount.

I love how this thread has become about Uncle Ron.

Never mind the academics, I have trouble understanding some of my fellow posters ! Nobody uses EnglishMotherfuckerDoYouSpeakIt, anymore .....

Regards,
David R

Oh come on, I'm still speaking plainly. And I certainly ripped into Reckall to try to make him cut the bullshit.

And every thread about Pretentious* games becomes about Uncle Ronny, you know that.

* See Jeff's threefold theory (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html), much better than GNS.

You always speak plainly, kyle. I was just making a general comment about online RPG discourse.

QuoteAnd every thread about Pretentious* games becomes about Uncle Ronny, you know that.

True.

Regards,
David R

I try to set an example. But then people start talkin' fancy...

Quote from: Reckall;351829Talking about My Life With Master there is a reason why I'm considering to buy it. If I understood correctly, the game uses a basic structure: A Master (the GM) the Minions (the players) and the Townfolks (the victims).

Close. Aside from the Master, all the NPCs are divided into two groups, the Townspeople and the Outsiders. The Master needs something from the Townspeople that puts them at risk, but he also wants approval, respect or support from the Outsiders (who might be, for example, the scientific community, the family of a woman that he wishes to marry, or simply his own father): that's supposed to be the primary motivation behind his actions. None of these characters are statted out with distinct traits of their own, by the way, and instead interactions with them depend on the "environmental" values of Fear and Reason.

(I've read the Finnish translation.)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351937I'm not surprised you find Edwards simple to understand, after all his basic message is simple: "Tradtional gamers are miserable, especially the ones who say they're happy, the cure for this is for them to play my games."

Looking at the texts as something more than advertisements, however, if you think Edwards is clear and understandable, you've not read his writing thoroughly (for which I cannot blame you, it is atrociously dull). Not only does he make up his own definitions, he doesn't even stick to them. The result is a hopeless muddle, as I showed in GNS Suxxorz: a Socratic Dialogue (http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html) (link above).

Of all the faults, the most vile is simple fraud: "when data agrees with my conclusion, it is correct; when it disagrees, it is incorrect." Time and again in his essay he refers to gamers' reported experiences; but then at many other times, he asserts that gamers cannot report their experiences properly because they are "literally brain-damaged."

Data agrees with your conclusion, keep it; disagrees, bin it. This would certainly make the peer review process easier.

There are numerous other faults in his writing which I have already addressed elsewhere (link above), and which it would be tedious to recount.

I read one of his essays once (the one about Fantasy Heartbreakers) and although it was atrociously dull, I actually thought the sentiment and analysis was spot on. He was also very kind about some games that he could legitimately have torn to shreds.

I couldn't be arsed fighting through his other scribblings though. Life is too short for leaders of personality cults, unless they do something really interesting.

Quote from: noisms;351957I read one of his essays once (the one about Fantasy Heartbreakers) and although it was atrociously dull, I actually thought the sentiment and analysis was spot on. He was also very kind about some games that he could legitimately have torn to shreds.

I couldn't be arsed fighting through his other scribblings though. Life is too short for leaders of personality cults, unless they do something really interesting.

Kudos for getting all the way through the essay.  Atrociously dull to me describes the whole GNS theory.  It is like a show on cable I saw once that was called "Inside Sex" or something.  I turned it on expecting to be entertained but it turned out to be a bunch of scientific theory and interviews without even token nudity.  GNS to me is like that, it takes rpgs, an activity that is fun and didn't need to be analyzed, and proceeds to turn it into a boring academic exercise that acheives no substantive results other than to insult the intelligence of gamers who don't subscribe to the theory.

You either write a good game or you don't.  If you do then you may be the next Gary Gygax, if you don't, then nobody will play it and you will be a greeter at Walmart next week.  RPG Darwinism is the only gaming theory I need.

Back to the OP. I got bored and looked at some Jeepform sites and most of it was creepy and weird with games like the one in the OP and some garbage about playing the role of a Mother who is allowing child abuse.  If they want to do these "acting seminars" or whatever then fine, but stop calling them RPG's or "games" and find your own terminology you smug pseudo-intellectual f'tards!

Quote from: RPGPundit;351930Many of the very worst writers I've ever seen are academics.

RPGPundit

Hell, my thesis proposal has dragged on for months because I have trouble brewing the right kind of bad writing.

Quote from: StormBringer;351815Werewolf LARPs are not specifically designed to simulate gang rape.

They are, however, designed to simulate the ordinary kind of rape. Remember, garou rage makes them unsettling to humand and animals. That aside, my point was that to a conservative Christian, a book about pantheistic, dualist, violent inhumans possessed by demons, occasionally lapsing into cannibalism or sexual degeneration (it's there in the book) would probably consider the game to be as morally repugnant as a game about gang rape.

Quote from: pawsplay;351989They are, however, designed to simulate the ordinary kind of rape. Remember, garou rage makes them unsettling to humand and animals.

Wait, are you saying that a specific mechanical aspect designed to simulate a genre is akin to rape?

QuoteThat aside, my point was that to a conservative Christian, a book about pantheistic, dualist, violent inhumans possessed by demons, occasionally lapsing into cannibalism or sexual degeneration (it's there in the book) would probably consider the game to be as morally repugnant as a game about gang rape.

Ok, but not everyone has the sensibilities of a conservative Christian*.  I assume a conservative Muslim would have similar issues with the portrayal of women in most RPGs.  Neither of those has anything to do with the fact that this jeepform is specifically designed around gang rape and outside of FATAL, RPGs are not.

Your attempt at moral equivalence is not only banal, it approaches a new level of inchoate dissembling.


* I assume you refer to the particularly American flavour, as I understand they aren't quite so loony elsewhere

Quote from: pawsplay;351989They are, however, designed to simulate the ordinary kind of rape. Remember, garou rage makes them unsettling to humand and animals.

What connection do those two sentences have?  The surface reading of it suggests that animals get spooked around rapists, which seems ridiculous on the face of it so you probably meant something else.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;351937There are numerous other faults in his writing which I have already addressed elsewhere (link above), and which it would be tedious to recount.

Well, sure.  But like I said, just because there are crappy ideas doesn't mean you can't pull good ones out of Edward's ramblings.  Though most of his "good" ideas have been around a lot longer than he has.

But we're discussing this on therpgsite, and I doubt many people here would admit any good games have come out of (or even been associated with) the Forge.

Quote from: StormBringer;351994Wait, are you saying that a specific mechanical aspect designed to simulate a genre is akin to rape?

No, I mean that garou commonly reproduce by nonconsensual sex with humans and wolves.

QuoteOk, but not everyone has the sensibilities of a conservative Christian*.  I assume a conservative Muslim would have similar issues with the portrayal of women in most RPGs.  Neither of those has anything to do with the fact that this jeepform is specifically designed around gang rape and outside of FATAL, RPGs are not.

I wonder why you feel your objection to gang rape is more morally relevant than a Christian's objection to depictions of satanic possession.

Quote from: Peregrin;351999But we're discussing this on therpgsite, and I doubt many people here would admit any good games have come out of (or even been associated with) the Forge.

Appearances can be deceptive. Even Pundit has been converted (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=16096) to "say yes or throw the dice".

QuoteThe chief complication that Gnomemurdered GMs run into is the matter of how if any action rolled for has a 50% chance that your PC will be murdered by Gnomes, this makes for a very unstable campaign, supposedly.

Well, the answer is very simple: Don't make them roll for just ANYTHING. In most actions, just assume success. If its something a reasonable version of the character they have chosen ought to be able to succeed at, then they succeed. There's no reason to have the character make a roll, if he's a surgeon, to see if a standard or even a tough operation is successful. The surgeon should only have to roll if its an extremely risky or experimental surgery, or there is some other factor creating an intense situation of risk where there might be a chance of failure.

In other words, its in moments of crisis that the gnomes strike.

(Emphasis mine)

Who would have thought Vincent Baker would influence the game design of his sworn enemy? Or is this Gnome Murdered game just a satirical poke at the storygame scene? I'm not really sure.

Quote from: pawsplay;352002I wonder why you feel your objection to gang rape is more morally relevant than a Christian's objection to depictions of satanic possession.

This is trolling pure and simple.

so ron edwards is a uf grad, huh? go gators...

Quote from: boulet;352003Appearances can be deceptive. Even Pundit has been converted (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=16096) to "say yes or throw the dice".



(Emphasis mine)

Who would have thought Vincent Baker would influence the game design of his sworn enemy? Or is this Gnome Murdered game just a satirical poke at the storygame scene? I'm not really sure.

I guess you'll have to keep guessing, then.

RPGPundit

Quote from: pawsplay;352002No, I mean that garou commonly reproduce by nonconsensual sex with humans and wolves.

And yet many people don't find this objectionable ? Why ? Could it be because this really isn't the focus of the game ? It's inclusion merely a reflection of the dark bestial pyschosexual nature of werewolf mythology ? (Much like the creation of Half Orcs etc) Y'know your argument is basically that people shouldn't object to the subject of rape because it happens in many other games. The problem here is you're ignoring context and intent. I think most rational people know the difference. You made a good point about people looking for things to offend them. I think you're on dodgy predictable ground here.

Regards,
David R

'Twas me.

Don't be stupid, pawsplay. There's a difference between

"this vile thing exists in the game setting, but we don't roleplay it," and

"this vile thing exists in the game setting, and not only do we roleplay it, but it's the whole point of the thing."

Half-orcs are supposed to be mostly the result of a male orc raping a female human. But when someone has a half-orc PC, they don't roleplay out Daddy raping Mummy. It happened somewhere off-screen in the past.

You know this, stop being a cocksmock.

Quote from: pawsplay;352002No, I mean that garou commonly reproduce by nonconsensual sex with humans and wolves.

No, they really don't.  If you mean the transmission of the curse in classic literature, that would still be an incredible stretch.  To the breaking point, in fact.

QuoteI wonder why you feel your objection to gang rape is more morally relevant than a Christian's objection to depictions of satanic possession.

Because Satanic possessions aren't real?

I mean, honestly, if you are trying this hard to make a connection between fantasy role playing and gang rape, you aren't arguing in good faith in the least.  Play Devil's Advocate elsewhere.  It's not clever, it's not original, and in case you missed it earlier, Reckall had his shit handed to him on rye bread over his attempts.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352044Don't be stupid, pawsplay. There's a difference between

"this vile thing exists in the game setting, but we don't roleplay it," and

"this vile thing exists in the game setting, and not only do we roleplay it, but it's the whole point of the thing."

Half-orcs are supposed to be mostly the result of a male orc raping a female human. But when someone has a half-orc PC, they don't roleplay out Daddy raping Mummy. It happened somewhere off-screen in the past.

You know this, stop being a cocksmock.

The focus of Werewolf is playing a demon-possessed cannibal rapist murder. True, it lacks that total "gang rape" focus, but who likes those dodgy microgames, anyway?

Quote from: StormBringer;352066No, they really don't.  If you mean the transmission of the curse in classic literature, that would still be an incredible stretch.  To the breaking point, in fact.

Look, I don't have my rulebooks any more. I can't give you a page number. But someone who has the books can do a little digging and come up with a good quote, I'm sure.

QuoteBecause Satanic possessions aren't real?

To you. To a conservative Christian, they are very real. Worse than rape, since being raped won't actually damage your immortal soul. So, do you want to either concede that a game isn't vile and offensive simply because it offends someone on reasonable grounds, or do you want to agree that any game featuring demon possession is vile and offensive and should never exist? I'm not saying Gang Rape is a great idea for a game. On the other hand, anyone who wants to claim it's going to sully the innocent, virginal character of the RPG hobby is a hypcritical apologist. Ok, it crosses a line. So do other games, in various ways, including some very popular ones.

What about GURPS WWII? There are people alive today who were vets of that conflict, people who survived Auschwitz and the bombing of London and Berlin. Is GURPS WWII inappropriate for that reason? There are millions of people in the world who believe war is wrong and always wrong.

Quote from: David R;352033And yet many people don't find this objectionable ? Why ?

Probably because many people here have played Werewolf, and none to few have played Gang Rape, I'll say. Just like few people here would find Werewolf objectionable, but most would object to "exorcising" a teenager with schizophrenia, whereas some evangelical Christian fora would probably have the opposite bias.

Quote from: pawsplay;352067The focus of Werewolf is playing a demon-possessed cannibal rapist murder.

I think you would have a hard time proving that.

Quote from: pawsplay;352068To you. To a conservative Christian, they are very real. Worse than rape, since being raped won't actually damage your immortal soul. So, do you want to either concede that a game isn't vile and offensive simply because it offends someone on reasonable grounds, or do you want to agree that any game featuring demon possession is vile and offensive and should never exist?

This is my favorite Straw Man Arguement evar!

You should go meet some conservative Christians instead of fearing them as your personal boogieman.

Quote from: pawsplay;352068What about GURPS WWII? There are people alive today who were vets of that conflict, people who survived Auschwitz and the bombing of London and Berlin. Is GURPS WWII inappropriate for that reason? There are millions of people in the world who believe war is wrong and always wrong.

When you read GURPS WWII, you will find that SJG does not encourage Players to reenact the atrocities of WWII. SJG has a habit of not pushing game material that would be considered objectionable by any rational standard.

Quote from: pawsplay;352069Just like few people here would find Werewolf objectionable, but most would object to "exorcising" a teenager with schizophrenia, whereas some evangelical Christian fora would probably have the opposite bias.

Sorry, just because one fringe group finds objectionable activities acceptable does not mean that another objectionable activity is equally acceptable for a seperate group.

Quote from: pawsplay;352067The focus of Werewolf is playing a demon-possessed cannibal rapist murder. True, it lacks that total "gang rape" focus, but who likes those dodgy microgames, anyway?

