Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's simple.

• System Matters.
• So if your game is fucked-up and sucks, it's the system's fault, not the players.
• Unless that game is a Forge game, in which case everything good that happens is because of the system, and everything bad that happens is because of the players.

I don't see why this is a mystery to you. It's been their thing for a long time.

It's not a mystery to me, but I rarely see anyone call them on System Matters with respect to their own games. Follow their own theories, and they are pushing actual play on par with or even exceeding the AP example- they can't be doing anything else.

So either they are doing this on purpose, or they don't understarnd or believe their own theories.

Now I happen to like to take people at their word, if they say they believe something I assume they do. Thus I must reason that the AP is at least on the path to their end goal.


Note: As Set points out, one can know as well by reading Baker's blog and Edwards posts (and doing a lot of digging)- but I find it more fun when they admit it themselves with their own game design.

Quote from: Kyle AaronJohn 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.

"if you have an emotional reaction to this ART"?

Something new in Forge land here or has the world of Art itself imploded. The last time I did any study of the subject the whole idea of Art was to impell an emotion reaction.

If anything the fact it disgusted people should be held up as proof of it as Art (bad stupid proof, but we've seen the goverment fund things on that basis).

Quote from: droogwhile it sounds like Poison'd could be as much fun to play as DitV (naturally, if you dislike DitV, this is no recommendation).

Naturally. It wouldn't be a reommendation at all.

Interesting however that people rush to DitV to justify this game isn't it?

Quote from: John MorrowAnother article you might be interested in on this topic, and relevant RPGs, too:

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

Cool link. I must save that.

Had a hard time not thinking GNS on every appearance of GLS.

Well now that I've put my moral opinion out, I do have another point to make. A big part of Forge games has always been marketing. I'm even think that the marketing of the game supercedes the theories behind its creation. As a genre of game, I think that it's pretty well settled regardless of theory (narrow setting, rules based around making serious moral decisions). What matters now is getting that game out to folks to buy. Whether it's demoing or internet posts that create 200 post flame wars, people gotta find out about it.

Quote from: gleichmanThus I must reason that the AP is at least on the path to their end goal.

Considering that the AP was not just a random 'at home game' and was a demo at Gencon, the biggest RPG con, then i'd assume the same.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, there's a bit of a problem with how some people (e.g., KenHR here) are identifying literary story as the goal of the "thematic play" of "narrativist games". Certainly in Forgist terms, that's wrong: it's not the story, but the moment-to-moment opportunity to make "moral statements" that they're after. On the other hand, I think one could make the case that "moral statements" really don't carry any weight outside of a narrative--that is, without the nonmechanical framework & constraints of plot, continuity, and suspension of disbelief (including coherent characterization), the "moral statement" of decapitating a cabin boy is no more than gratuitous vulgarity. This doesn't mean that Poison'd can't produce meaningful experiences which justify the horrific content: merely that it will depend on the sensibilities and social skills of the players to achieve that. Same as D&D.

I know I'm coming back late to this and the conversation has moved on, but I had to elaborate on this.  What you've said summarizes the major problem I have with Forgey games and the mindset of those who write and play them.  As I said in another post on this thread "meaning" (in this case the term refers to the just as ambiguous "moral statements"...and whose "morality" are they trying to speak?) does not inhere in anything; it arises from the significance given by people to elements of experience as a result of their interaction with those elements.  "Meaning" can be naturalized by way of association, but this is highly contextual and varies from person to person.

"Meaning" or "morality" thus does not exist in a vacuum.  It is informed by the situation (the play session, in the case of RPGs), and the interpretation of the situation and its resolution by a reader (a player, GM or observer).  To imagine that this can be legislated from the outset by a set of rules is dubious at best, dishonest at worst.  It ignores a long critical and sociological strand of study and understanding of the events that give rise to "meaning."  And here I thought Ron taught this stuff at a college.  From the way his "theories" are explained, he has no more place teaching people about narrative or narrative meaning as I do teaching people about bat penises.

The best a game like this could do to communicate "meaning" would be on par with an after-school special.  And that ain't Art-with-a-capital-A no matter how many ways you slice it.

Quote from: KenHRThe best a game like this could do to communicate "meaning" would be on par with an after-school special.  And that ain't Art-with-a-capital-A no matter how many ways you slice it.

Agreed. I expressed my own ideas on this subject in this old thread, where I compare Narrativist RPGs to a Balloon Debate.

Quote from: gleichmanInteresting however that people rush to DitV to justify this game isn't it?

I dunno. I guess I don't think it needs 'justification'. But if you've sufficiently enjoyed one game by somebody, you've got a good chance of enjoying another.

Quote from: droogOh, 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 make no comments about the game rules themselves, of which I know nothing significant. I'm commenting about the actual play report, and people trying hard to be Mr Super Shock Edgy Cool. Which is puerile shit.

Because I say fuck system, people matter, the vileness of the actual play may or may not have anything to do with the game itself, but is certain to have almost everything to do with the people. The "Forger scum" part refers to the desperate attempt to be edgy.

If roleplaying is an art form, then it's an expression of the artists involved. Leonardo is Leonardo whether he uses charcoal or oils or sculpts, his style is distinctly his. Churchill has a distinctive and recognisable voice both in speech and in writing. Shakespeare's poetry and his plays have common threads and are recognisably his. This is because their art is an expression of themselves.

So if your rpg characters are vile, well...

Quote from: KenHRAs I said in another post on this thread "meaning" [...] does not inhere in anything; it arises from the significance given by people to elements of experience as a result of their interaction with those elements. "Meaning" can be naturalized by way of association, but this is highly contextual and varies from person to person.

"Meaning" or "morality" thus does not exist in a vacuum. It is informed by the situation (the play session, in the case of RPGs), and the interpretation of the situation and its resolution by a reader (a player, GM or observer).

Mate, that's way too sophisticated for Forgers. That's Philosophy or Anthropology 101 at least! I mean, they could pick that up by a couple afternoons' reading at their local library. You're asking a bit much.

Or we could just say, "well, whatever. I won't play with fuckin' freaks."

Quote from: droogI dunno. I guess I don't think it needs 'justification'. But if you've sufficiently enjoyed one game by somebody, you've got a good chance of enjoying another.

The problem I have with some of these forge games, other than way simplistic rules, is that they take an idea but put it in such a restricted context they might as well be writing an adventure for another system.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBecause I say fuck system, people matter, the vileness of the actual play may or may not have anything to do with the game itself, but is certain to have almost everything to do with the people. The "Forger scum" part refers to the desperate attempt to be edgy.

You are so weird.

Maybe, yes. But I also have a regular game group. I have a strong suspicion that the lads who have their characters rape dead kids do not have a regular game group. Or they do at least have the choice of a narrower range of gamers to play with.

Quote from: droogYou are so weird.

Actually he isn't.

 Kyle Aaron is making quite a bit of sense about this.

I would like to thank everyone for continuing to post to this fucking thread.  Thanks to your efforts, I'm sure that one or two people saw this and thought, "Esophagus-rape in an RPG?  Count me in!"

Quote from: droogYou are so weird.

*shrug*  Everyone's entitled to his opinion.  For example, I myself think that you and walkerp are pretty fucked up.  It seems that you're either trolling or, like the archetypical cat-piss man, completely oblivious to modern social norms.

Quote from: HaffrungI got over my 'upping the ante talking about sick shit until we can't stand it' phase when I was about 14. It's really funny seeing grown adults trying to pass off juvenile exhibitionism and rebellion as meaningful drama.

Spot on.  Bear in mind that we're not talking about a particularly intelligent or cultured group of guys.