Something else caught my attention, enough for a post anyway.

It's been a wonderful month. The Dancey conversion and the coming 4th edition are of course the big news and they left egg all over RPGPundit's face. That was cool by itself.

But there was something else that caused me some interest as well. I got pointed at a thread over on RPGNet about the game Poison'd by Forger favorite Vincent Baker.

The thread is http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=350453, although I don't think one actually needs to read it to understand my post as I'll give a quick summary here. It's a Pirate game that uses Forge style mechanics. Among these is the concept of Sin, the gaining thereof and the how it can be used to achieve at least some goals in the game.

One Actual play example concerned... well, let's quote:

Quote from: Hollian

QuoteOriginally Posted by Alvin Frewer  
Another character sodomized one of the prisoners in order to make himself a tougher pirate.

Don't sugar-coat! I think we sodomized a boy's esophagus (after decapitating him). Just to make sure we had a virgin orifice.

Due to a tragic misunderstanding about the "X"s, I snuck around the ship suck-punching fellow pirates and telling them to take it like a man. This then became my "thing," and when Ian was unable to lash me due to an excess of Soul, I sucker-punched him and told him to take it like a man.

I was, of course, playing a woman disguised as a man. This automatically gave me one level of blasphamy. The extra level came from fucking women as a "man."

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

A small firestorm started (I'm surprised the Mods didn't shut down everyone who objected) that went as one would imagine. All in all it reminded me of my own exchanges about Little Fears back in the day except that for some reason I tend to get people far madder at me than anyone else can manage.

Interestingly enough, this post isn't about the moral issues involved (surprise)- but about the logic offered by the pro-game side in the thread.

The talking points for the pro-game side were the same as always, I'm interested in two of them- "it's just a game" and "the players in the example took that action- not the game".

And I want to play with those two thoughts a bit here although not in the way one would necessary expect of me.

"It's the players, not the game"

At first glance, a reasonable statement. I've certainly seen in-game behavior like that in D&D which provides no mechanical support for evil actions... oh wait, D&D has a whole section on evil alignment and allows PCs to take it, ok- pretend I didn't bring that up. In any case it seems reasonable that people will take the type of actions in rpgs that they want to take independent of the game system.

But does that reasoning work for someone who follows Forge theory? Does it work for it's designer? This is a game from Vincent Baker, you almost can't get more Forge than that.

Didn't he read System Matters? Didn't the Forge Supporters defending the game read it?

That article is very specific, reward that which you want to appear in the game. Make it part of your mechanics. Don't reward that which you don't want to appear, don't make it part of your mechanics.

So Baker knowing this... puts in Sin and provides at least short term rewards for engaging in it. Baker's entire goal for his designs has been expressed as "how far will you go to get X", with the mechanics defining "far" to a greater degree than seen in perhaps any other design. Doesn't that mean that "far", since it appears in the game system- is therefore encouraged? They certainly say D&D XP system encourages a certain play style don't they?

I'm sorry, but according to System Does Matter- the above example of play is strongly encouraged by the game design. One can't agree with the Forge theory concepts and say otherwise.


"it's just a game"

Ron Edwards certainly wouldn't agree with this point. After all, this is the guy who pointed out how Story Teller resulted in brain damage to the point where it's players were unable to recognize Story if it bit them on the nose. If a game can do that, certainly a game that encourages Sin for gain will have a impact on the player's moral development.

If it doesn't, why then Edward's entire point about Story Teller disappears- and we know (from the original thread) that many at the Forge agreed with him on this point.


So from this one would expect Bake and his game to be denounced (edit: or rather these defenses of the game) by at Edwards on both points, and by Forge believers on at least the first and in many cases the second.

But that hasn't happened.

Two conclusions come to mind about this turn of events.

1. They do in fact think the game encourages such play, and they do in fact think such play has an effect on the players- but they like that outcome and lie about their belief on that one point.

2. They don't really believe their own theories, or rather apply them when it suits them and ignore them when they don't.

I can't decide which is more likely. I'm inclined to say both...

I was really hoping that this wouldn't make an appearance here. I got so fucked off with that thread and the views in it that i've logged off the site. The worse thing about threads of this type is any thread leads to more sales and the hotter the flames the better. That AP report was mana from heaven and i fell into the trap. Now you'll get a good proportion of the same people spouting the same shit here.

Looks like a vacation from the web is coming up.

I really, really enjoyed kill puppies for satan when Baker first released it, though in retrospect I guess it is to Vampire players what Elfs is to D&D people.  But Dogs in the Vineyards and this latest venture seem to indicate that he's working through this theme of people doing horrible things over the course of several games.  I don't think I can follow him down that path, and I'm not sure why anyone else would.

And the esophagus incident just about ruins the fun of pirates.  Sheesh.

Quote from: One Horse TownI was really hoping that this wouldn't make an appearance here. I got so fucked off with that thread and the views in it that i've logged off the site. The worse thing about threads of this type is any thread leads to more sales and the hotter the flames the better. That AP report was mana from heaven and i fell into the trap. Now you'll get a good proportion of the same people spouting the same shit here.