I never raped anyone in any of my Werewolf games, nor did I ever eat anyone, and the game's morality mechanics rather made those poor choices should any of us have chosen to do so.  "Demon-possessed" is a ridiculous interpretation of the metaphysics of the original game that really only applys to the bad Werewolves the players are supposed to be fighting.

"Murder" in terms of yes, we killed people, bad people, and you're uncharitably referring to that as murder to twist it to fit your point, you're telling a half-truth at best.  "Murder" in the sense that most rational people use it, unjustified, cold-blooded, senseless killing, not so much, no.

If the current "revamped" edition has modified the game in such a way as to make your hyperbole actually true, then sure, I'll condemn that game like I've condemned this one, but the impression I get is that it's not actually true at all, you're just taking subsurface thematic elements and exaggerating and misinterpreting them to twist to fit whatever ridiculous point of devil's advocacy you're aiming for.

I suggest if you want this conversation to continue, you start citing some fucking sources, because right now you just look like another pretentious ass, picking a different game but still playing the same old lame "But D&D is about murder and genocide and robbery!" card that wasn't funny when Costikyan did it, and sure as hell isn't terribly amusing or poignant in your hands.

Quote from: pawsplay;352068Look, I don't have my rulebooks any more. I can't give you a page number.

Then you aren't speaking from any level of evidence.  You are simply making things up.  You will find that to be extremely counter-productive around these parts.

QuoteBut someone who has the books can do a little digging and come up with a good quote, I'm sure.

I do have the books.  They say nothing like that.

QuoteTo you. To a conservative Christian, they are very real. Worse than rape, since being raped won't actually damage your immortal soul. So, do you want to either concede that a game isn't vile and offensive simply because it offends someone on reasonable grounds, or do you want to agree that any game featuring demon possession is vile and offensive and should never exist?

You will need to come up with an argument that is both supported and coherent before you start making demands as to concessions.  I am quite sure there are some in the equestrian world that find Bella Sara quite offensive.  That doesn't mean their opinion should hold an equal weight.  Additionally, you have failed to show that a belief in demon possession is either reasonable or rational.  Nor have you shown that 'demon possession' carries equal weight as gang rape in anything like a similar number of either the general population, or in the sub-set of the gamer population.

However, in some parts of the Middle East and Africa (among others), being raped is a good deal worse than demon possession, because being raped will get you killed, or raped a second time by the village elders.  Demon possession will simply subject one to an exorcism.  Do you really think you are up for a game of one-upmanship of this nature?

If you have some means to show that demon possession is real, or that demon possession is the point upon which most RPGs revolve, or that any of this has any level of correspondence to an activity that is predicated on imagining the act of gang rape, please continue.  I suspect you don't, so I will politely invite you to discontinue your line of reasoning.  It is not serving you or your specious argument.

QuoteI'm not saying Gang Rape is a great idea for a game. On the other hand, anyone who wants to claim it's going to sully the innocent, virginal character of the RPG hobby is a hypcritical apologist. Ok, it crosses a line. So do other games, in various ways, including some very popular ones.

Aside from the aforementioned misery tourism of most Forge games and FATAL, I presume you will be able to name at least one where the entire focus of the game is towards an activity such as gang rape.  I further presume you have a 'very popular' game in mind where the mechanics are entirely purposed for detailing these heinous acts in terms of precise minutiae.

QuoteWhat about GURPS WWII? There are people alive today who were vets of that conflict, people who survived Auschwitz and the bombing of London and Berlin. Is GURPS WWII inappropriate for that reason? There are millions of people in the world who believe war is wrong and always wrong.

I presume you do have the GURPS WWII supplement you are referring to, unlike the Werewolf book.  Further, I will expect your reply to cite the pages where SJGames details the aspects of concentration camps, and the exact game mechanics for the rapid and large scale murder of 'undesirables' by the Nazis, and how to implement that in a given campaign.

Or, you don't, and this is another smokescreen.

It would behoove you to get the file for Gang Rape linked earlier in the thread and give it a read through.  So far, you have cited at least two sources and admitted to not currently owning one of them while making an argument predicated on its contents.  The mechanics for the jeepform are actually rather disturbing in their own right.  After which, you can carry on with an informed opinion to at least a portion of this discussion.

Quote from: J Arcane;352081I never raped anyone in any of my Werewolf games, nor did I ever eat anyone, and the game's morality mechanics rather made those poor choices should any of us have chosen to do so.

Actually, a Wyrm frenzy may compel your garou to do those things, whatever your intentions. Whether you were a homid, lupus, or metis determined what your default unsavory behavior would be, with eating people and performing depraved sex acts being two of the possibilities.

Quote"Demon-possessed" is a ridiculous interpretation of the metaphysics of the original game that really only applys to the bad Werewolves the players are supposed to be fighting.

Demon-possessed is literally true. Demon, or daemon, refers to a spirit, and is present in the phrase eudaimonia as well as pandemonium. In this particular case, the spirits in question are pagan nature spirits who encourage their adulation, making them false gods/devils from a Christian standpoint. Jack Chick wrote one of his tracts in which he explicitly identifies a Wiccan's familiar as a demon spirit.

I cannot fathom how you came to the conclusion the PCs are "good" and the Black Spiral Dancers are therefore the "bad" werewolves. In this case, good is definitely a relative term.

Quote"Murder" in terms of yes, we killed people, bad people, and you're uncharitably referring to that as murder to twist it to fit your point, you're telling a half-truth at best.  "Murder" in the sense that most rational people use it, unjustified, cold-blooded, senseless killing, not so much, no.

How about hot-blooded slaughter? How about cold-blooded killing in the name of ecological warfare?

QuoteIf the current "revamped" edition has modified the game in such a way as to make your hyperbole actually true, then sure, I'll condemn that game like I've condemned this one, but the impression I get is that it's not actually true at all, you're just taking subsurface thematic elements and exaggerating and misinterpreting them to twist to fit whatever ridiculous point of devil's advocacy you're aiming for.

I suggest if you want this conversation to continue, you start citing some fucking sources, because right now you just look like another pretentious ass, picking a different game but still playing the same old lame "But D&D is about murder and genocide and robbery!" card that wasn't funny when Costikyan did it, and sure as hell isn't terribly amusing or poignant in your hands.

I played in a lengthy campaign under the old rules. I actually don't know anything about the current version. I'm not hyperbolizing. It's all in there. Pretending anything otherwise is a whitewash. I'm not playing around with context. If you look in the books, you will find that werewolves engage in rape, and you will find rules that tell you that when you botch a frenzy under certain circumstances, your character will do about the most vile things imaginable under the circumstances.

No, I don't have the books, haven't in years. So what? If you have the books, you can read them for yourself. If you don't own them, your objection is pretty hollow.

Quote from: StormBringer;352088However, in some parts of the Middle East and Africa (among others), being raped is a good deal worse than demon possession, because being raped will get you killed, or raped a second time by the village elders.  Demon possession will simply subject one to an exorcism.  

Exactly. Every culture, every individual, has a different view of ultimate evil. For a modern humanist, the loss of individual dignity is probably one of the greatest evils, but for a Christian, the loss of the immortal soul is a greater peril than any mortal suffering.

Quote from: jeff37923;352078I think you would have a hard time proving that.

You're playing a werewolf. Werewolves kill, rape, and cannibalize. Ergo...

QuoteThis is my favorite Straw Man Arguement evar!

You should go meet some conservative Christians instead of fearing them as your personal boogieman.

Don't be preposterous. Many of my relatives are Baptists. I don't have a problem with their beliefs, in fact, I am willing to try to see things from a viewpoint other than my own. Demon possession is a literal belief of Christianity, held by everyone from Jerry Falwell to C.S. Lewis. Perhaps you have more familiarity with liberal Christian sects and are unfamiliar with some of these concepts. In the Bible, Jesus performs an exorcism on an insane person.

I wouldn't go yelling strawman and then ascribing a pile of attitudes to me which I do not have. I'm not mocking conservative Christians; I am informing you, the uninformed, about some aspects of mainstream religion with which you are unfamiliar.

QuoteSorry, just because one fringe group finds objectionable activities acceptable does not mean that another objectionable activity is equally acceptable for a seperate group.

You are talking about acceptability in a universal sense, which I was not. My point was that different groups have different opinions about what "is" acceptable.

It's a Wiki, but here's a source for you:

http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Frenzy_(WTA)

QuoteLupus Garou in Thrall will attack their own fallen packmates and deliberately try to kill them. This is atrributed to the influence of Beast-of-War.

Homid Garou in Thrall will attempt to devour the flesh of fallen comrades and foes, engaging in cannibalism. This is atrributed to the influence of Eater-of-Souls.

Metis Garou in Thrall will rape fallen packmembers and foes and engage in necrophilia. This is atrributed to the influence of the Defiler.

There ya go. Rape, necrophilia, murder, cannibalism.

Quote from: pawsplay;352069Probably because many people here have played Werewolf, and none to few have played Gang Rape, I'll say. Just like few people here would find Werewolf objectionable, but most would object to "exorcising" a teenager with schizophrenia, whereas some evangelical Christian fora would probably have the opposite bias.

Actually, you're wrong. Many people here have not played Werewolf but have heard of it or know what it's about or maybe even read it, but don't like it for a variety of reasons, none of which has anything to do with "playing a  demon possesed cannibal rapist murderer" - if the game has changed so much I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Like I said in my early post. You just keep dismissing context and intent, making it seem unimportant. At the end of the day, rape is the same in every game. If you put up with it in one game (something which you have not supported with evidence btw*) you must put up with it in every game. No, criticism allowed.

Edit: Your "evidence" that Werewolf is about rape, cannibalism and murder is the wikiquote ? This is why gamers should not be offended by GangRape ?

Regards,
David R

Double post

Quote from: pawsplay;352095Exactly. Every culture, every individual, has a different view of ultimate evil. For a modern humanist, the loss of individual dignity is probably one of the greatest evils, but for a Christian, the loss of the immortal soul is a greater peril than any mortal suffering.

Except that the vast majority of the population is not worried about demon possession, whereas gang rape is a very real possibility in any number of places.  Trivializing one is not the same as trivializing the other.

Secondly, even the people who believe in demon possession would be horrified by gang rape, and would reasonably be offended by this jeepform.

I am assuming you have some means of demonstrating this equivalence between demonic possession and gang rape that exists outside of your mind?  Because you keep bringing it up as an a priori statement.  This notion you keep returning to, that an irrational belief of an exceptionally small fringe population has the exact same weight as a real criminal act that horrifies, upsets, and offends the vast, vast majority of the general population has to have some underlying basis, right?  I mean, you didn't just wander in here to play Devil's Advocate without any kind of plan, did you?  

For example, your lack of understanding and knowledge about Werewolf is all encompassing.  What you assert as a plain truth about the rules is clearly just your recollection of the anti-social behaviour displayed by your particular group.  You make wild assumptions about 'conservative' Christians that simply are not true.  And you continue to present these ideas as though they are irrefutable, even though several people have pointed out how utterly mistaken those assumptions are.

In other words, you are in way over your head here.

Quote from: David R;352098Edit: Your "evidence" that Werewolf is about rape, cannibalism and murder is the wikiquote ? This is why gamers should not be offended by GangRape ?

I should have held off my response above until I got to that part.  Then I could have just laughed and pointed without wasting all those electrons.

Quote from: David R;352098Edit: Your "evidence" that Werewolf is about rape, cannibalism and murder is the wikiquote ? This is why gamers should not be offended by GangRape ?

Regards,
David R

I never said they shouldn't be offended. That's their choice. I just don't view "gang rape" as something ex cathedra to the world of gaming. For instance (I say in summary), rape, possession, cannibalism, murder, and necrophilia are canonical aspects of playing a garou in Werewolf. If the objection to Gang Rape is that it is "not fun," I'm not sure it's much of a defense for Werewolf to say it's okay because it IS fun. Viewing objectionable material as fun does not cleanse it.

Quote from: StormBringer;352103Except that the vast majority of the population is not worried about demon possession, whereas gang rape is a very real possibility in any number of places.  Trivializing one is not the same as trivializing the other.

Secondly, even the people who believe in demon possession would be horrified by gang rape, and would reasonably be offended by this jeepform.

I am assuming you have some means of demonstrating this equivalence between demonic possession and gang rape that exists outside of your mind?  Because you keep bringing it up as an a priori statement.  This notion you keep returning to, that an irrational belief of an exceptionally small fringe population has the exact same weight as a real criminal act that horrifies, upsets, and offends the vast, vast majority of the general population has to have some underlying basis, right?  I mean, you didn't just wander in here to play Devil's Advocate without any kind of plan, did you?  

For example, your lack of understanding and knowledge about Werewolf is all encompassing.  What you assert as a plain truth about the rules is clearly just your recollection of the anti-social behaviour displayed by your particular group.  You make wild assumptions about 'conservative' Christians that simply are not true.  And you continue to present these ideas as though they are irrefutable, even though several people have pointed out how utterly mistaken those assumptions are.

In other words, you are in way over your head here.

You're supposed to say "excuse me" after you fart.

Quote from: David R;352098Actually, you're wrong. Many people here have not played Werewolf but have heard of it or know what it's about or maybe even read it, but don't like it for a variety of reasons, none of which has anything to do with "playing a  demon possesed cannibal rapist murderer" - if the game has changed so much I'd like to see some evidence of this.

How does that make me wrong? I never said everyone here played it, just that many people have. If there are 8000 posters and 80 have played it, that's "many." Certainly more than have ever played Gang Rape.

QuoteLike I said in my early post. You just keep dismissing context and intent, making it seem unimportant. At the end of the day, rape is the same in every game. If you put up with it in one game (something which you have not supported with evidence btw*) you must put up with it in every game. No, criticism allowed.

So the rape in Werewolf... is okay? It's different in some way that makes it not bad? Maybe it's cute rape?

