Quote from: Serious Paul;257262How could an author enforce their intent?

I mean if I buy a copy of FTA, and use it run a SciFi game in which the players are all Serial Killers what exactly is Pundit going to do? Come to my house and try to kick my ass? Send me an angrily worded email? Call me names?

As long as I'm having fun what would I care?

You could easily do just that with FtA! because there is no attempt to get in your way. I'm talking about mechanical enforcement, which of course only works if you play with the rules as written. If I wanted to - say - run DitV as something other than "Enforcers for the (self-designated) Right Way" in whatever setting, I would have to change the rules so much that it would be a homebrew, not DitV.

And as long as you are having fun, there is obviously no conflict, and thus obviously no problem.

-clash

Sure, but even a mechanical obstacle isn't that big of a deal. I toss rules, or add them all the time. That's certainly not your fault as the Author. Like someone said earlier, just because you make knives doesn't make you responsible for everyone who gets stabbed out there.

I think people tend to forget that fucked up people are fucked up long before they get to the game, or knife, or car, or bar, or whatever it is. A guy who beats his wife was messed up long before he got married. A junkie who robs people and happens to play [Insert Game here] didn't just open the book and lose it.

Exposure does not necessarily equate to absorption, as it were. Lack of exposure does not confer immunity. I think this is worrying about something that is out of your control. In my job we learn that you can successfully manage exactly one person at a time. Your job is no different as an Author. You can't be everywhere, for everyone.

Quote from: Serious Paul;257280Sure, but even a mechanical obstacle isn't that big of a deal. I toss rules, or add them all the time. That's certainly not your fault as the Author. Like someone said earlier, just because you make knives doesn't make you responsible for everyone who gets stabbed out there.

I think people tend to forget that fucked up people are fucked up long before they get to the game, or knife, or car, or bar, or whatever it is. A guy who beats his wife was messed up long before he got married. A junkie who robs people and happens to play [Insert Game here] didn't just open the book and lose it.

Exposure does not necessarily equate to absorption, as it were. Lack of exposure does not confer immunity. I think this is worrying about something that is out of your control. In my job we learn that you can successfully manage exactly one person at a time. Your job is no different as an Author. You can't be everywhere, for everyone.

Paul - that wasn't really the question, or at least the question most of us have been addressing. That's carrying stuff over from another thread. Like I said, if you're willing to houserule like crazy, mechanical enforcement doesn't work. The question remains are you playing Game X or are you playing a homebrew. Neither one is a bad thing, but they are different things.

Example - I house ruled the hell out of AD&D back when - actually starting with pre-AD&D -  so that it would do what I wanted. Was I playing AD&D? I don't think so anymore. Eventually, there were so many vital house rules that what it really was was a homebrew based on AD&D. No one could just pick up a PHB and join that game cold. They had to learn the house rules as well. Was that a problem? Not for me. I'm a systems guy and love this stuff, and I'm also pretty good at it, so the rules worked. Other people might answer differently. I'm not the center of the universe.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997Do you believe that authors of games have an intended type or style of play assigned to their work?

I'm sure many do have a focus for or an idea of how their game should be played.

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997Do you think this is the norm?

Given the number of indie or Forge games, yeah. I think this is less common in mainstream games, particularly in the cases where said games are group efforts.

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997If so, do you care, as in would you aspire to play as intended or just junk it (assuming you found it)?

I could care less what the author wants, unless he or she is playing at our table.

Seanchai

Quote from: flyingmice;257291The question remains are you playing Game X or are you playing a homebrew.

Okay, I think I see what you're driving at now. I'm not sure this is significant question to me. (Obviously it is to you.) I guess if you and I were sitting at a bar drowning our sorrows, I'd say "Don't sweat the small shit."

I've yet to read a game that was intended to be "evil." (I don't claim to have read them all.)

QuoteNeither one is a bad thing, but they are different things.

Agreed.

Quote from: Serious Paul;257306Okay, I think I see what you're driving at now. I'm not sure this is significant question to me. (Obviously it is to you.) I guess if you and I were sitting at a bar drowning our sorrows, I'd say "Don't sweat the small shit."

It's only significant to me as a designer, not as a GM. I wouldn't expect it to matter to you. You're as comfortable with house ruling as I am. As a designer, I'd prefer the group not be forced to choose between house ruling, playing in an undesired style, or tossing the game. Unhappy gamers seldom come back for more. It's literally my business to sweat the small stuff.

QuoteI've yet to read a game that was intended to be "evil." (I don't claim to have read them all.)

This is none of my business. I really couldn't care less. If there's a game I know I wouldn't like, for whatever reason, I can just not buy it. I exercise that option frequently. The reason doesn't really matter because the same option applies.

-clash

Agreed! And well said.

