Quote from: Ladybird;751224It's not that the jokes are going over our heads. It's that they are bad jokes. They don't work.

Subjective.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;751238I admit, I had to look this up


Can anyone please explain to my simple mind how Holdren can describe a game where it's awesome to be a lawyer defending a rapist and that's all cool, but if someone says rape can be a powerful plot point in fiction then they are advocating rape themselves?

Anyone?  Maybe if I rub two sticks together one of the mods over there can answer this, because it makes no sense to me.

Cognitive dissonance.

Quote from: Dodger;750995Oh, I don't know... Four Lions did a pretty good job...

I watched Four Lions with my American mother in law. She was slightly aghast: "That's racist!" :rolleyes:
I guess yeah it did a pretty good job satirising them, while being rather sympathetic to the lead suicide bomber.

OK, yeah, even evil people can be satirised. I was wrong, I withdraw my prior post m'lud.

Quote from: Dodger;751252In other news, George RR Martin responds to criticism of his depiction of rape and sexual violence in A Song of Ice and Fire.

That's so damn good, going to post it here.

Quote from: NYTWhy have you included incidents of rape or sexual violence in your "Song of Ice and Fire" novels? What larger themes are you trying to bring out with these scenes?

Quote from: JRRMAn artist has an obligation to tell the truth. My novels are epic fantasy, but they are inspired by and grounded in history. Rape and sexual violence have been a part of every war ever fought, from the ancient Sumerians to our present day. To omit them from a narrative centered on war and power would have been fundamentally false and dishonest, and would have undermined one of the themes of the books: that the true horrors of human history derive not from orcs and Dark Lords, but from ourselves. We are the monsters. (And the heroes too). Each of us has within himself the capacity for great good, and great evil.

Quote from: NYTSome critics of the books have said that even if such scenes are meant to illustrate that the world of Westeros is often a dark and depraved place, there is an overreliance on these moments over the course of the novels, and at a certain point they are no longer shocking and become titillating. How do you respond to this criticism?

Quote from: JRRMI have to take issue with the notion that Westeros is a "dark and depraved place." It's not the Disneyland Middle Ages, no, and that was quite deliberate ... but it is no darker nor more depraved than our own world. History is written in blood. The atrocities in "A Song of Ice and Fire," sexual and otherwise, pale in comparison to what can be found in any good history book.

As for the criticism that some of the scenes of sexual violence are titillating, to me that says more about these critics than about my books. Maybe they found certain scenes titillating. Most of my readers, I suspect, read them as intended.

I will say that my philosophy as a writer, since the very start of my career, has been one of "show, don't tell." Whatever might be happening in my books, I try to put the reader into the middle of it, rather than summarizing the action. That requires vivid sensory detail. I don't want distance, I want to put you there. When the scene in question is a sex scene, some readers find that intensely uncomfortable... and that's ten times as true for scenes of sexual violence.

But that is as it should be. Certain scenes are meant to be uncomfortable, disturbing, hard to read.

Quote from: NYTAs your novels have been adapted for TV, comic books and other visual media, do you think these scenes of sexual violence that you described in oblique and indirect ways are becoming more explicit and more shocking? Is that a potential problem?

Quote from: JRRMThe graphic novels and television programs are in the hands of others, who make their own artistic choices as to what sort of approach will work best in their respective mediums.

Quote from: GRIM;751257Cognitive dissonance.

I know the answer you'd give.  I'd like to hear their explanation.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Quote from: GRIM;751256Subjective.

Of the people who don't like your work, there aren't many people willing to actually engage you in discussion, rather than fly into a rage. You've got a few here; how many of us need to tell you this, before you pay attention? Or are you even interested, are you quite happy with your audience as it is?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;751283I know the answer you'd give.  I'd like to hear their explanation.

Wishful thinking, I know.

I can see how such an RPG would be entertaining; it's essentially a grimmer version of a debating club. The game, of course, would be winning the case despite hating your client (As I'm sure happens to real lawyers daily).

Not a game I'd want to play, though.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;751238I admit, I had to look this up

Just my sick sense of humor.

QuoteCan anyone please explain to my simple mind how Holdren can describe a game where it's awesome to be a lawyer defending a rapist and that's all cool, but if someone says rape can be a powerful plot point in fiction then they are advocating rape themselves?