Quote from: pawsplay;352106I never said they shouldn't be offended. That's their choice. I just don't view "gang rape" as something ex cathedra to the world of gaming. For instance (I say in summary), rape, possession, cannibalism, murder, and necrophilia are canonical aspects of playing a garou in Werewolf. If the objection to Gang Rape is that it is "not fun," I'm not sure it's much of a defense for Werewolf to say it's okay because it IS fun. Viewing objectionable material as fun does not cleanse it.

You really shouldn't try to use big Latin words when you don't understand what they mean.

I'm pretty sure the Pope has nothing to do with, nor any concern towards the contents of any given roleplaying game.

Quote from: pawsplay;352106If the objection to Gang Rape is that it is "not fun," I'm not sure it's much of a defense for Werewolf to say it's okay because it IS fun. Viewing objectionable material as fun does not cleanse it.

Nobody here said they objected to GangRape becaue it was "not fun".

Regards,
David R

Quote from: pawsplay;352108So the rape in Werewolf... is okay? It's different in some way that makes it not bad? Maybe it's cute rape?

Again, never raped anyone in a Werewolf game.  Not once.  Killed a lot of things, most all of them not human, never raped anyone.  Never found myself in a situation where I was somehow forced by the game to rape someone.  Wasn't necessary in any way, if there was indeed mention of it in the books, it sure as shit never came up in my games.

Just.  Didn't.  Happen.  No matter how much you want to believe it's impossible.

Which is why it's fucking ludicrous to compare it to this game, even if these elements were technically present in some after thought of a pretentious yob on page 235.  It wasn't what the game was about.

Where as it is absolutely and unequivocably what this entire game is about, what it's mechanics are about, what they seek to simulate.  That's what it is.  An RPG, about gang rape.  Period.

Just give it a fucking rest already, this shit isn't going to work.

Quote from: pawsplay;352106For instance (I say in summary), rape, possession, cannibalism, murder, and necrophilia are canonical aspects of playing a garou in Werewolf.

Except they aren't.  You have been advised of this.  Now you are simply lying.

Quote from: pawsplay;352107You're supposed to say "excuse me" after you fart.

I will take that as your concession that you were wrong in your premise to begin with, wrong to continue with your specious and unsupportable arguments, and finally that you are unable to gracefully admit you were either trolling or playing Devil's Advocate very poorly.

Quote from: pawsplay;352108How does that make me wrong? I never said everyone here played it, just that many people have. If there are 8000 posters and 80 have played it, that's "many." Certainly more than have ever played Gang Rape.

If there are 80 people out of 8000 that have participated in an activity, that is also known as "1%".  There is no reasonable definition of 'many' that includes one in one hundred.

QuoteSo the rape in Werewolf... is okay? It's different in some way that makes it not bad? Maybe it's cute rape?

No, the 'rape' in Werewolf only exists in a specific group.  Clearly, in this case, the one you were involved in.

You really blew it with the Wikia article, however.  Check out the home page (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page), which really should have been your first step before posting the link:

Quote from: Wikia introThe (Unofficial) White Wolf Wiki is a collaborative encyclopedia project where you can find out about the worlds and systems created by White Wolf Publishing, Inc, publisher of many roleplaying games, board games, card games, novels and more. The White Wolf Wiki started in May 2004, and currently has 4,740 articles.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, anything posted there is the interpretation of people who are not employed by White Wolf.  That is what 'unofficial' means.  There could be an article about Werewolf playing exactly like an episode of My Little Pony.  And that carries about as much weight as your assertions regarding Werewolf at this point.

You should probably try your strategy over at tBP.  The mods are more than willing to sweep in at a moment's notice when you are thoroughly embarrassed in public like this.

Quote from: pawsplay;352108How does that make me wrong? I never said everyone here played it, just that many people have. If there are 8000 posters and 80 have played it, that's "many." Certainly more than have ever played Gang Rape.

You're wrong because of your characterization of the game. You implied that gamers didn't realize that Werewolf was about rape, muder and cannibalism.

QuoteSo the rape in Werewolf... is okay? It's different in some way that makes it not bad? Maybe it's cute rape?

Not at all. It's not central to the game. It's not the focus of the game or most of it's players and like I said earlier, it's part of the dark mythology of the setting. It's not what the designers envisioned their game is about. It's sure as hell not supposed to be fun. It's probably something that most WhiteWolf gamers choose not to explore.

Like I said, you keep dismissing the details. Context and intent.

Regards,
David R

The sad part is, this whole pathetic attempt at trolling could've turned out a lot better if he'd just picked Vampire instead.  

Werewolf was always the least morally ambiguous/questionable game in the line, frankly, which is why I liked it so much.

I got the feeling that part of this debate is based on the assumption that the purpose of "Gang Rape the RPG" is to gather together simulate gang rape - end of the story.

However, the book explicitly states that simulating gang rape is

centred around the idea of
using fiat as a means of
oppression. The game mechanics
were conceived for the purpose
of playing gang rape, but are equally
useful for playing any kind of oppression,
like for example bullying/mobbing.

and later

Additionally, and naturally, the game is
also about admitting that we all have
the capacity to fantasise about these
things. And just maybe, or so I imagine,
you might find nuances of things in here
that actually turns you on. For some,
control can be a great turn-on. Naturally,
I am only saying this to raise the
stakes of playing.

Add the exemplification of "fiat" as "the GM decides what happens in the game without consulting the players or "the objective rueles. (I'm still quoting the rulebook ad verbatim) and what you get is that "Gang Rape" is about admitting the glee of total control, not only physical but also psychological - including being a traditional GM.

[Which is the conclusion I flatly refuse without even going into the joys of debating if simulating gang rape = itching to practice it].

Again though, this debate pre-supposes that Gangrape is a game.  The definition of a game is:

1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.  
2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.  
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Whatever criticisms there may be of Werewolf, it is undeniably a game.  On the other hand, I can't give Gangrape the benefit of the doubt that it is an "amusement or pastime" because the people who made it admit that it is a forum for acting out oppression and can be disturbing.  In the alternative, if the people "playing" Gangrape are doing it for their own amusement or for that of spectators then they are a sick bunch of pervs.   Pretending it is a game and trying to legitimize it by calling it an RPG is just plain offensive.

Quote from: Reckall;352122I got the feeling that part of this debate is based on the assumption that the purpose of "Gang Rape the RPG" is to gather together simulate gang rape - end of the story.

However, the book explicitly states that simulating gang rape is

centred around the idea of
using fiat as a means of
oppression. The game mechanics
were conceived for the purpose
of playing gang rape, but are equally
useful for playing any kind of oppression,
like for example bullying/mobbing.

and later

Additionally, and naturally, the game is
also about admitting that we all have
the capacity to fantasise about these
things. And just maybe, or so I imagine,
you might find nuances of things in here
that actually turns you on. For some,
control can be a great turn-on. Naturally,
I am only saying this to raise the
stakes of playing.

Add the exemplification of "fiat" as "the GM decides what happens in the game without consulting the players or "the objective rueles. (I'm still quoting the rulebook ad verbatim) and what you get is that "Gang Rape" is about admitting the glee of total control, not only physical but also psychological - including being a traditional GM.

[Which is the conclusion I flatly refuse without even going into the joys of debating if simulating gang rape = itching to practice it].

Self-defeating Post is Self-Defeating.

Quote from: pawsplay;352067The focus of Werewolf is playing a demon-possessed cannibal rapist murder. True, it lacks that total "gang rape" focus, but who likes those dodgy microgames, anyway?

Not me.

But you're being stupid again. If it were just you we could forgive it, but you're doing it on purpose as a rhetorical trick. Stop it, don't be an arsehole.

Quote from: pawsplayTo you [demon posessions are not real]. To a conservative Christian, they are very real.

Only to the true nutters. Which is not the majority. It's like saying that CIA mind control computer chips are real to some paranoid schizophrenics, so we must take the issue seriously when designing games.

No.

Quote from: pawsplaydo you want to either concede that a game isn't vile and offensive simply because it offends someone on reasonable grounds

I turn to our excellent British-derived common law, which generally asks us to consider what a reasonable person would think.

A reasonable person will not be offended by a story or game about werewolves, because a reasonable person does not think they actually exist. You'll note there were no protests outside the cinemas when Van Helsing or Underworld came out - not even "conservative Christians." Reasonable people were indifferent to these movies, because reasonable people know that werewolves and demons do not exist.

Whereas gang rape does actually exist, and does offend reasonable people. Which is the entire point of this "gang rape rpg" - it offends reasonable people and this feeling of offence should be explored in the "game".

Again, you know all this. You're being stupid again. If it were just you we could forgive it, but you're doing it on purpose as a rhetorical trick. Stop it, don't be an arsehole.

Quote from: David R;352115Not at all. It's not central to the game. It's not the focus of the game or most of it's players and like I said earlier, it's part of the dark mythology of the setting. It's not what the designers envisioned their game is about. It's sure as hell not supposed to be fun. It's probably something that most WhiteWolf gamers choose not to explore.

Then why are their rules for it? If the rules say my character may suddenly murder a teammate or commit rape, how am I supposed to interpret that?

Quote from: Grimjack;352128Again though, this debate pre-supposes that Gangrape is a game.  The definition of a game is:

1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.  
2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.  
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Whatever criticisms there may be of Werewolf, it is undeniably a game.  On the other hand, I can't give Gangrape the benefit of the doubt that it is an "amusement or pastime" because the people who made it admit that it is a forum for acting out oppression and can be disturbing.  In the alternative, if the people "playing" Gangrape are doing it for their own amusement or for that of spectators then they are a sick bunch of pervs.   Pretending it is a game and trying to legitimize it by calling it an RPG is just plain offensive.

If Gang Rape is an exercise in oppression, how is that not a competitive activity?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352258Only to the true nutters. Which is not the majority. It's like saying that CIA mind control computer chips are real to some paranoid schizophrenics, so we must take the issue seriously when designing games.

Ok, so you want to call every orthodox Catholic in the world and most Baptists nutters, and then you want to call me a troll. If C.S. Lewis is a "nutter," I'm not sure we have enough common ground to continue discussion.

Quote from: pawsplay;352303Then why are their rules for it? If the rules say my character may suddenly murder a teammate or commit rape, how am I supposed to interpret that?

You mean those unofficial rules you quoted ?

Edit: As to how you interpret them, with some thought and consideration for your fellow players, I hope.

Regards,
David R

Pawsplay, don't you think it is significant that you are one of the few people still advocating the merits of a game based around gang rape? Does Skarka's Law ring a bell?

Quote from: pawsplay;352303Then why are their rules for it? If the rules say my character may suddenly murder a teammate or commit rape, how am I supposed to interpret that?

The rules don't say that.  You are simply lying.  What the rules do say is 'any manner of perversion' (or words to that effect) and very specifically avoid mentioning sexual perversion.  So, ripping the arms off an enemy, playing puppet with their head, shitting on someone's face, whatever.  There is no mechanic that says 'your werewolf must rape someone'.

You don't have the rulebook, you don't know what it says, and your entire understanding of this matter comes from an unofficial Wikia page and your previous group's behaviour.  Your continued use of this non-evidence is only to your detriment.

Quote from: jeff37923;352317Pawsplay, don't you think it is significant that you are one of the few people still advocating the merits of a game based around gang rape? Does Skarka's Law ring a bell?

C'mon, dude, he is all edgy-cool and post-modern.  Your antiquated 'morality' is meaningless to Hipster Men in Black.

Quote from: StormBringer;352324C'mon, dude, he is all edgy-cool and post-modern.  Your antiquated 'morality' is meaningless to Hipster Men in Black.

Then tell the dipshit to GET OFF MY LAWN!!

:D

I think its cute the way he keeps making up crap to try and prove you wrong. He obviously is hungering for the approval of adults.

Quote from: pawsplay;352306Ok, so you want to call every orthodox Catholic in the world and most Baptists nutters,

Demonic possession is not part of modern Catholic or Baptist doctrine. Thus, modern Catholics or Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession.

Demonic possession causing lycanthropy has never been a part of Catholic or Baptist doctrine.

Conversations about real world issues always go much more smoothly if nobody just plain makes shit up. Save the creativity for the game table.

Stop being stupid. That shit only works on message boards where the moderaors themselves are stupid, or where nobody is allowed to call bullshit because it creates an emotionally unsafe environment. So it doesn't work here.

Quote from: pawsplay;352303Then why are their rules for it? If the rules say my character may suddenly murder a teammate or commit rape, how am I supposed to interpret that?

That is weakest fucking argument possible.
Whatever leg you had to stand on just got amputated.

Its about Werewolves!!

Fictional damn creatures!!

 "G*ng R*pe" is a piece of excrement that should never be referred to as a game.  It is an exercise in cluelessness on the part of its designer/writer.

There are certain things that are generally known as repugnant. Rational, sane stable people do create such products as the thing that generated this thread's discussion.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352339Demonic possession is not part of modern Catholic or Baptist doctrine. Thus, modern Catholics or Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession.

Sorry, demonic possession is doctrinal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm

and Biblical

Luke 8

26 And they sailed to the country of the Gerasens, which is over against Galilee. 27 And when he had come forth to the land, there met him a certain man who had a devil now a very long time. And he wore no clothes: neither did he abide in a house, but in the sepulchres. 28 And when he saw Jesus, he fell down before him. And crying out with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I beseech you, do not torment me. 29 For he commanded the unclean spirit to go out of the man. For many times it seized him: and he was bound with chains and kept in fetters: and breaking the bonds, he was driven by the devil into the deserts.

30 And Jesus asked him, saying: What is your name? But he said: Legion. Because many devils were entered into him. 31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go into the abyss. 32 And there was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would allow them to enter into them. And he allowed them. 33 The devils therefore went out of the man and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake and were stifled.

