Quote from: StuartActually, I'm not RPG.net alumni... so I don't really know who's who.  These were admins posting that stuff?  Or just friends of admins?

I was speaking more in terms of people who can flaunt the rules, and people who can't. If you're one of the protected class, you get unlimited passes.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!The only GTA I've played is Vice City and part of its sequel, and those remind me of RoboCop.

To engage in a little thread drift, in GTA III I also find echoes of Taxi Driver (though satirical hommage, not serious) and the hilarious Miami Blues.

I would submit that if you filed off the serial numbers, folks would be hard-pressed to figure out AP example came from FATAL and which from Poison'd.

I honestly don't know about the game being "misrepresented" or anything like that.  I do know there were some sick fucks in that thread, though, whether or not it was in the spirit of the game.  Nice job of combining necrophilia and pedophilia.  I'll bow out now, my lowly Midwesterner intellect unable to fully appreciate how edgy, artistic, and fun boy-raping decapitation is.

We just have regular porn here, for the most part.  You know, blondes, fake boobies, lucky pizza delivery men, women jails for permissive uniform standards, etc.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI would submit that if you filed off the serial numbers, folks would be hard-pressed to figure out AP example came from FATAL and which from Poison'd.

Thanks to mythusmage, we know that FATAL actually plays like crap, while it sounds like Poison'd could be as much fun to play as DitV (naturally, if you dislike DitV, this is no recommendation). There's the only difference that counts to me.

FATAL is just another resolution system with some extra tables. I'm pretty sure VB's latest won't be that.

John Morrow had a good post there in that thread. They were saying, "oh but if you have an emotional reaction to this ART, then there's something wrong with YOU!" He responded that in fact, not having an emotional reaction to something so vile was... well, being a psychopath.

Quote from: John MorrowNormal people react strongly to even words that represent horrible things as well as artwork. That's the normal response. You seem to be suggesting that the psychopath's response, which is to view everything with neutrality, is the normal, correct, or superior way to look at art. Even though they make up 4% or more of the population by some counts (not all are serial killers or maniacs), I don't think the psychopathic reaction is the normal reaction, nor do I think we gain anything by encouraging it.

These guys remind me of old RemyDuron who posted there for some time - or maybe still does. Always trying hard to be Mr Super Shock Edgy Cool! Maybe that's why walkerp responded that if you didn't like to roleplay child murdering and necrophilia, it was just because you were part of the petit-bourgeoisie.

I thought it was also well said in that thread that sure, everyone has sick ideas from time to time, but most people don't actually act them out in the game session, and if they do, they've the sense not to boast about it on forums.

Forger scum.

Awww--thanks for the love, Kyle.

Honestly, Sett and Pierce and others like to throw around  'adolescent', but this stuff is infantile.

Quote from: droogAwww--thanks for the love, Kyle.

Honestly, Sett and Pierce and others like to throw around  'adolescent', but this stuff is infantile.

I just quoted this so you know I'm talking at you, droog.  What is it about this game that sells you on it?

Quote from: joewolzI just quoted this so you know I'm talking at you, droog.  What is it about this game that sells you on it?

Oh, well--I'm yanking chains to a certain extent, but for sure the idea of a roistering, cruel and bloodthirsty pirate game by Vincent Baker sounds like a hoot. It's timely, too, what with Johnny Depp and all.

I'm pretty confident that it will have interesting mechanical ideas and push fun play. I've had great fun with DitV.

I like the way Vincent takes on these stereotypical genres and twists them to his own ends. (See, Pierce--it's a genuine artistic response, even if you don't like the world-view that produces it. Fuckload of people living in the 'burbs these days.)

That said, I'll probably lurk around and read more reports before I put down the money. Christ, I only just bought my own copy of DitV!

Quote from: VBWyrdeTo me the game in question appears to be just another example of Nihilism in 21st Century Story Telling.

Another article you might be interested in on this topic, and relevant RPGs, too:

http://hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/suckitudinous.html

Quote from: Kyle AaronI thought it was also well said in that thread that sure, everyone has sick ideas from time to time, but most people don't actually act them out in the game session, and if they do, they've the sense not to boast about it on forums.

What I've said is that almost every group seems to go through a phase where they try to play evil characters to see what it's like.  In my experience, one or both of two things happen.  The first is that the players have trouble really being evil and you either wind up with a fake "evil light" where they act like a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain or they change their characters and decide to be good.  The second is that they force themselves to be as evil as possible and, then, upon reaching a truly vile level of twisted evil, decide that it leaves a bad taste and decide not to do it again.  