Looks like a vacation from the web is coming up.

Actually I agree to some degree, which is why I attempted to focus on the logic being used rather than the event itself. I'm more interested in the fact this is a Forge game, and the methods being used to defend it are Forge heresy.

On your wider point of complaints resulting in more sales... I suppose you'd rather have "good men do nothing". Sometimes you lose the battle, sometimes you win. But isn't there a spiritual victory in fighting no matter the outcome?

Quote from: gleichmanOn your wider point of complaints resulting in more sales... I suppose you'd rather have "good men do nothing".

If you read the thread, you'll know that wasn't what i did. Oh, i registered my problems with it in detail and in terms like 'reinforced behaviour' (after i flamed out that is). I just don't want it to spill over to this site that's all, 'cos quite frankly, i'm still fuming about it 3 days later.

Quote from: gleichmanI suppose you'd rather have "good men do nothing". Sometimes you lose the battle, sometimes you win. But isn't there a spiritual victory in fighting no matter the outcome?

Not when it comes to games.  To elevate a hobby to such importance that an Internet discussion is a "spiritual victory" seems silly to me.  Save your Last Stand for important things.  Real things.

I am inclined to agree with OHT.  This will likely end badly and the whole thing is best ignored.  The only winners will be the guerrilla marketers.

I'd advise walking away...


TGA

Quote from: One Horse TownIf you read the thread, you'll know that wasn't what i did. Oh, i registered my problems with it in detail and in terms like 'reinforced behaviour' (after i flamed out that is). I just don't want it to spill over to this site that's all, 'cos quite frankly, i'm still fuming about it 3 days later.

Well for my part, I have no real intention of engaging the question about morality of such play in this thread (I think everyone here already knows my opinion on the subject anyway)- I want it to be about those two specific defenses and how their relate to the theory background of Baker and the Forge in general.

So here's a time we get to see if thergpsite is different than RPGnet.

Can I just pop in for a second to say that, regardless of the mechanics or intent of the game designer, that the "actual play" except was one of the most disgusting things I've read. What kind of sick fucks even THINK about doing stuff like that?

This will do wonders to dispel the myth that gamers aren't strange social misfits.

I think the discussion is moot.
And I think Brian is either purposefully or unknowingly ignoring the sad truth:

Vincent and his Cult don´t neccesarily think of the portrayed bahaviour as bad.
Introducing Sex and Violence in disturbing / "sick" ways is the reason d´etre for them.
So, the discussion basically ends here. Vincent wants people to play like this. Some people actually do this.

We can draw our own conclusions on the motives, but the facts are pretty obvious. And I will abstain from adressing the issue of people deliberately and purposefully wallowing in theses "themes".

Brian, if you really want to investigate, look into Vincents forrum. It´ll show you your assertion 1) is basically true.

Guys, let's not take the bait here.  The next thing you know we'll have the Internet Warriors and guerrilla marketers chiming in and this whole thread will explode.  Only they will win that scenario.


TGA

Quote from: gleichmanWell for my part, I have no real intention of engaging the question about morality of such play in this thread (I think everyone here already knows my opinion on the subject anyway)- I want it to be about those two specific defenses and how their relate to the theory background of Baker and the Forge in general.

So here's a time we get to see if thergpsite is different than RPGnet.

Very well gleichman. I'll address this issue just the once and then leave this thread. Two quotes from that thread got lost in the flames about the AP, which is a shame considering all of the comments about the game "not being about that" which came afterwards.

Poison'd links the two -- it says system matters (did u expect otherwise from Vincent Baker) -- to terrific effect. Unlike Fatal, it aspires to artistic ambition.

You will play a pirate (of which there is a large variety) and you will do fucked up things -- or refuse and deal with the consequences.

So is Vincent's next project FATAL 2.0?

Quote from: SettembriniBrian, if you really want to investigate, look into Vincents forrum. It´ll show you your assertion 1) is basically true.

Good advice, Sett.


TGA

Quote from: gleichmanSo Baker knowing this... puts in Sin and provides at least short term rewards for engaging in it. Baker's entire goal for his designs has been expressed as "how far will you go to get X", with the mechanics defining "far" to a greater degree than seen in perhaps any other design. Doesn't that mean that "far", since it appears in the game system- is therefore encouraged? They certainly say D&D XP system encourages a certain play style don't they?

For me, this is the crux of the matter. I think a lot of the kick-ass gunplay and action in the Dogs In the Vineyards games I've played in comes from a shared attitude amongst me and my social group: when a game designer says in a game design "How far will you go to get X?" we don't treat that as an invitation to a moral exploration of how far is "too far": we treat it as a challenge. I suspect the players in the Poison'd Actual Play examples you gave had much the same response.

Which, you know, is a fun way to play the game, but it sure ain't Narrativist, it probably isn't quite what Baker envisaged, and in the case of the Poison'd system it degenerated into neck-fucking. And seriously, if I wanted to play a totally abhorrent monster I'd play FATAL or a Terry Goodkind RPG.