Quote from: jeff37923;352317Pawsplay, don't you think it is significant that you are one of the few people still advocating the merits of a game based around gang rape? Does Skarka's Law ring a bell?

I'm not advocating the merits of the game. I'm just defending it's right to exist against utterly hypocritical standards.

Quote from: David R;352310You mean those unofficial rules you quoted ?

Edit: As to how you interpret them, with some thought and consideration for your fellow players, I hope.

Regards,
David R

So quote the rulebook back at me. I am at a disadvantage in not having it by my desk, but I am sure at least one person who is posting in this thread has the courage to post the rules verbatim.

Quote from: pawsplay;352378So quote the rulebook back at me. I am at a disadvantage in not having it by my desk, but I am sure at least one person who is posting in this thread has the courage to post the rules verbatim.

What the fuck are you talking about ? I was not the one who constructed this elaborate fantasy that Werewolf was about "demonically possesed cannibal rapists", you were. I, J Arcane and Strombringer said that Werewolf was nothing like what you described and invited you to produce some evidence to support your claim. The best you could manage was an unoffical wiki site. I find it amusing that someone who is so offended by our supposed hypocritical standards has to resorts to half truths and rhetorical trickery to sustain his arguments.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: pawsplay;352376Sorry, demonic possession is doctrinal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm

and Biblical

Luke 8

26 And they sailed to the country of the Gerasens, which is over against Galilee. 27 And when he had come forth to the land, there met him a certain man who had a devil now a very long time. And he wore no clothes: neither did he abide in a house, but in the sepulchres. 28 And when he saw Jesus, he fell down before him. And crying out with a loud voice, he said: What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I beseech you, do not torment me. 29 For he commanded the unclean spirit to go out of the man. For many times it seized him: and he was bound with chains and kept in fetters: and breaking the bonds, he was driven by the devil into the deserts.

30 And Jesus asked him, saying: What is your name? But he said: Legion. Because many devils were entered into him. 31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go into the abyss. 32 And there was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would allow them to enter into them. And he allowed them. 33 The devils therefore went out of the man and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake and were stifled.

Are you fucking serious, troll-bait?  You link a web page for the online version of a Catholic Encyclopedia and you quote the bible as your source for evidence that demonic possession is doctrinal?

Quote from: pawsplay;352377I'm not advocating the merits of the game. I'm just defending it's right to exist against utterly hypocritical standards.

If the game had merits, you would not need to defend its "right to exist".

Quote from: pawsplay;352376Sorry, demonic possession is doctrinal.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm

You really are a cocksmock. From your link,

   As we gather from the Fathers and the theologians, the soul itself can never be "possessed" nor deprived of liberty, though its ordinary control over the members of the body may be hindered by the obsessing spirit [...]

Why possession should manifest itself in one country rather than another, why it should have been so common in the time of Christ and so comparatively rare in our own, why even in Palestine it should have been confined almost entirely to the province of Galilee are questions on which theologians have speculated but on which no sure conclusion can ever be reached
[My emphasis]
Lots about demons tempting you with sweet, sweet sin. Not much at all about demons making you go crazy and eat people. And even if they do "possess" you, they just "hinder" your control. See, Catholics have this other doctrine, the doctrine of free will. You know, we as adults are responsible for our own actions and all that. Being possessed by demons kinda flies against that. So they don't like to talk about that much. If you're "possessed" it's because you gave yourself over to them. In the end it's all up to you.

For these reasons, mainstream Catholics are not offended by stories of demonic possession. Because it doesn't happen much at all nowadays - says Catholic doctrine. And even if it does, it happened because some nasty or weak person wanted it to - same as any ordinary crime.

Also, nothing about lycanthropy, let alone lycanthropy being caused by demonic possession. Which it isn't in the actual game anyway. Cocksmock.

And again, note the complete lack of any kind of Christian church's protest against movies about werewolves. They just don't care.

Quote from: jeffIf the game had merits, you would not need to defend its "right to exist".

ZING!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352442You really are a cocksmock. From your link...

You know, if everyone was expected to actually read the links they post, this place would grind to a halt, and nothing would get done.

Clearly an unreasonable expectation.

Quote from: David R;352381What the fuck are you talking about ? I was not the one who constructed this elaborate fantasy that Werewolf was about "demonically possesed cannibal rapists", you were. I, J Arcane and Strombringer said that Werewolf was nothing like what you described and invited you to produce some evidence to support your claim. The best you could manage was an unoffical wiki site. I find it amusing that someone who is so offended by our supposed hypocritical standards has to resorts to half truths and rhetorical trickery to sustain his arguments.

Regards,
David R

Quote the rules, then call me a liar. Dare you.

Quote from: Drohem;352382Are you fucking serious, troll-bait?  You link a web page for the online version of a Catholic Encyclopedia and you quote the bible as your source for evidence that demonic possession is doctrinal?

To Catholics and Biblical literalists. Is there some logical whole I missed, in feeling that Christians practice Christian theology? Exorcism is a rite of the Catholic church. Apparently somebody thinks demonic possession occurs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352442Lots about demons tempting you with sweet, sweet sin. Not much at all about demons making you go crazy and eat people. And even if they do "possess" you, they just "hinder" your control. See, Catholics have this other doctrine, the doctrine of free will. You know, we as adults are responsible for our own actions and all that. Being possessed by demons kinda flies against that. So they don't like to talk about that much. If you're "possessed" it's because you gave yourself over to them. In the end it's all up to you.

What has that got to do with anything? I never said Werewolf denied the doctrine of free will.

QuoteAnd again, note the complete lack of any kind of Christian church's protest against movies about werewolves. They just don't care.

All that demonstrates is that most Catholics are more thick-skinned than certain RPGsite posters. Zinga-ding-ding.

Quote from: jeff37923;352394If the game had merits, you would not need to defend its "right to exist".

If the game had substantial merits, I wouldn't have to. Defending the good and worthwhile is easy, defending reason so that it may serve the good is a more complex argument. I would rather let people play crappy games than assault the dignity of a person to make their own choices. There are plenty of people who would deride someone just for posting on this website, but I don't care. And if I don't care about those opinions, why would I thrust such a useless opinion on someone else?

What is gained by expressing judgment over something that is, ultimately, a question of taste? Some people like their rape with a twist of fur, necrophilia, and the comfortable distance of fantasy... some people prefer gang rape straight up. Different strokes for different folks.

Quote from: StormBringer;352474You know, if everyone was expected to actually read the links they post, this place would grind to a halt, and nothing would get done.

Clearly an unreasonable expectation.

So what, exactly, do the rules say, StormBringer? Got a quote for me?

Quote from: pawsplay;352524Quote the rules, then call me a liar. Dare you.

Already done, dipshit.

Post 300 in this very thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=352323&postcount=300)

However, it is entirely unnecessary, because you are the one asserting this is true.  Therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence to support that assertion.

In other words:  I don't have the pictures, but I am certain you like to insert small rodents into your own anus.  Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Follow up:

Quote from: pawsplay;352532So what, exactly, do the rules say, StormBringer? Got a quote for me?

Again, I don't have to quote anything.  You are making assertions without a shred of evidence.  That is called 'lying'.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531If the game had substantial merits...

Define what an insubstantial merit is, otherwise you are admitting that Gang Rape is meritless as a game.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531Defending the good and worthwhile is easy, defending reason so that it may serve the good is a more complex argument.

Tell us how Gang Rape is an example of reason.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531I would rather let people play crappy games than assault the dignity of a person to make their own choices. There are plenty of people who would deride someone just for posting on this website, but I don't care. And if I don't care about those opinions, why would I thrust such a useless opinion on someone else?

What is gained by expressing judgment over something that is, ultimately, a question of taste? Some people like their rape with a twist of fur, necrophilia, and the comfortable distance of fantasy... some people prefer gang rape straight up. Different strokes for different folks.

Quote from: StormBringer;352534Already done, dipshit.

Post 300 in this very thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=352323&postcount=300)

There are zero quotes and one small, context-free paraphrase in there.

QuoteHowever, it is entirely unnecessary, because you are the one asserting this is true.  Therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence to support that assertion.

I have. Now offer counter-evidence. I am sure it would be very persuasive if you quoted the rulebook back at me.

HMM. I wonder why you don't do that? Check the index, type up a short paragraph, post. POW. You would totally pwnz me. It would be so easy.

Heck, you could lie and make it up and how would I know? I don't have the book in front of me. Of course, someone might catch you later. I am sure someone, somewhere at there has the rule book and would be willing to quote it at me.

It would be really embarrassing, of course, if it turned out I was right and you were simply willing to admit it by posting the incriminating paragraphs.

QuoteAgain, I don't have to quote anything.  

Sure. And it's probably a good idea, if quoting would show you are wrong and you are too embarrassed to admit that.

Quote from: jeff37923;352542Tell us how Gang Rape is an example of reason.

I didn't claim it was.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531If the game had substantial merits...

Define what an insubstantial merit is, otherwise you are admitting that Gang Rape is meritless as a game.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531Defending the good and worthwhile is easy, defending reason so that it may serve the good is a more complex argument.

Tell us how Gang Rape is an example of reason.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531I would rather let people play crappy games than assault the dignity of a person to make their own choices. There are plenty of people who would deride someone just for posting on this website, but I don't care. And if I don't care about those opinions, why would I thrust such a useless opinion on someone else?

What is gained by expressing judgment over something that is, ultimately, a question of taste? Some people like their rape with a twist of fur, necrophilia, and the comfortable distance of fantasy... some people prefer gang rape straight up. Different strokes for different folks.

You have taken offensensitivity to the point of ridiculousness.

What is gained? A clear demarcation of what is acceptable in a hobby that I enjoy and what is offense and needlessly crude. In short, standards.

Quote from: pawsplay;352067The focus of Werewolf is playing a demon-possessed cannibal rapist murder. True, it lacks that total "gang rape" focus, but who likes those dodgy microgames, anyway?

I don't have the books in front of me, pawsplay, but it's never been that way in any Werewolf game I've ever played.  I suppose the focus of D&D is playing a genocidal capitalist to you as well?  With spin like that, you should be playing tennis.

Quote from: pawsplay;352544I didn't claim it was.

You are lying again. It does not serve you.

Quote from: pawsplay;352531Defending the good and worthwhile is easy, defending reason so that it may serve the good is a more complex argument.

Quote from: jeff37923;352545Define what an insubstantial merit is, otherwise you are admitting that Gang Rape is meritless as a game.

I'm not taking a position on Gang Rape's merits as a game. It's not for me, so I guess you could call that approximately meritless. So what? It doesn't matter to my position if I "admit" Gang Rape is meritless. It could very well be lacking in virtually every merit... except those that make it valuable to the people who play it.

QuoteYou have taken offensensitivity to the point of ridiculousness.

What is gained? A clear demarcation of what is acceptable in a hobby that I enjoy and what is offense and needlessly crude. In short, standards.

So rape, necrophilia, cannibalism, demonic possession, murder -- acceptable. Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: pawsplay;352549I'm not taking a position on Gang Rape's merits as a game. It's not for me, so I guess you could call that approximately meritless. So what? It doesn't matter to my position if I "admit" Gang Rape is meritless. It could very well be lacking in virtually every merit... except those that make it valuable to the people who play it.

So this entire attempt by you to defend a meritless game was, what? Attention whoring? Lying practise? You showing us all what a fuckwit you are?

Quote from: pawsplay;352549So rape, necrophilia, cannibalism, demonic possession, murder -- acceptable. Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

To you maybe, but this is more demonstration that you are a worthless piece of shit. Have fun keeping fellow players in your games.

Quote from: pawsplay;352543There are zero quotes and one small, context-free paraphrase in there.

Which is magnitudes of order more than you have provided.

QuoteI have. Now offer counter-evidence. I am sure it would be very persuasive if you quoted the rulebook back at me.

No, you haven't.  I don't need to be persuasive, everyone knows you are not arguing in good faith.  At this point, my only goal is to drive that point home.

QuoteHMM. I wonder why you don't do that? Check the index, type up a short paragraph, post. POW. You would totally pwnz me. It would be so easy.

Even easier, I have already handed you your ass on a plate, without falling into your little 'prove a negative' game.

QuoteHeck, you could lie and make it up and how would I know? I don't have the book in front of me. Of course, someone might catch you later. I am sure someone, somewhere at there has the rule book and would be willing to quote it at me.

I think it is quite well known in these parts that I do not present falsehoods as part of my reasoning or arguments.  If you are so eager to get these quotes, get your own book.  Or, you know, check out post 300, where I mention the passage your unofficial Wikia refers to.

QuoteIt would be really embarrassing, of course, if it turned out I was right and you were simply willing to admit it by posting the incriminating paragraphs.

It also borders on the impossible at this point.  You will not be baiting me into playing your little game.  You have continually promoted arguments without any supporting evidence.  At this point, you are simply lying, and lying in the service of your Devil's Advocacy.  Both have been pointed out as not valid, especially so around here.

Try a blog or tBP.

QuoteSure. And it's probably a good idea, if quoting would show you are wrong and you are too embarrassed to admit that.

The bigger point is, I have nothing to quote against.  You have not presented an argument nor any thing to counter-quote.  You have an unofficial Wikia article and your own recollections of a group that thought rape was a good element for role-playing.

You will need to provide a quote or some kind of supported point if you expect a response.  Until then, you are regurgitating the same falsehoods as you have been for most of the page.

Continue to stamp your feet and demand a negative proof.  It doesn't reflect poorly on me.  The adults around here will continue to remind you, however, that your tactics have no traction.

On the 'Werewolf' tangent, I figured I'd invest five minutes and search through my WtA rulebook, for folks that like to keep score.  This is Werewolf (old WoD), third edition.

The word 'rape' appears:
- once in describing how awful acts feed the Wyrm;
- once in describing the Atrocity Realm.