Once is an experiment but I'm curious about is why some people want to go back to that place again and again.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIs that Call of Duty 2?

I have to say I'm such a CoD nut that I reinstalled CoD 1 for the third time last month. CoD2 didn't repel me, it was just more of the same to me, and wallowing too much in its own cinematesque railroadicity.

GTA was fun as long as it lasted, i.e. not very, because I had a way of getting the streets seriously crowded with tanks after about 5 mins. of gameplay. Also, I sucked at the stunts. The one where you jump off the ramp and hopefully across the canal? Well, I only ever figured out part 1 of that.

Yup, Call of Duty 2, on the PC if that matters (I don't know if it got changed).

It's just something that hits me sometimes nowadays, I occasionally struggle with ultraviolence, it's a brilliant game though.  Not sure it's quite as good as 1 and the ending was way anti-climactic, I actually went online to look at a walkthrough to see if I'd missed something, but it still had great moments and it's average scene is the end of game climax for most FPS.

That scene near the end where the lieutenant is dithering and some guy shouts "let's go" and you're all charging up the hill, powerful stuff.

But it's hard to top storming the Reichstag, fighting through every floor and then suddenly realising that you've won and it's all over.

I'm looking hugely forward to 4 which will be modern day.

Incidentally, I thought Ian actually said somewhere he was trying to sell the game?  He's not a shill because he does enjoy it, but I think he is trying to market it, in part because he said so.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat I've said is that almost every group seems to go through a phase where they try to play evil characters to see what it's like.  In my experience, one or both of two things happen.  The first is that the players have trouble really being evil and you either wind up with a fake "evil light" where they act like a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain or they change their characters and decide to be good.  The second is that they force themselves to be as evil as possible and, then, upon reaching a truly vile level of twisted evil, decide that it leaves a bad taste and decide not to do it again.  

Once is an experiment but I'm curious about is why some people want to go back to that place again and again.

We went down route B when I was a kid, I'm not ashamed of it but nor do I have the slightest wish ever to return to it.  I see it as part of growing up and establishing boundaries if that makes sense.  

That said, I think many groups do end up with amoral or basically neutral PCs, good and evil don't fit a lot of genres.  My group nowadays tends to have self-interested characters, neutrals in DnD parlance, but evil I think would get dull very quickly and possibly quite unpleasant depending on the depiction.

Quote from: John MorrowOnce is an experiment but I'm curious about is why some people want to go back to that place again and again.

Now that's a good question for discussion.

There's a lot to be said for vicarious lawbreaking, I play Traveller and that game's first adventures were based around that theme more often than not. Yet the players weren't trying to deliberately screw each other over during the game, they were working together as a team to commit the crime and get away with it. This was cooperative vicarious criminal behavior, not individual vicarious sociopathic behavior.

That's what I find disturbing here, the game mechanic we're discussing is apparently designed to thwart teamwork and reward individual cutthroat behavior, the more vile the better by the AP example. Now doing this will encourage the players to be shitty to each other in game play, which will result in some of the players really hating the experiance - because being shit on is not fun, in game or out of game.

There's nothing bourgeoiese about not enjoying your character ass-raping and skull-fucking your fellow player's characters. Its like Koltar said, not wrong to not enjoy vicarious sick behavior. To enjoy your character engaging in this kind of play is sociopathic, because it rewards alienating your character from the group.

Personally, I don't want people at my game table whose idea of fun is pissing off everyone else there, allowed by the rules or not.

Is it actually any more accurate than Hollywood?  Sure, the Hollywood version of pirates is nonsense, but I'm not sure this is any better.

Pirates were surprisingly democratic in many of their customs, the Buccaneers could be argued to be one of history's many attempts to produce a type of socialist state (and I do mean many, a lot of the medieval heresies were also essentially socialist or communist in nature), pirates frequently had formal charters within ships with clear shares of booty and a concept of rights and (admittely rather brutal) appropriate punishments.

I'm not saying they were enlightened democrats in some kind of founding fathers of the sea way, but they were not simply bloodthirsty psychopaths each trying to outdo the other.  If nothing else, the technology of the age of sail would make that incompatible with actually running a ship.

Fear was a weapon, you created fear because it made people more likely to surrender, and cruelty was a way of life, but I suspect the stuff in that thread would have got you taken out by your own guys as a liability.

People are rarely saints, rarely damned, most are somewhere in between and the games described (as opposed to the system which I can't speak to) sound as caricatured as Johnny Depp's portrayal but at the other extreme.

This game actually is ART. And the people playing it are the main exhibits.