Anyone?  Maybe if I rub two sticks together one of the mods over there can answer this, because it makes no sense to me.

No, it isn't awesome to be a lawyer defending a rapist; the mods over there are assholes.

Quote from: Ladybird;751298I can see how such an RPG would be entertaining; it's essentially a grimmer version of a debating club. The game, of course, would be winning the case despite hating your client (As I'm sure happens to real lawyers daily).

Not a game I'd want to play, though.

The point is, and what I'm not getting apparently is:

"rape is a powerful plot device in fiction."

is literally the exact same thing Holdren is doing.  I.e., using rape (the defendent) as a core driving part of the plot/game.

I'm not understanding how you can call one person a rapist and/or rape advocate while saying another is "awsome!" for doing the exact same thing; they're both using rape as a key part of a plot.  I'd love to hear their explanation for the difference, becasue as far as I can tell, there isn't any meaningful one.  If anything, what Holdren doing is worse because he's defending the rapist.  Raggi is just saying it exists as part of the plot, and isn't defending the act or the perpetrator at all.

Quote from: Ladybird;751296Of the people who don't like your work, there aren't many people willing to actually engage you in discussion, rather than fly into a rage. You've got a few here; how many of us need to tell you this, before you pay attention? Or are you even interested, are you quite happy with your audience as it is?

There's lots of people that don't like lots of things. That doesn't mean that they're objectively bad. EG: South Park, Family Guy, personally I could never stand Mrs Brown's Boys - for example. Of course, I don't feel the need to inflate my dislike into a cause.

I'm a fiction writer. There are a few incidents of rape in my books. It's not done for exploitation or titillation, and I've written it in such a way that even a person who might under some circumstances find rape ohhh so sexxay is unlikely to have that reaction.

I *loathe* it as a plot element in old-style romance novels, where the hero starts out as a rapist and gets reformed by the end of the story, so I deliberately set out to fuck up any attempts to romanticize it or make it cool. I spent a long time trying to understand what about it people might think was titillating and then systematically screwed things up for them.

Quote from: GRIM;751256Subjective.

Dude.

Dude, dude, dude.

When you are One Man Standing Alone (tm), you might be Galileo.

On the other hand, odds indicate you're more likely Harold Camping.

Quote from: GRIM;751169Sure!

So, each player gets doled out a hand of cards and gets to examine them in secret first. They pick one of these as a trump card. This trump card comes into play at the end of the game and any card that contradicts it has to be discarded from in front of you.

You then take turns to play cards on each other. Obviously you're mostly trying to give yourself less privilege and others more, but you can get away with playing cards on yourself that seem to disadvantage you as a feint, knowing that your trump will get rid of them.

Since each card played has to be compatible with the cards already in front of a player it can be worthwhile taking a hit from a card that gives you privilege, if only to prevent something worse being played on you. If you can guess someone's trump that will also put you at an advantage.

You'll also come to learn which kinds of cards tend to 'win on ties' with your group when it comes to arguments. So there's a learning curve with each new playing group.

Wow, you actually inverted Contract Bridge into a parody! It's like Castigation Bridge, instead.

First there is no mutual table agreement on the Trump, as it is decided individually for your own hand, and thus tautalogical.

Second, instead of playing cards with a partner to manage the flow of tricks to upgrade your position to reach your contract, you play cards UPON OTHERS accusing them in order downgrade their position.

And all for your self-defined final trump at the end; to degrade table position elsewhere that you are the highest by default.

That's... actually brilliant satire mechanically. Though it would require knowing the game's mechanics, being knowledgeable about other games out there and their paradigms, and being up to date on cultural-studies-as-political-tool for deconstructive arguments. Being crass upon the cards is almost hand-waveable as that's too good of a mechanical joke to wait for someone else to snatch up.

That said, a bit more polish would have made the riposte absolutely killer. How about a version 2.0, or at least a Beta or Unlimited release?

Quote from: Opaopajr;751409Wow, you actually inverted Contract Bridge into a parody! It's like Castigation Bridge, instead.

First there is no mutual table agreement on the Trump, as it is decided individually for your own hand, and thus tautalogical.