'Cannibal' or 'cannibalism' appears:
- twice in the Litany in the description of the law that prohibits cannibalism;
- once in the description of atavistic Bone Gnawers (implied to be antagonists) who disregard that law;
- four times in descriptions of the wendigo spirit;
Ah, here it is...maybe this is what pawsplay is talking about.  In the section on Rage, there is a description of an abnormal rage (the 'thrall of the wyrm') in which a Garou loses all control and does _bad bad things_, including potentially cannibalism.  A homid-form Garou in thrall who kills or incapacitates a foe gets to make a Wits roll to avoid the cannibalism, apparently (news to me).
- once in a description of Fomori (antagonists);
- once in a description of a magic item that clouds identity, as a counterexample ("if people see you tear out a throat, they'll think you a cannibal psychotic");

Bottom line: Every mention of cannibalism or rape is in reference to evil acts.  These are not things that PCs are _intended_ to do.  It's what bad guys do, just like in most other games.

I didn't bother looking for 'possession' because it's a game about a shamanistic culture, period.

Cue someone saying "he meant the new World of Darkness!" now.

Quote from: VectorSigma;352561Ah, here it is...maybe this is what pawsplay is talking about.  In the section on Rage, there is a description of an abnormal rage (the 'thrall of the wyrm') in which a Garou loses all control and does _bad bad things_, including potentially cannibalism.  A homid-form Garou in thrall who kills or incapacitates a foe gets to make a Wits roll to avoid the cannibalism, apparently (news to me).

Do say.

From the MET version, quoted in it's entirety:  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/J_Arcane/METtheApocalypse.gif

Quote from: StormBringer;352556You will not be baiting me into playing your little game.

Well, I gave you a chance to be gracious. Your loss.

Quote from: J Arcane;352566From the MET version, quoted in it's entirety:  http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/J_Arcane/METtheApocalypse.gif

That's not it. You're looking for the phrase "Wyrm frenzy" or "Thrall of the Wyrm."

Quote from: pawsplay;352565Do say.

I don't see that as a big deal, frankly.  Does any rpg with mind control in it count?

I'm reading that section now, since it seems to be the bit that inspired your original issue.

It's all about a berserk frenzy.  Berserk.  Frenzy.  In which a character (PC or otherwise) feels the urge to do 'Wyrm stuff' based on their breed.  (cannibalism for homids, 'perversion' for metis, and mutilating the foe for lupus, for folks who know of the game's terminology)  The worst of the worst, with a spin based on the greatest crime your kind can commit (for example, metis are forbidden to breed, so when they fall to the wyrm, they act out the urge to breed).

How does this make the game about cannibalism and rape?  How can any game be 'about' what happens when you fail a bunch of rolls in a row?

Quote from: pawsplay;352568That's not it. You're looking for the phrase "Wyrm frenzy" or "Thrall of the Wyrm."

THat is the only section on Frenzy rules in that book, not counting a few mentions in fluff text in the context of referring to it as a curse, and a few of the gifts and traits that allow you to prevent frenzy or gain some of it's benefits without the drawbacks.

Tough titty on that, bucko.

And as Vector has demonstrated, only one of your charges is in the tabletop book, and even that has been exaggerated on your part.  The rest are pure lies, as usual.

You are a dishonest, lying piece of shit, who can frankyl fuck off back to RPGnet where that shit belongs.  I am done with you, with your smugness, your twisting of the truth, your outright falsehood.

Go fuck yourself, you sack of human filth.

Why the hell am I even commenting on this?  Seriously?  Guess I got suckered in.  Probably because I have a Werewolf game tomorrow.

No one has ever come up to me and said "Hey, let's get a campaign of that 'turn-into-wolves-and-fuck-corpses' game going!", nor "Isn't there an rpg that properly simulates involuntary berserk cannibalism in a realistic yet engaging fashion?"*

I mean, really.  Besides, falling into the thrall of the wyrm is a great way to lose your character - either through being put down by your fellows afterward, or by realizing the awful crap you did and sliding into harano (WtA-speak for 'fatal depression'...yes, it's almost as angsty as Vampire sometimes).

This has so little to do with the OP I feel like I ought to apologize.



---
*  Obviously, you'd want to use Risus or Wushu for this.

Quote from: VectorSigma;352573I mean, really.  Besides, falling into the thrall of the wyrm is a great way to lose your character - either through being put down by your fellows afterward, or by realizing the awful crap you did and sliding into harano (WtA-speak for 'fatal depression'...yes, it's almost as angsty as Vampire sometimes).

Indeed.  It's sort of like claiming that Star Wars RPG is all about spousal abuse, because there's technically rules for falling to the dark side, and Anakin choked his woman in that awful movie.

Quote from: J Arcane;352575Indeed.  It's sort of like claiming that Star Wars RPG is all about spousal abuse, because there's technically rules for falling to the dark side, and Anakin choked his woman in that awful movie.

And then she fell into Harano and died. :)

Here's what I don't get about 'Gang Rape' most of all - what's to "explore"?  I mean, if it's a 'game' for adults (obviously?) about 'exploring' gang rape and other power situations (bullying, I guess?), then what's the point?

I could understand teaching children why bullying is bad by doing a roleplay thing about bullying (the 'how would you feel if...'), although that's obviously not a game.

But adults?  Adults, one would think, don't need any convincing or exploration to know that rape (gang or otherwise) is an awful thing.  "But we're exploring relationships of power, and --"  Yeah.  Sure.  What is to be gained?  Not fun, that's already been covered.  Not knowledge, as an adult should already have that particular morsel (rape = bad) covered.

This thing is like some kind of bizarre after-school special for the deconstructionist crowd.

Quote from: J Arcane;352572THat is the only section on Frenzy rules in that book, not counting a few mentions in fluff text in the context of referring to it as a curse, and a few of the gifts and traits that allow you to prevent frenzy or gain some of it's benefits without the drawbacks.

So it's in there. Glad we're clear on that.

QuoteAnd as Vector has demonstrated, only one of your charges is in the tabletop book, and even that has been exaggerated on your part.  The rest are pure lies, as usual.

I don't remember stating another other than that it was in there. Oh, yeah, and that W:tA is not about playing "good guys."

QuoteYou are a dishonest, lying piece of shit, who can frankyl fuck off back to RPGnet where that shit belongs.  I am done with you, with your smugness, your twisting of the truth, your outright falsehood.

That's actually something I cannot do. I am banned from RPG.net, permanently, and have been for more than three years and after my last appeal, well, let's just say I don't have any plans for a next appeal.

QuoteGo fuck yourself, you sack of human filth.

I guess this suggestion has some merit.

Geez, all the insults. I didn't realize there were so many thin skins around here. You start talking about whether the rulebook "says" what I "said" it does, and people get a little hot on the collar.

Call me a liar again, StormBringer, you silly old thing. :) Shoulda admitted you were paste when I offered you the chance. But no, you couldn't bring yourself to actually consult the rules, so now you're in the shit. I win, you lose. I get tired of this crap sometimes, but when people want to do anything other than talk like reasonable people... well, sometimes you just have to rub people's faces in the truth.

Enjoy your cannibal rapist PC game, fuckers. :)

Thank you for cementing a decision I should've made pages ago.

FFVB'd.

Pffft, pawsplay is just another BNG. Another bitter non-gamer hiding behind internet anonymity. Amazing how different conversations go when you've got something resembling your real name as your screen nick, and your own picture as your avatar.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352610Pffft, pawsplay is just another BNG. Another bitter non-gamer hiding behind internet anonymity. Amazing how different conversations go when you've got something resembling your real name as your screen nick, and your own picture as your avatar.

I just have zero interest in continue to discuss anything with someone who demonstrates such blatant dishonesty.  

At that point I simply can no longer assume any future conversations will even resemble good faith.

Yeah, that's basically what I meant.

Quote from: pawsplay;352586So it's in there. Glad we're clear on that.

Except, it isn't in there.  You will note it clearly says 'perversions'.  If you can find somewhere in the Werewolf book where it specifically says 'rape'...  Oh, but that's right, you don't have the book, you just invent what you need.

QuoteCall me a liar again, StormBringer, you silly old thing. :) Shoulda admitted you were paste when I offered you the chance. But no, you couldn't bring yourself to actually consult the rules, so now you're in the shit. I win, you lose. I get tired of this crap sometimes, but when people want to do anything other than talk like reasonable people... well, sometimes you just have to rub people's faces in the truth.

Certainly.  You are an unremitting liar.  You have no idea what is in the rules, and you will absolutely not find a paragraph in that book that says 'your character will rape when under the Taint of the Wyrm'.  On top of that, how would you know if I consulted the rules?  You still don't have a copy.  You are talking out of your ass.  Your sole piece of supporting evidence is a snippet from an unofficial Wikia fanpage.

And since you didn't listen when other people mentioned it, I will re-iterate:  none of that fucking matters anyway.  There is an exceptionally rare chance, that if you botch a shitload of rolls and decide that 'perversion' is 'sexual perversion', you might just do some very bad things to people.  A situation that does not occur 99.99% of the time.  A situation that is just as easily resolved with:

"Oh, crap, that was my last botch.  I guess my guy goes off to do terrible things and then impales himself on a glaive.  I will make a new character and wait until the story has an opening."

Whereas, you are defending a jeepform whose sole purpose is to simulate gang rape.  That is 100% of the purpose of the session.  Gang rape.  It's not a bold stance on freedom of expression.  It's about gang rape.

You utterly fail to see the context, and in so doing, you are defending a game about gang rape.  This is where your fervent Devil's advocacy has led you.  To defend a game about gang rape.  I hope that is a legacy you cherish, because memories are not short around here.

QuoteEnjoy your cannibal rapist PC game, fuckers. :)

Enjoy your gang rape game, douchebag.

Stormbringer, there's no point in discussing anything with someone who only brings lies to the table.

Edit: In other words, what J Arcane said.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352610Amazing how different conversations go when you've got something resembling your real name as your screen nick, and your own picture as your avatar.

But kyle, I really am the brother from another planet :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;352628But kyle, I really am the brother from another planet :D

Only when you've been smoking something...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352631Only when you've been smoking something...

Which is often.

That's why I sometimes wake up and go "fuck, did we really play My Life with Master"....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;352627Stormbringer, there's no point in discussing anything with someone who only brings lies to the table.

Edit: In other words, what J Arcane said.

Regards,
David R

True enough.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352610Pffft, pawsplay is just another BNG. Another bitter non-gamer hiding behind internet anonymity. Amazing how different conversations go when you've got something resembling your real name as your screen nick, and your own picture as your avatar.

Actually, I'm quite googleable. I put up a press release on this site just this last month for my latest project. As for being a non-gamer, I'm looking to wraup up my 1st level to 18th level D&D 3e campaign soon.

Oh, and hey... I was vindicated. It's you that's feeling bitter.

Quote from: StormBringer;352613Except, it isn't in there.  You will note it clearly says 'perversions'.  If you can find somewhere in the Werewolf book where it specifically says 'rape'...  Oh, but that's right, you don't have the book, you just invent what you need.

You don't have the book, either.

QuoteYou utterly fail to see the context, and in so doing, you are defending a game about gang rape. This is where your fervent Devil's advocacy has led you. To defend a game about gang rape. I hope that is a legacy you cherish, because memories are not short around here.

Raping humans and animals for Gaia. Backatcha! :)

Quote from: pawsplay;352698You don't have the book, either.

Except that I do have the book, which is why I was able to report on the actual wording, and you aren't.

QuoteRaping humans and animals for Gaia. Backatcha! :)

Which would be a valid point, if there was anything about rape in the section of Werewolf you brought up.  But there isn't.  On the other hand, you are defending a jeepform called 'Gang Rape'.

You can try to paint your picture of Werewolf as much as you want, but it is quite clear at the moment that you are repeating lies with a frequency that you hope will make them stick.  Unfortunately, this is a forum populated by people who play games, and a wide range of them at that.  It was quite clear to everyone that you are absolutely unfamiliar with Werewolf specifically, and likely a vast majority of other RPGs, as soon as your first post hit the database.

So, do go on with your attempts at portraying Werewolf or any other games as having a central focus on rape, murder, or any other activity you choose, all the while defending a jeepform called 'Gang Rape'.  It is only your own reputation that will suffer.  The irony of you trying to play up elements that don't exist in other games to support the 'Gang Rape' jeepform is delicious to me.

And, since it applies remarkably well to your 'argument', a freebie for you:

per⋅vert (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pervert)
–verb (used with object)

  1. to affect with perversion.
    2. to lead astray morally.    
3. to turn away from the right course.
    4. to lead into mental error or false judgment.
    5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.    
6. to misconstrue or misinterpret, esp. deliberately; distort: to pervert someone's statement.      
7. to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase.
    8. Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal.    
9. to convert or persuade to a religious belief regarded as false or wrong.

Hence, perversion isn't rape.  Much like your bad faith argument is a perversion of good discourse, your use of 'perversion' to mean 'rape' is a deliberate misinterpretation.

Quote from: StormBringer;352765Except that I do have the book, which is why I was able to report on the actual wording, and you aren't.

But you're unwilling to quite it verbatim.

QuoteIt was quite clear to everyone that you are absolutely unfamiliar with Werewolf specifically, and likely a vast majority of other RPGs, as soon as your first post hit the database.

Other than, you know, playing in a year long campaign of it. By the way, the wyrm frenzy isn't the only rape. As several people have already noted, rape of humans and wolves is also mentioned in the backstory.

I'm disappointed that people would lack the conviction to say, "Yes, Werewolf is a game full of rape and other topics that many, if not most, mainstream individuals would find unsavory." I'm still scratching my head at people claiming demonic possession isn't a Christian belief. Obviously not all Christians, but certainly orthodox Catholics, as well as the likes of Jack Chick.