Quote from: flyingmice;257317It's only significant to me as a designer, not as a GM. I wouldn't expect it to matter to you. You're as comfortable with house ruling as I am. As a designer, I'd prefer the group not be forced to choose between house ruling, playing in an undesired style, or tossing the game. Unhappy gamers seldom come back for more. It's literally my business to sweat the small stuff.



This is none of my business. I really couldn't care less. If there's a game I know I wouldn't like, for whatever reason, I can just not buy it. I exercise that option frequently. The reason doesn't really matter because the same option applies.

-clash

A difference, put to game terms, seems to be developing in the Maid and Carcossa threads. In maid, underage sex seems more implied if you will, or possibly talked about but you could play the entire game light hearted and with nothing to do with sex. The group determines their comfort level.

With Carcossa, or so it seems, it has sacrificing of children built into the fundament of the game. Your group might not play sorcerers and thus avoid it themselves, but certainly sorcery will be an element in a "sword & sorcery" game and thus they will encounter it. The way magic works requires it.

Now, don't get hung up on the specifics. The above are illustration of...hmm, let's try Theme and Intent. Theme is a softer play at what a designer is going for. "Yeah, hentai is cool! So is Sailor Moon! Let's keep it open." vs Intent which would be "I think dark sorcery is cool! I am going to make it a basis of the magic system."

Now, I forgot who said it but an intriguing idea, to me, is if we, as game designers, have a responsibility to our content?

More refined, do we have an obligation to keep the ick out of our games or to put it in or to just be true to the genre?

Dark sorcery could be argued to be part and parcel for Conan and the genre. My personal opinion (and I truly am open to being convinced another way) would be to be true tot eh genre but remember that it is a game and should be fun. I have heard the argument that "But it is not realistic!!!". I find this weak sauce. It is a game not a recreation. At least it is for me. Shades of Earth is probably the closest I come to elements of this. I deal with the Holocaust, discrimination (olde tyme discrimination) and Fascism. However, I tend not to design the system into it.

New Idea (for me at least): System Neutrality: This is where I have been for a long time I think just that I have not expressed it before. One of the reasons I like using the same system for all my games is you can avoid the "Rape Child" skill or the "Seduce Fido" skill. Sure, a group could make it but I do not need to write it. I believe this is due to System Neutral approach. Using a universal system means a system that can fit just about any setting. Personally, I think any system can do this but maintaining a System Neutral approach means you do not get "Blood magic dependent sacrificing the innocent" as a corner stone of your magic system.

Sorry, rambling there. Like Paul says, probably only interesting to me and Clash at this point.

So, Clash, am I caffeine deficient and off base here?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;257609Now, I forgot who said it but an intriguing idea, to me, is if we, as game designers, have a responsibility to our content?

Bill

That was me mate, and i basically agree with what you've been saying in this thread - which was why i was so surprised on the other one.

Quote from: One Horse Town;257616That was me mate, and i basically agree with what you've been saying in this thread - which was why i was so surprised on the other one.

Well, I will fully admit I may have misunderstood you on a basic level. I apologized there and will do so again here. I am sorry if you felt I was harassing or mischaracterizing your point. The counter-point I was making there was a lot of the language used there was wide enough to apply to a game as innocent as SA! Really, the dirtiest things in the game are th nut jokes but is you define objectionable material as "fringe" or "Indie" or "different" instead of morally questionable or offensive (and that is subjective as well) you run the risk of lumping tons of stuff into a group of unacceptable material. I was hoping to show how SA! and its supplements could fit your point and perhaps I failed.

Note: Also, the response in that thread was not only to you but it caught my attention as I was scanning through the thread.

Bill

ETA: I should add, one of the reasons to have this thread separate is to avoid having point misinterpreted in the midst of all the stuff going on in the other thread. I think it is working.

Quote from: HinterWelt;257609Now, I forgot who said it but an intriguing idea, to me, is if we, as game designers, have a responsibility to our content?

Allen Varney wrote an interesting article about this very subject some time ago.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;257652Allen Varney wrote an interesting article about this very subject some time ago.

Regards,
David R

Anyone got a link? I, for one, would be interested in reading it.

Quote from: HinterWelt;257629The counter-point I was making there was a lot of the language used there was wide enough to apply to a game as innocent as SA! Really, the dirtiest things in the game are th nut jokes but is you define objectionable material as "fringe" or "Indie" or "different" instead of morally questionable or offensive (and that is subjective as well) you run the risk of lumping tons of stuff into a group of unacceptable material. I was hoping to show how SA! and its supplements could fit your point and perhaps I failed.

Fair enough. After the sentence where i talked about 'fringe' stuff, i said i was using mild language. I should have said what i meant clearly and just shot from the hip. Might have headed off later confusion.

This is an interesting one OHT, he's written a few.

http://www.allenvarney.com/av_morality.html

Regards,
David R

My favorite quote: "Adventures in the field have come a long way from plotless numbered-room dungeon crawls." Not for everyone, Allen!