Several people have mentioned American Psycho in this thread, and I can't help thinking that Poison'd would have been a much more interesting game had it taken some inspiration from that book.

Envy mechanics, extremely crunchy rules for exchanging pirate business cards and random (and secret) character sheet rotation to make sure the players never get character names right...
The best part is that there would be no reason to keep all the cruelty and barbarism "on-screen". It would all be happening in the characters heads between sessions and never have any effect on the game world.

Quote from: SettembriniNobody should reply to droog. It´s pointless.
He has a shoddy education and a total lack of dignity. EDIT: Better say: he doesn´t display neither dignity nor a rigorous education online.
He is not even funny.
He just enjoys being contrary, feeling smart while doing it.

But he´s not.

Yeah, I've reached that conculsion as well. Hence my last response to him.

Rather impressed with therpgsite so far by the way, much lower % of people like him here than say RPGNet (at least when I was there).

Quote from: gleichmanYeah, I've reached that conculsion as well. Hence my last response to him.

You don't even know how to begin to address me, g-man. You're a pious ass.

Can we just get to the hair pulling and the sptting, already?

Quote from: droogOkay, I won't get defensive.

Sorry, I meant 'you' in the collective plural sense. Not a personal shot.

QuoteNow, it's not that I think what I'm doing is more sophisticated, it's that I find the air of Puritanism around the conversation (around what other people are doing) to be naive (ie unsophisticated). It's all "Ooh, goodness gracious, golly gee!" It's Mickey Mouse.

I mean, Jesus Christ, aren't you all guys? Haven't you ever spent any time in a change room? Do you meet all your friends at church or something?

I hear where you're coming from. When I said I used to play the 'see how far you can go saying sick shit game' when I was 14, I meant it. Me and my buddies really did that, passing notes in math class that described in vivid detail the various sexual and violent depravities we suggested the recepient of the note was having with his classmates, teachers, and families in our imagined scenarios. And I mean sick shit. We would almost certainly have got suspended and counsellors called in if the notes were ever found by teachers.

So I honestly don't find the acts described in the OP shocking. I'm pretty sure me and my buddies could come up with worse shit if we played the game and really tried. I just find the notion of out-sicking each other in an RPG juvenile in a rather pathetic way - especially if you do it in a game and school of play that purport to be about telling sophisticated and meaningful stories.

Any game that includes mechanics for one-upmanship in depravity doesn't encourage meaningful stories at all - it just gives giggling jack-offs a veneer of sophistication to their play that it frankly doesn't deserve.

Quote from: AosCan we just get to the hair pulling and the sptting, already?

I don't have the waldoes attached yet, but boy, if I did....

Quote from: droogI don't have the waldoes attached yet, but boy, if I did....

It's early here; I haven't even had coffee; be careful with the obscure references.

Quote from: HaffrungSo I honestly don't find the acts described in the OP shocking. I'm pretty sure me and my buddies could come up with worse shit if we played the game and really tried. I just find the notion of out-sicking each other in an RPG juvenile in a rather pathetic way - especially if you do it in a game and school of play that purport to be about telling sophisticated and meaningful stories.

Any game that includes mechanics for one-upmanship in depravity doesn't encourage meaningful stories at all - it just gives giggling jack-offs a veneer of sophistication to their play that it frankly doesn't deserve.

This is where you really need to know what the game actually does and whether that's an accurate description. Sounds like hearsay to me.

Forget all this morality stuff. When you're playing a game, the worst crime it can commit is to fail to be fun.

On the other hand, hearing about the mechanics that I have, it doesn't sound like it'd be a whole lot of fun. As for teaching moral lessons or being thought-provoking, well, I doubt it. I've seen games provoke thought, but never by means that are as transparently crude.

I could be wrong. That's fine with me. There is a chance, slim though it is, that this game manages both to be fun, and to be stimulating mentally and morally. But while I have no issues with Baker at all, I'm doubting it. In much the same way that Kill Puppies or Dogs might be fun games, but there really isn't anything to them that stimulates moral parameters any more then D&D or WW's Mage or Vampire.

In any game where you commit atrocity, you can always step back and say, "Well, why did I do that?". In any game you can commit atrocities, there's a potential for hard or soft mechanical gains, and in-game reasons to justify it. Doing it just because you get a +1 to be brutal next time you need to doesn't really shed any light on the condition, or raise awareness though, so you see where I base my doubts.

Without knowing much more, it's hard to say anything else. Conflict resolutions system? Core mechanics? I don't know, though I have my speculations. It doesn't sound like any fun, though. Purposeless neck-raping sounds more like 4-chan and less like fun, in any event.

Quote from: droogThis is where you really need to know what the game actually does and whether that's an accurate description. Sounds like hearsay to me.