Quote from: pawsplay;352784But you're unwilling to quite it verbatim.

Again, you don't seem to understand the protocol.  I don't have to quote anything.  This isn't tBP.  You must support your argument, or you are lying.  That is how it works in the adult world.

EDIT:
An example, so you can't whine later about not understanding.  The section under discussion could very well be titled "How to play 'Rapewolf: the Rapening' in three easy steps".  It isn't my responsibility to prove that it doesn't say that.  It is your responsibility to show that it does.  When you make an assertion without supporting evidence of any kind, it is a lie.  Worse, it is an intentional lie, because you have already admitted you don't have the passage to hand, nor have you even seen the book itself for a year or more.  You can scream all day about all the elements of rape in Werewolf, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what is in the book.  Every time you mention it, you are cementing your position of bad faith and lies even more.

QuoteOther than, you know, playing in a year long campaign of it. By the way, the wyrm frenzy isn't the only rape. As several people have already noted, rape of humans and wolves is also mentioned in the backstory.

Did you play that year long campaign as playtesting prior to writing the rulebooks?

QuoteI'm disappointed that people would lack the conviction to say, "Yes, Werewolf is a game full of rape and other topics that many, if not most, mainstream individuals would find unsavory."

It is not lack of conviction to refute outright lies when they are presented as truth.  In fact, supporting truth is the very core of conviction.  Shall I show you another definition?  You seem to be having problems with them.

QuoteI'm still scratching my head at people claiming demonic possession isn't a Christian belief. Obviously not all Christians, but certainly orthodox Catholics, as well as the likes of Jack Chick.

You should be scratching your head over that.  No one has said it is not a Christian belief.  You made that up as part of your strawman army.  And I am relatively certain that no one around here puts any stock whatsoever in what Jack Chick believes.

You have squandered any legitimacy capital you may have started with on defending an activity that seeks to simulate gang rape.  When your future 'contributions' to a thread are summarily dismissed out of hand, look back to this thread.  Then, you need not ask why your opinions are not taken seriously.

Quote from: StormBringer;352815Again, you don't seem to understand the protocol.  I don't have to quote anything.  This isn't tBP.  You must support your argument, or you are lying.  That is how it works in the adult world.

No, that's pretty much how it works in the teenaged world. In the adult world, people dont withhold information because it might harm their argument, insist people quote from rulebooks that aren't physically present, or call someone a liar would might be telling the truth. If you want to call someone a liar, where's the evidence?

This could have been a much more civil discussion, but guess what? The people who own the rulebooks didn't feel like weighing in. Instead, people started talking about stuff they actually didn't know about. Owning a rulebook is not a substitute for reading it.

In the end, you get people saying I misrepresented or emphasized wrongly some elements of Werewolf. That's a matter of opinion, and a far cry from "lying." Meanwhile, some people reading the thread may have dropped off. You may have done them a disservice if they left believe those elements were not present in Werewolf, which is what you have said.

When you tell me I won't be taken seriously, that doesn't sound like friendly advice to me. It sounds like a hollow prediction. Maybe it makes you feel better to say that, but the fact is, only time will tell. From my standpoint, you embarrassed yourself, and everyone who argued I was lying and had access to the rulebooks embarrassed themselves. It would have taken seconds to look it up. Instead, you were busy making smug pronouncements, throwing around rhetorical terms as if they were snowballs, and making ad hominem attacks.

What could easily have been an adult discussion, you made into a contest of invective, and then you tripped over yourself because you argued emotionally instead of logically. Also, this is not a court of law. Every participant in this discussion has an equal responsibility to reason. You did not hold up your end of things.

I did not come here to defend Gang Rape or the people who play it, but to critcize the idea it should not exist simply because gang rape is vile. RPGs are full of vile things, even very popular ones, such as Werewolf. That itself does not constitute a proper argument. I have no problem with the position that Gang Rape is not a good or wortwhile activity for most people, I agree. I have a problem with saying its existence is somehow beyond the pale. From what footing can that be argued? Gang Rape sucks because it is in bad taste, not because it's immoral, and the hand-wringing and outrage is embarrasssing to me, as a gamer, because it's so hypocritical.

I am startled to learn that so many people could take away the conclusion Werewolf was about "good guy werewolves." It's about monsters. They're heroic, sure, but not what I would consider particularly ethical. In the end, they're a bunch of murderous religious fanatics deciding who are chosen to live and who are not. They murder, rape, vandalize, cannibalize, and terrorize. It's not exactly the Power Rangers. To conclude otherwise, you would either have to ignore the unsavory points, or have a decidedly non-modern view of right and wrong. If you think all that stuff is ok, then I guess I have no further argument, but I have no reason to suspect most gamers seriously feel it would be a good idea to "cull" humanity to restore nature.

Quote from: StormBringer;352815You should be scratching your head over that.  No one has said it is not a Christian belief.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronDemonic possession is not part of modern Catholic or Baptist doctrine.

So... what are you saying, exactly?

Quote from: pawsplay;352854No, that's pretty much how it works in the teenaged world.

And there is your problem.  You are in way over your head, and don't realize it.

QuoteOwning a rulebook is not a substitute for reading it.

You have done neither, hence, your standing in this discussion is approximately zero.

QuoteI did not come here to defend Gang Rape or the people who play it, but to critcize the idea it should not exist simply because gang rape is vile. RPGs are full of vile things, even very popular ones, such as Werewolf.

You failed on both counts.  No one is saying it shouldn't exist, although some may wish it didn't.  What you see are people condemning this specific expression in a jeepform, as well as the stated purpose of the jeepform to raise awareness.  As well, people here are making the strongest statement possible that this particular jeepform, and other activities or games like it, are absolutely not representative of RPGs as a whole.

On the second count, you utterly failed to demonstrate that RPGs of any kind are full of vile situations.  At best, by whining incessantly for others to do your research for you, it could be demonstrated that in exceptionally rare instances, there are some moderate to highly questionable actions in a quite specific mechanic in Werewolf.  However, you didn't demonstrate that.  You also failed utterly to demonstrate the particular rule in question is absolutely iron-clad and must be played out during the session.

Finally, then, you have completely failed to demonstrate any of your assertions.  You simply kept repeating the same untruths often and loudly enough in the hopes they would gain some traction, much like the individual you mentioned earlier, Jack Chick.  You now have first hand experience as to why no one takes him seriously either.

Quote from: pawsplay;352856So... what are you saying, exactly?

That you have immense reading comprehension and basic vocabulary problems.

doc⋅trine (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrine)
–noun
  1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
     2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.      
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

be⋅lief (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief)
–noun  
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.      
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.      
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.      
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Kyle says it is not in current Christian doctrine, which is not the same as current Christian belief.  I presume there are individuals of various stripes who believe in any number of things; those are not, by default, part of their religious doctrine.

The difference is quite stark, when you understand that words have meaning.  A meaning that is often independent of your particular desire to mislead and obfuscate.

Quote from: pawsplay;352854The people who own the rulebooks didn't feel like weighing in. Instead, people started talking about stuff they actually didn't know about. Owning a rulebook is not a substitute for reading it.

Well, you can screw right off then, sir.  If you want to disagree with my conclusions or playstyle, that's fine, but don't pretend that nobody checked a rulebook.

Quote from: VectorSigma;352912Well, you can screw right off then, sir.  If you want to disagree with my conclusions or playstyle, that's fine, but don't pretend that nobody checked a rulebook.

Then why did I have to point out something, from memory, what other people who owned the rulebooks were saying wasn't there until, well, someone looked, and it was?

Quote from: StormBringer;352870Kyle says it is not in current Christian doctrine, which is not the same as current Christian belief.

And Kyle is wrong, as has already been pointed out. While not all beliefs all doctrines, a doctrine is a kind of belief. Are you trying to say that very few Christians have beliefs in accordance with the doctrine of their sect? The only way what you are saying would have any relevance would be if it were doctrine, but essentially no one actually believed in it. Given that demonic possession is described in the Bible, at the very least I can count virtually all fundamentalist Christians (that is, Christians who believe in the Bible as the word of God and the primary spiritual authority for human beings) as believers in demonic possession.

Obviously, many Christian sects do not treat demonic possession as doctrinal, but the point was addressing those that do.

Again, I am really confused as to what you are trying to say. What is it you think I do not understand, other than your obstinance and need to throw around meaningless insults?

Stormbringer must miss Abyssal Maw and constant pointless arguments with his obtuseness, since AM wussed out and ran away.

I guess pawsplay gets to be the new Abyssal Maw, except Skarka's Law Representative instead of "OMGWotC teh 4w3s0m3!"

Quote from: StormBringer;352868And there is your problem.  You are in way over your head, and don't realize it.

You are quite correct about that. I have no sense that I am in over my head.

QuoteYou have done neither, hence, your standing in this discussion is approximately zero.

Therefore I must have used psychic powers or wild guessing to know of the existence of those rules.

QuoteYou failed on both counts.  No one is saying it shouldn't exist, although some may wish it didn't.  What you see are people condemning this specific expression in a jeepform, as well as the stated purpose of the jeepform to raise awareness.  As well, people here are making the strongest statement possible that this particular jeepform, and other activities or games like it, are absolutely not representative of RPGs as a whole.

Hypocrisy. You may *wish* they weren't, but the difference is only of emphasis and degree.

QuoteOn the second count, you utterly failed to demonstrate that RPGs of any kind are full of vile situations.  At best, by whining incessantly for others to do your research for you, it could be demonstrated that in exceptionally rare instances, there are some moderate to highly questionable actions in a quite specific mechanic in Werewolf.  However, you didn't demonstrate that.  You also failed utterly to demonstrate the particular rule in question is absolutely iron-clad and must be played out during the session.

What do you mean by "utterly?" What is this iron-clad criterion you are talking about? I feel like I must have missed a large part of the conversation because you are claiming things that are just not true, and arguing against things I never said. I suppose it could be some kind of strawman argument against me, but since you have complained so bitterly about them, I am going to assume good faith and allow that you must have failed to understand what I was saying.

To summarize: I said those mechanics existed, they do, I was right, people who said otherwise were wrong. Is there some other aspect that needs to be addressed?

QuoteFinally, then, you have completely failed to demonstrate any of your assertions.  You simply kept repeating the same untruths often and loudly enough in the hopes they would gain some traction, much like the individual you mentioned earlier, Jack Chick.  You now have first hand experience as to why no one takes him seriously either.

I feel like I have been pretty patient in the face of illogic, stubbornness, and filthy insults. Unfortunately, there is plenty enough of that in the world.

Clearly, my assertions, modest as they are, have been strongly supported. Werewolf does contain rape, murder, and cannabilism by PCs. Nothing more than that did I say, apart from stating that the PCs are werewolves. I made no claim as to the emphasis, frequency, goodness, badness, or commonness of such things.

If the best argument you have is that I have over-emphasized those elements, you have to concede that in the main, I was correct. Those things are there. However, I did not claim Werewolf was a game "about" rape, that was other people putting words into my mouth. I merely said that it was a game which featured rapists as PCs, which is verifiably true.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352939Stormbringer must miss Abyssal Maw and constant pointless arguments with his obtuseness, since AM wussed out and ran away.

I guess pawsplay gets to be the new Abyssal Maw, except Skarka's Law Representative instead of "OMGWotC teh 4w3s0m3!"

I remember AM.

Quote from: pawsplay;352940I merely said that it was a game which featured rapists as PCs, which is verifiably true.

As this is the form of all your arguments, I will refute them all thusly:  

No, that is a lie.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;352939Stormbringer must miss Abyssal Maw and constant pointless arguments with his obtuseness, since AM wussed out and ran away.

I guess pawsplay gets to be the new Abyssal Maw, except Skarka's Law Representative instead of "OMGWotC teh 4w3s0m3!"

We all have hobbies.  :)

Quote from: pawsplay;352784I'm still scratching my head at people claiming demonic possession isn't a Christian belief.

Prove it.  Quote the post where someone in this thread has said that demonic possession isn't a Christian belief.

I double-dog dare you.

Quote from: Drohem;352960Prove it.  Quote the post where someone in this thread has said that demonic possession isn't a Christian belief.

I double-dog dare you.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDemonic possession is not part of modern Catholic or Baptist doctrine. Thus, modern Catholics or Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession.

There you go. Kyle Aaron said it, and further that Catholics and Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession. He also compared belief in demonic possession to the belief of a schizophrenic that the CIA controls brains through computer chips and claimed anyone who believed in demonic possession is a "real nutter."

Quote from: pawsplay;354210There you go. Kyle Aaron said it, and further that Catholics and Baptists are not offended by stories of demonic possession. He also compared belief in demonic possession to the belief of a schizophrenic that the CIA controls brains through computer chips and claimed anyone who believed in demonic possession is a "real nutter."

Again, certain Christians believing demonic possession does not mean the Christian faith as a whole believes in demonic possession, nor does that have anything to do with Kyle's correct statement that it is not part of Chrisitan doctrine.

Quote from: StormBringer;354220Again, certain Christians believing demonic possession does not mean the Christian faith as a whole believes in demonic possession,

True.

Quotenor does that have anything to do with Kyle's correct statement that it is not part of Chrisitan doctrine.

As noted above, it is depicted in the Bible and is part of Catholic belief, so for some Christians (at a minimum, Biblical literalists and Catholics) it is doctrinal. It is true that a belief in demonic possession is optional for liberal Christians. I mean liberal Christians in the sense of not being Biblical literalists, not in some general or political sense.

So Kyle's statement is correct in the same sense that the Holy Trinity is not part of Christian doctrine. I.e. not very.

Quote from: StormBringer;354220Again, certain Christians believing demonic possession does not mean the Christian faith as a whole believes in demonic possession, nor does that have anything to do with Kyle's correct statement that it is not part of Chrisitan doctrine.