Second, instead of playing cards with a partner to manage the flow of tricks to upgrade your position to reach your contract, you play cards UPON OTHERS accusing them in order downgrade their position.

And all for your self-defined final trump at the end; to degrade table position elsewhere that you are the highest by default.

That's... actually brilliant satire mechanically. Though it would require knowing the game's mechanics, being knowledgeable about other games out there and their paradigms, and being up to date on cultural-studies-as-political-tool for deconstructive arguments. Being crass upon the cards is almost hand-waveable as that's too good of a mechanical joke to wait for someone else to snatch up.

That said, a bit more polish would have made the riposte absolutely killer. How about a version 2.0, or at least a Beta or Unlimited release?

Told you! There's a wickedly solid game in there once you look past all the faux furor being whipped up over at TBP.

Hmm. I'll comment on this, GRIM.

1) I actually found that mechanic to be pretty funny and clever satire. A lot more clever than the impression from the card pictures gave me. From a marketing perspective, I think you're showing the worst part of the game rather than the best. The mechanic comes across as creative and funny, but the cards come across as lazy and bitter.

Also, if you're going with subtle self-deprecation and self-parody while attacking something you don't like? I'd recommend not doing it. I tried it for years and it never worked. Text is a poor medium for conveying irony while simultaneously being genuinely angry. And whether you are or not, you certainly come across as being angry at feminists and others, and the feeling is usually mutual.

2) Reading things as charitably as possible, as someone who has a few of your products, it seems like you're going for a Team America: World Police sort of double-edged parody. Parody one group by presenting them as offensive stereotypes, but parody the viewer group by implying that this is how they see the world. It can be really effective if done right, but it's extremely hard to pull off and even the best humorists are pretty hit or miss with it. In anything of yours I've read, it seems like it's always the weakest part.

3) Humor in general is really hard to pull off. It's a bit like drawing or writing. Just about anyone can sit down and try it, but very few people can make it something worth paying for. And when humor fails, it fails _hard_ and makes the writer look amateurish. So right there, with 1 and 2, you're setting yourself up with a difficult goal.

4) Parody is usually the most effective when the writer either doesn't have strong views on a subject or likes what they're parodying. When the writer clearly dislikes the subject of the parody, the humor is often lost and it comes across as an angry rant. And even if you don't have strong feelings, it can look like sour grapes if it looks like you do. In your case, it certainly looks like you're parodying someone you dislike and some of the cards come across as, "You hurt me online. I'll show you!"

5) Finding a niche can be good for a career unless the niche becomes a rut. Right now, you've kinda typecast yourself as a one-trick pony, and this is just reinforcing it. It looks like you've given up on being anything but the "tries to offend feminists and SJWs" guy, even if you haven't. You _have_ written on other subjects and that stuff usually comes out better from a quality perspective.

6) You're right on one thing. Social justice advocates aren't totally powerless anymore, particularly in the tiny niche of RPGs and related hobbies, where we've made rapid gains over the last few years. For the first time ever, we actually have real influence within this admittedly tiny and nearly irrelevant hobby. For the first time, in fact, it's possible for game designers on our "side" to cynically exploit that to get pats on the back and funding. It's also possible for our allies to dogpile someone who didn't really do anything all that bad, or to exagerrate a problem. (Numenara and Pathfinder Bestiary IV both had that happen to some extent. Monte Cook may have an imperfect record, but Paizo really deserves more good will.) So now it's time to reign it in and start braking a bit.

You're not one of those people unfairly dogpiled, though. You've picked this fight over and over and over again, and it looks like you're cynically using it to sell games. It's not cool when my "side" does it (and I caught my first ban on another forum for calling out a fellow trans lesbian game designer over it, even though her game probably has a lot more going for it than this one looks like it does), and it's sure as hell not cool when you do it. And regardless of any cleverness in the actual rules, those cards look like you're desperate and trying to get attention. Like you didn't really understand humor, but thought you'd get some money if you just said, "hehe, how about those SJWs, eh? They sure do suck, amiright?" over and over in different ways. Maybe you're not, but that's what it _looks_ like.

If you could come up with that mechanic, then you could come up with something funnier than these cards. Heck, you could pull yourself out of the rut and change the reputation you've picked up, if you really tried. Or you could just keep doing this stuff and get written off as a one-trick pony whose time has come and gone.