Do you know what the core mechanics are? The purpose of the game? How is it played?

Quote from: Thanatos02Forget all this morality stuff. When you're playing a game, the worst crime it can commit is to fail to be fun.

On the other hand, hearing about the mechanics that I have, it doesn't sound like it'd be a whole lot of fun. As for teaching moral lessons or being thought-provoking, well, I doubt it. I've seen games provoke thought, but never by means that are as transparently crude.

I could be wrong. That's fine with me. There is a chance, slim though it is, that this game manages both to be fun, and to be stimulating mentally and morally. But while I have no issues with Baker at all, I'm doubting it. In much the same way that Kill Puppies or Dogs might be fun games, but there really isn't anything to them that stimulates moral parameters any more then D&D or WW's Mage or Vampire.

In any game where you commit atrocity, you can always step back and say, "Well, why did I do that?". In any game you can commit atrocities, there's a potential for hard or soft mechanical gains, and in-game reasons to justify it. Doing it just because you get a +1 to be brutal next time you need to doesn't really shed any light on the condition, or raise awareness though, so you see where I base my doubts.

Without knowing much more, it's hard to say anything else. Conflict resolutions system? Core mechanics? I don't know, though I have my speculations. It doesn't sound like any fun, though. Purposeless neck-raping sounds more like 4-chan and less like fun, in any event.

A lot of rpg theory is based on the idea that games are highly motivated by crude mechanical bonuses -- I'm sure some are (in fact, I think Narrativist mechanics are, in some significant degree, designed to motivate "gamist" gamers to play like Nar gamers).

I think most gamers are far more motivated by non-mechanical elements: social interaction, emotional connection to the in-game action (yes, immersion), the pleasures of imagination and creativity, playing another character that's not you, etc.

For most folks I believe the crude "+1 for telling story" isn't nearly as much of a motivator as the forge-theory guys expect it to be... in fact, those kinds of mechanics may well be distracting -- and in any event, formulaic mechanics seem unlikely to produce meaningful stories in any artistic sense.

Despite what the indie marketing would have you believe.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.A lot of rpg theory is based on the idea that games are highly motivated by crude mechanical bonuses -- I'm sure some are (in fact, I think Narrativist mechanics are, in some significant degree, designed to motivate "gamist" gamers to play like Nar gamers).

I think most gamers are far more motivated by non-mechanical elements: social interaction, emotional connection to the in-game action (yes, immersion), the pleasures of imagination and creativity, playing another character that's not you, etc.

For most folks I believe the crude "+1 for telling story" isn't nearly as much of a motivator as the forge-theory guys expect it to be... in fact, those kinds of mechanics may well be distracting -- and in any event, formulaic mechanics seem unlikely to produce meaningful stories in any artistic sense.

Despite what the indie marketing would have you believe.

Cheers,
-E.

I do really have to applaud the marketing department for their efforts above and beyond the call of duty on this one. It's a stupendous effort to keep returning a thread to the front page of the board (edit: a board) when it drops off of it, by recycling the same silly questions as have been cycled before...and still someone takes the bait.

Still, as yet another effort has been made to draw comparisons to d&d by one of the marketing department, and as it has something to do with -E- 's post above (as well as my d&d xp breakdown that i would see as the equivalent, that i posted a few pages ago). Here is what was posted as a 'defense' by the poster that caused the intitial rucus.

I really think that it says it all. But i'l leave it to others to decide.

In the original controversial example, after playing for a bit, one player felt he didn't have enough Devil to be as effective as he liked. So he went about increasing it in game. That's it. It was his decision to change his mechanical situation through play

Quote from: Thanatos02Forget all this morality stuff. When you're playing a game, the worst crime it can commit is to fail to be fun.

You know what? I quite agree!

And most normal human beings apparently get a lot of fun out of games where you get to vicariously kill monsters (without being particularly gory about it).

But what kind of a fucking degenerate gets fun out of (even vicariously) kill young boys, decapitate them and then rape their esophagus?

If you ever wanted proof that the "storygames" crowd ARE a gang of moral degenerates, so concerned with being hip and fashionable that they have absolutely no sense of social grounding anymore (why should they? They like to pretend that they're a special elite above society's rules!), or even precious little of a basic sense of humanity, this would be it.

RPGPundit

Certainly, I'm going to have to remember to confuse the authors of Shock: and RaHoWa if I ever meet them in person.

Indie games like RaHoWa really push the boundaries man. Thats edgy shit.

i'd like the thank koltar (you bastard!) for mentioning the game in question in his other pirate thread.  i would never have heard about it otherwise.

the game gets a big "meh" from me, at least from the stuff i've read about it so far.  i'm not big on these odd morality mechanics :confused:

back to GTA carnage for me