Come on now, since it's not possible to prove that every single Christian in the world believes any given thing, by your logic the "Christian faith as a whole" has no beliefs whatsoever.

I think it's likely that the majority of Christians probably do beleive in demonic posession. Jesus healed somebody of it after all, and I think it's fair to say most Christians believe that the gospels are accurate depictions of Jesus' life.

Quote from: noisms;354244Come on now, since it's not possible to prove that every single Christian in the world believes any given thing, by your logic the "Christian faith as a whole" has no beliefs whatsoever.

I think it's likely that the majority of Christians probably do beleive in demonic posession. Jesus healed somebody of it after all, and I think it's fair to say most Christians believe that the gospels are accurate depictions of Jesus' life.

Oh, certainly, I didn't mean to imply this should be applied to every single belief.  In broad terms, one can speak of Christians' belief in Jesus as the Son of God, or the principles underlying the Ten Commandments.

Conversely, as I am sure you understand, one also cannot point to a single Christian holding a belief and extrapolate that into an article of faith or doctrine.

And Kyle was pretty specific about referring to demonic possession as a matter of doctrine, not individual belief.  I haven't had a chance to verify that claim, honestly, but Kyle is not one to exaggerate or use terms inappropriately.

Quote from: StormBringer;354255Oh, certainly, I didn't mean to imply this should be applied to every single belief.  In broad terms, one can speak of Christians' belief in Jesus as the Son of God, or the principles underlying the Ten Commandments.

Conversely, as I am sure you understand, one also cannot point to a single Christian holding a belief and extrapolate that into an article of faith or doctrine.

And Kyle was pretty specific about referring to demonic possession as a matter of doctrine, not individual belief.  I haven't had a chance to verify that claim, honestly, but Kyle is not one to exaggerate or use terms inappropriately.

I 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.

If 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?)

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?

Quote from: jeff37923;354511This seems to be a Gross Conceptual Error. How can something that encourages the emulation of the behaviors of Gang Rape be considered anti-rape?

Because in enacting the Gang Rape, everyone realises how awful it is for both victim and perpetrator, lessons are learned, tears flow, and a group hug is enacted. Presumably.

I suppose it's analagous to how making films (ostensibly as entertainment) about the Vietnam war is really anti-war. Think of Gang Rape as the jeepform equivalent of Platoon.

I'm amazed at all the outrage in this thread - it should be perfectly obvious that this is the purpose of the game. Just read what the creator wrote. I reiterate: I think the idea is utterly ludicrous for a host of reasons, but it is highly moral.

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."

Man, if only I could play this game, I could learn so much about this important issue, and a little bit about myself in the process. Oh well. The link is down. I guess I'll just have to spend the rest of my life Pro-Rape.

Quote from: noisms;354527Because in enacting the Gang Rape, everyone realises how awful it is for both victim and perpetrator, lessons are learned, tears flow, and a group hug is enacted. Presumably.

I suppose it's analagous to how making films (ostensibly as entertainment) about the Vietnam war is really anti-war. Think of Gang Rape as the jeepform equivalent of Platoon.

I'm amazed at all the outrage in this thread - it should be perfectly obvious that this is the purpose of the game. Just read what the creator wrote. I reiterate: I think the idea is utterly ludicrous for a host of reasons, but it is highly moral.

You do understand how absolutely fucking stupid this justification sounds, right?

If you have to go so far as to live action role-play the act of gang rape in order to get it through to someone that gang rape is bad, then you may as well admit that the moral and ethical backbone of that society (and the people you have to go to that length to reach) is as fucked up as a soup sandwich. Some things should not need this level of explanation and direct experience.

Quote from: jeff37923;354549You do understand how absolutely fucking stupid this justification sounds, right?

If you have to go so far as to live action role-play the act of gang rape in order to get it through to someone that gang rape is bad, then you may as well admit that the moral and ethical backbone of that society (and the people you have to go to that length to reach) is as fucked up as a soup sandwich. Some things should not need this level of explanation and direct experience.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say that I personally think the entire idea is ridiculous. I have many times in this thread. You're preaching to the converted.

To be fair I think the goal is slightly more subtle than "make people realise rape is bad". It seems to extend to "make people realise rape is so bad that it motivates them to agitate for reform of the criminal justice system in Sweden so that more convictions for rape are secured". Which is also ridiculous, but perhaps ever so slightly less so.

Quote from: noisms;354720I'm not sure how many times I have to say that I personally think the entire idea is ridiculous. I have many times in this thread. You're preaching to the converted.

To be fair I think the goal is slightly more subtle than "make people realise rape is bad". It seems to extend to "make people realise rape is so bad that it motivates them to agitate for reform of the criminal justice system in Sweden so that more convictions for rape are secured". Which is also ridiculous, but perhaps ever so slightly less so.

Which is the really big problem here.  The game you describe would be called "CSI: Oslo" or "Law and Order: Stockholm Sex Squad" or any of a thousand different titles.  Ones that concentrate on their stated goal: the low rate of conviction.  This jeepform has nothing to do with any of that, just a bizarre set of mechanics that 'emulate' gang rape via really wild misconceptions.

It is as if I were to write a jeepform called "Bloemfontein Banging" to raise awareness of the government's tacit approval of underage forced sex slaves in South Africa, and all the rules concerned shouting lurid details about the sex acts the participants are 'performing' on the player of the '10/12/14yr old child'.  There is no connection between what the author states and what the session is about.

Quote from: StormBringer;354723Which is the really big problem here.  The game you describe would be called "CSI: Oslo" or "Law and Order: Stockholm Sex Squad" or any of a thousand different titles.  Ones that concentrate on their stated goal: the low rate of conviction.  This jeepform has nothing to do with any of that, just a bizarre set of mechanics that 'emulate' gang rape via really wild misconceptions.

It is as if I were to write a jeepform called "Bloemfontein Banging" to raise awareness of the government's tacit approval of underage forced sex slaves in South Africa, and all the rules concerned shouting lurid details about the sex acts the participants are 'performing' on the player of the '10/12/14yr old child'.  There is no connection between what the author states and what the session is about.

Ah, you've been reading your Roland Barthes, haven't you? The Death of the Author! Or should it be the Death of the Designer?

Actually your Bloemfontein Banging is quite a good analogy (although I think Bloemfontein is quite a nice city, isn't it?). You could certainly imagine well-meaning jeepform designers coming up with something like that, although if I can quibble about the goal, I don't think it's so much to raise awareness as it is to make the players understand the issue on a deeper level, which is slightly different.

In many ways this sort of thing is like the kind of shock art which is/was practiced by the avant garde; it's not really very new or original, and nor is the observation that what it amounts to is pretty banal. (Rape is bad, just like the "point" of most shock art is sexism is bad, or racism is bad, or war is bad, or whatever.)

What I'm most surprised about is this idea of yours that people would sit around describing sex acts with children in the imaginary Bloemfontein Banging. What would probably happen in reality is that everybody would sit around feeling very uncomfortable and then decide that they couldn't participate, thus gaining the supposed deeper level of understanding of how terrible child abuse is. Which is presumably the designer's intent, and I don't doubt exactly what would happen in an instance of Gang Rape, if there has ever been one.

The idea that real life pedophiles (or real life gang rapists re: Gang Rape) would use such a thing to get their kicks is just too ridiculous for words; don't you think they're capable of coming up with an infinite number of more disgusting (and to them gratifying) activities? And do you think such people hang out together in cellars cackling like flying monkeys and twirling their moustaches while they play Gang Rape and plot their next dastardly scheme?

Quote from: noisms;354730And do you think such people hang out together in cellars cackling like flying monkeys and twirling their moustaches while they play Gang Rape and plot their next dastardly scheme?

They did with Poison'd, so why not.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;354731They did with Poison'd, so why not.

I think there's a difference between some idiotic geeks letting off steam, which was what that Poison'd thing seemed to be all about (the equivalent of playing Grand Theft Auto 3, really; utterly unedifying and pointless but I suppose playing to the basest of human instincts), and an actual clique of child abusers and rapists drawing inspiration from an RPG.

For what it's worth I have (infinitesimally) more respect for the creator of Gang Rape than for the creator of Poison'd. At least the former seems to have his heart in the right place. The latter is just a purveyor of cheap and trivial dross, mostly.

Quote from: StormBringer;354266To 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.  

Nope. I said it was a doctrine, not that it was a doctrine shared by all Christians of all sects. It is Catholic doctrine, it is doctrinal in all sects that teach Biblical literalism, therefore it is a doctrine of Christians. Millions of them.

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.

Who cares if they are identical? What difference does that make if someone becomes offended?

Quote from: Drohem;354313You are an idiot.

But at least I'm rarely at a loss for words.

Quote from: noisms;354720I'm not sure how many times I have to say that I personally think the entire idea is ridiculous. I have many times in this thread. You're preaching to the converted.

To be fair I think the goal is slightly more subtle than "make people realise rape is bad". It seems to extend to "make people realise rape is so bad that it motivates them to agitate for reform of the criminal justice system in Sweden so that more convictions for rape are secured". Which is also ridiculous, but perhaps ever so slightly less so.

Maybe it's for cheap thrills. Who knows? It doesn't matter. It's an activity of consenting adults that is intended to be private. Someone can disapprove of that activity, but claiming it's somehow immorral is a logical error. Werewolf is full of violence, rape, and demonic possession, but as long as you don't play it in times and places where you are likely to traumatize Christian fundamentalist rape victims who have been victims of violence, it's not immoral. Pretend evil is just... pretend. Pretend gang rape is not evil any more than a pretend gun is dangerous or a pretend car is fast.

I wouldn't stock Gang Rape: The RPG at Barnes & Noble, but then, I wouldn't stock gunpowder bombs at Toys R Us, either.

Quote from: noisms;354730Actually your Bloemfontein Banging is quite a good analogy (although I think Bloemfontein is quite a nice city, isn't it?). You could certainly imagine well-meaning jeepform designers coming up with something like that, although if I can quibble about the goal, I don't think it's so much to raise awareness as it is to make the players understand the issue on a deeper level, which is slightly different.

In many ways this sort of thing is like the kind of shock art which is/was practiced by the avant garde; it's not really very new or original, and nor is the observation that what it amounts to is pretty banal. (Rape is bad, just like the "point" of most shock art is sexism is bad, or racism is bad, or war is bad, or whatever.)

These two thoughts pretty much sum up my irritation with such movements:  who thinks this is controversial?  Does there really need to be a national debate about "rape is bad"?  Granted, there are some topics within that structure that can be explored, such as 'rape society' or 'exploitation of the weak'.  Neither of those is addressed, however; the jeepform is just a creepy pseudo-enactment where the 'victim' is presumed to have some level of control over the 'perpetrators'.  At its core, a very wrongheaded assumption, obviously.

QuoteWhat I'm most surprised about is this idea of yours that people would sit around describing sex acts with children in the imaginary Bloemfontein Banging. What would probably happen in reality is that everybody would sit around feeling very uncomfortable and then decide that they couldn't participate, thus gaining the supposed deeper level of understanding of how terrible child abuse is. Which is presumably the designer's intent, and I don't doubt exactly what would happen in an instance of Gang Rape, if there has ever been one.

I don't disagree.  But again, is that really necessary?  I would estimate that the vast majority of people are pretty well decided on their attitudes regarding these things.

QuoteThe idea that real life pedophiles (or real life gang rapists re: Gang Rape) would use such a thing to get their kicks is just too ridiculous for words; don't you think they're capable of coming up with an infinite number of more disgusting (and to them gratifying) activities? And do you think such people hang out together in cellars cackling like flying monkeys and twirling their moustaches while they play Gang Rape and plot their next dastardly scheme?

I don't think I made such an argument.  There is a possible element of psychologically desensitizing certain individuals that may be on the darker edge of a morally grey area.  I would say that number is tiny to vanishingly small, however, and would be as likely set off by The Accused or Bang Bus as this jeepform.  Striving to limit access to a single jeepform that no more than a few handfuls of people know of is a proposition not worthy of consideration.

On the other hand, I do share a concern with Pundit and several others that this jeepform will have consequences for the image of my own hobby.  While this isn't the 'burn everything' craziness of the 80s, most people are still not aware of tabletop RPGs, despite years of Ultima Online and WoW.  I would prefer their view not be tainted by 'that rape game'; novices to RPGs, as with any other field, are definitionally unaware of nuances and subtleties that we grognards take for granted.  Kyle is quite aware that a jeepform is not an RPG by several measures.  New participants, or those interested in participating, will not have the tools to understand the difference.  For them, it's all amateur thespian hour.

Quote from: pawsplay;354779Nope. I said it was a doctrine, not that it was a doctrine shared by all Christians of all sects. It is Catholic doctrine, it is doctrinal in all sects that teach Biblical literalism, therefore it is a doctrine of Christians. Millions of them.

Again, you assert without citation.  That is called a lie.  When you manage to locate a source, I will gladly recant my accusation, but until then, you have no argument.

Quote from: pawsplay;354783Werewolf is full of violence, rape, and demonic possession...

Full of?  Escalating a previous falsehood doesn't bolster your case.

Quote from: StormBringer;354796These two thoughts pretty much sum up my irritation with such movements:  who thinks this is controversial?  Does there really need to be a national debate about "rape is bad"?  

I don't disagree.  But again, is that really necessary?  I would estimate that the vast majority of people are pretty well decided on their attitudes regarding these things.

We're in complete agreement. I just think that the initial impulse on the part of the designer was probably a good one inasmuch as he is trying to make the world a better place - however idiotic his way of going about it is, and however unneccessary and meaningless the results are.

QuoteI don't think I made such an argument.  There is a possible element of psychologically desensitizing certain individuals that may be on the darker edge of a morally grey area.  I would say that number is tiny to vanishingly small, however, and would be as likely set off by The Accused or Bang Bus as this jeepform.  Striving to limit access to a single jeepform that no more than a few handfuls of people know of is a proposition not worthy of consideration.

For what it's worth I think that things like Bang Bus, Grand Theft Auto 3, etc., do have a detrimental effect on our society which it is worth analysing. Where Gang Rape differs is that it is explicitly an exploration of why something is bad, whereas Bang Bus is just plain and simple revelment in nastiness. (A bit like Poison'd.)

QuoteOn the other hand, I do share a concern with Pundit and several others that this jeepform will have consequences for the image of my own hobby.  While this isn't the 'burn everything' craziness of the 80s, most people are still not aware of tabletop RPGs, despite years of Ultima Online and WoW.  I would prefer their view not be tainted by 'that rape game'; novices to RPGs, as with any other field, are definitionally unaware of nuances and subtleties that we grognards take for granted.  Kyle is quite aware that a jeepform is not an RPG by several measures.  New participants, or those interested in participating, will not have the tools to understand the difference.  For them, it's all amateur thespian hour.

That's valid, but I think the number of novices to the hobby who first encounter Gang Rape, as opposed to D&D, GURPS, Shadowrun or Exalted, is vanishingly small. The main image problem for the hobby is the idea that it's the realm of nerdish singletons living in their mothers' basements, not that it's a hobby in which people enact simulated gang rape.

Quote from: StormBringer;354797Again, you assert without citation.  That is called a lie.  When you manage to locate a source, I will gladly recant my accusation, but until then, you have no argument.

I already quoted the Bible at you. So when you say I have not given a source, you are lying. In fact, your posts are pretty much full of lies, so I guess flinging that word around is your way of dealing with the insecurity you feel about your position. I honestly have a hard time fathoming your motivations for posting in this way at this point.

Feel free to clarify what it is you are looking for. I have already quoted a Biblical passage on demonic possession. It is true, by definition, that Biblical literalists believe the Bible, literally. Therefore, Biblical literalists believe in demonic possession. I cannot think of any clearer proof.

Quote from: pawsplay;354907Feel free to clarify what it is you are looking for. I have already quoted a Biblical passage on demonic possession. It is true, by definition, that Biblical literalists believe the Bible, literally. Therefore, Biblical literalists believe in demonic possession. I cannot think of any clearer proof.

Well, at least you have started down the right path.  Your next goal is demonstrating the preponderance of 'Bible literalists' in the Catholic sect; it will be difficult enough among the clergy, including laypersons will make this very difficult.  Once you have established that, you can make the claim that demonic possession is a matter of 'doctrine'.  With that firmly behind you, a copy of Werewolf will be required for you to tackle your other premises.  Having a supported argument for all of those separately, you will have a basis for making some correlations that you are currently making baseless assertions regarding.

I already know the outcome, so I will advise that you have your work cut out for you.  As a minimum, however, you will have the opportunity to at least be wrong, to paraphrase Dr Pauli.  Right now, you don't even have that.

Quote from: noisms;354894We're in complete agreement. I just think that the initial impulse on the part of the designer was probably a good one inasmuch as he is trying to make the world a better place - however idiotic his way of going about it is, and however unneccessary and meaningless the results are.

I can't mount a reasonable argument to counter your claims here.  I don't doubt his motives were honest or sincere, as you state.

QuoteFor what it's worth I think that things like Bang Bus, Grand Theft Auto 3, etc., do have a detrimental effect on our society which it is worth analysing. Where Gang Rape differs is that it is explicitly an exploration of why something is bad, whereas Bang Bus is just plain and simple revelment in nastiness. (A bit like Poison'd.)

Agreed on both counts, without reservation.

QuoteThat's valid, but I think the number of novices to the hobby who first encounter Gang Rape, as opposed to D&D, GURPS, Shadowrun or Exalted, is vanishingly small. The main image problem for the hobby is the idea that it's the realm of nerdish singletons living in their mothers' basements, not that it's a hobby in which people enact simulated gang rape.

Most likely true, as well.  I should, then, refine 'novice' in my argument to mean 'a player who has some initial experience with RPGs, and has begun to explore other possibilities', rather than the rank beginner as I seem to have implied earlier.  Perhaps someone with a few months under their belt, up to a year of more or less regular sessions.  Someone whom the Forge gamers would want to recruit before they became irreparably 'brain-damaged'.  ;)

As far as absolute beginners, I am not concerned about the danger of them being exposed to the likes of Gang Rape either.  The odds are near enough to zero that the rare few can be written off, if they take that as representative of the whole hobby.

Quote from: StormBringer;354918Well, at least you have started down the right path.  Your next goal is demonstrating the preponderance of 'Bible literalists' in the Catholic sect; it will be difficult enough among the clergy, including laypersons will make this very difficult.

No. Anyone who is a doctrinal Catholic OR a Biblical literalist would believe in demonic possession. They don't have to be both.

Quote from: pawsplay;355527No. Anyone who is a doctrinal Catholic OR a Biblical literalist would believe in demonic possession. They don't have to be both.

And anyone who isn't either of those wouldn't.  

As you have no idea as to the size of the population to which you are referring, there is no real weight to this line of argumentation.

And that is only if you manage to demonstrate your point, which you really haven't.

Quick Tip:  Cite this 'doctrine' where these 'doctrinal Catholics' would turn for information about 'demonic possession'.  Hint:  They use more than just the Bible to determine doctrine.

Quote from: pawsplay;355527No. Anyone who is a doctrinal Catholic OR a Biblical literalist would believe in demonic possession. They don't have to be both.

Pawsplay, your back & forth arguments are boring.

The thread is/was about a morally objectionable thing that can be best described as a waste of time masquerading as either misery tourism or greoup therapy for the clueless.

The fact that you seem to want to defend the despicable thing by dragging in the Bible or biblical literalists makes no damn sense.


- Ed C.

Quote from: pawsplay;354779Nope. I said it was a doctrine, not that it was a doctrine shared by all Christians of all sects. It is Catholic doctrine, it is doctrinal in all sects that teach Biblical literalism, therefore it is a doctrine of Christians. Millions of them.

I may be misreading your post here, but I just think it is worth pointing out, Catholics are not biblical literalists. There is a lot of allegorical interpretation in Catholic Doctrine (Not that I am Catholic myself, but my mother is).

Quote from: StormBringer;355537Quick Tip:  Cite this 'doctrine' where these 'doctrinal Catholics' would turn for information about 'demonic possession'.  Hint:  They use more than just the Bible to determine doctrine.

My understanding is demonic possession remains part of Catholic Doctrine (and it should be found in the Catechism). But my sense, and again I am not a Catholic, so someone feel free to correct me, is that it is a fading doctrine; or at least much less of a focus among catholics than many of the American Fundamentalist groups.

Edit: There are bunch of entries on it in the Catechism, here is one:

Quote1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing.178 In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.

It looks like the Church looks for a scientific explanation before moving to a spiritual one.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355606My understanding is demonic possession remains part of Catholic Doctrine (and it should be found in the Catechism). But my sense, and again I am not a Catholic, so someone feel free to correct me, is that it is a fading doctrine; or at least much less of a focus among catholics than many of the American Fundamentalist groups.

Edit: There are bunch of entries on it in the Catechism, here is one:

It looks like the Church looks for a scientific explanation before moving to a spiritual one.

As much as your input is valued and well-thought, if you do his work for him, he will just continue to screech nonsense and let others figure it out.  ;)

Besides, this thread is a lot more fun to read when everyone is screeching about gang rape and not so much when they are talking about the fine points of doctrine.

Entertain me, Motherfuckers!

Quote from: StormBringer;355537As you have no idea as to the size of the population to which you are referring,

That is a bizarre premise.

Quotethere is no real weight to this line of argumentation.

And that's a non sequitur. What does the size of the population have to do with anything?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355603I may be misreading your post here, but I just think it is worth pointing out, Catholics are not biblical literalists. There is a lot of allegorical interpretation in Catholic Doctrine (Not that I am Catholic myself, but my mother is).

I am not claiming Catholics are Biblical literalists. In fact, I was about to add something about the past two Popes explicitly calling Genesis religious poetry, but I thought it might be a distraction. My mistake.

Quote from: Koltar;355538Pawsplay, your back & forth arguments are boring.

That's probably why I've been spending less and less time responding to this thread. Nonetheless, nonsense is nonsense. I care a lot more about the moral and cultural awareness of gamers in general than I do about jeeprape, a topic of such moment it could be a soap bubble.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;355606My understanding is demonic possession remains part of Catholic Doctrine (and it should be found in the Catechism). But my sense, and again I am not a Catholic, so someone feel free to correct me, is that it is a fading doctrine; or at least much less of a focus among catholics than many of the American Fundamentalist groups.

Edit: There are bunch of entries on it in the Catechism, here is one:

It is not a fading doctrine; rather a sharper distinction has been drawn between demonic possession and other causes of moral failure or insanity.

QuoteIt looks like the Church looks for a scientific explanation before moving to a spiritual one.

That is also my understanding.

Quote from: pawsplay;355723It is not a fading doctrine; rather a sharper distinction has been drawn between demonic possession and other causes of moral failure or insanity.



That is also my understanding.

My impression, from priests and catholic relatives I have spoken with is it is fading in the sense that enthusiasm for it has declined. They usually peg it as more of an old school thing. As doctrine it is still there, but exorcisms are increasingly rare. Compare with fundamentalists where exorcisms are much more common.

Quote from: pawsplay;355719That is a bizarre premise.

And that's a non sequitur. What does the size of the population have to do with anything?

Wow.  Just, wow.

I thought you were just arguing from a devil's advocate thing, but I now understand that you have no clue what you are doing.

Quote from: StormBringer;355763Wow.  Just, wow.

I thought you were just arguing from a devil's advocate thing, but I now understand that you have no clue what you are doing.

Has anyone ever told you that you have a weakness for hyperbole?

Quote from: StormBringer;355763Wow.  Just, wow.

I thought you were just arguing from a devil's advocate thing, but I now understand that you have no clue what you are doing.

Well, more evidence of cluelessness appears in his thread: Do you like Pathfinder? Do you like shilling third party products? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=16295)

ah i remember this i was going to try and cannibalise it to make some more detailed grappling rules but then i found it was this shit

Goodness gracious, who left Create Undead scroll on the shelf?

i think i found this searching for the chess thread but i may be misremembering i will check

yep chess led me here

Chess led you to rape, huh?

I'll get my coat.

it's hard to be convicted of rape in Sweden? The place some people call a "feminist shithole"?

Maybe in this game "gang rape" means a group of guys saying 'hallå' to the victim and everyone is overreacting.

Shit I thought the admins had the good sense to closed this thread.  typo your not allowed to touch the necromancer scrolls ever again man.

i assume that extends to staves so can i at least trade in my staff of necromacy for a staff of planar might

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350050It does seem a little silly, yes. But if an artist wants to make a political statement, they paint. A writer writes a short story.

A game designer designs a game...

you know thats actually a very good point

that said it does not even come across to me as about rape it looks to be about privilege and oppression and other bullshit the social justice warriors have come up with

Quote from: Warthur;350013We can speculate. But running around in a dark room squeaking at each other isn't going to give us any new insight we don't already have.

i would think the major barrier to understanding the bat is humans have no natural echolocation

we do have the technology though

wow the only person in this thread who did not say something incredibly stupid was the philosophy student the kind of person you would expect to say stupid things normaly

noisms almost made it but then he went and complained about gta

to be fair the pundits things are only stupid for the reason the rest of what he says is stupid: he is completely wrong about the motives of the swine hes right about what they do but not why they do it.

although im suprised how little attention was paid to the fact theres not much in the way of mechanics to simulate rape its all as i mentioned earlier social justice privilege bullshit.

That's twice now you've said you were looking specifically for mechanics about rape...wtf?

reread what i said i first said that i was looking for grappling mechanics

i then said that it did not even have auctual rape mechanics

i never said i wanted rape mechanics just that they werent there what i wanted was grappling mechanics

Quote from: CRKrueger;819029That's twice now you've said you were looking specifically for mechanics about rape...wtf?

he's trying very hard to restart this thread. Dont feed the troll.

you seem very convinced im a troll

hell you have been convinced i was a troll from my very 3rd post in this forum simply because i knew the name of a previously banned user

Quote from: tuypo1;819057you seem very convinced im a troll

You aren't?

My, my, aren't I blushing with embarrassment right now.

of course im not there is no evidence to suggest i am.

Quote from: tuypo1;819063of course im not there is no evidence to suggest i am.

Well there is your repeated posting in this thread you reanimated for no good reason.

(http://homepage.nusens.net/pictures/troll/Troll%20spray.jpg)

i posted in the thread because i had something to say on the subject

Welcome to my ignore list tuypo1.  Now can one of the admins shut this stupid thread down please?

theres not much more pathetic then a person who auctualy uses an ignore list

Quote from: CRKrueger;819029That's twice now you've said you were looking specifically for mechanics about rape...wtf?

He might be planning a Kult campaign.

Quote from: tuypo1;819094theres not much more pathetic then a person who auctualy uses an ignore list

And there's nothing more stupid than for someone to keep subjecting themselves to something they don't like when it's easily avoided.  I myself and questioning why I removed you from mine.  You were the only one on it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819099And there's nothing more stupid than for someone to keep subjecting themselves to something they don't like when it's easily avoided.  I myself and questioning why I removed you from mine.  You were the only one on it.

Agreed. I read forums for fun and amusement and if someone consistently irritates you more than they entertain or enlighten, why not try to ignore them instead of constantly butting heads? If the real world, you don't keep hanging out with someone that annoys the fuck out of you if you have any choice in the matter.

Seriously you do have the freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom to ignore you.  Especially when this type of shit is pulled.

This subject was old 5 years ago. I also suspect the motive for necroing it, so its getting closed.