Quote from: James J SkachWait...this is rich...you don't like pseudo diagnosis? Man, that's funny.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: James J SkachSee, this is where your logic falls apart.  I don't have to own the rule book - as someone pointed out upthread, I think we have enough to go by with the AP and designers comments. You've given no proof of any rule that says this play should not have occurred or rules the discourage this sort of play from resulting. You can't, can you? Otherwise, I have to take the word of the author. That, along with the AP, is plenty to cast any sort of judgement I want.

Of course you can cast any judgment you want, based on any information or lack thereof you'd like.  Doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with your judgment.  It was also never my intent to "prove that this play should not have happened."  I've already stated my agreement with Vincent's quote that he made a game that promotes an atmosphere of brutality &c.  The difference is that I don't think the author's word supports the conclusion you've come to.  But hey, I'm not supposed to be talking about this stuff, I forgot.  Why don't you ask me some more mechanical questions like Sigmund's, or maybe I should talk about what bands I like.

Quote from: James J SkachExcept here...now.  And without any specific knowledge of the rule?!? How dare you! It would be funny if it weren't so sad - you're willing to cast judgement on the "half-assed" design of an RPG you've never read, while trying to chastise us for being repulsed by a game wherein a character decapitates a boy to sexually abuse the throat which we know based on the AP.

The title of the thread is appropos of a number of things, it appears - talk about trying to have it both ways!

You're being more than a little bit silly, here.  I said I have a feeling that the Serenity rpg might be a bit of a half-assed rpg design, according to my own standards, but I don't know because I've never bought or read it.  That's a far cry from claiming that anyone who plays a particular game (which you've never read) is a deranged sicko, and that those who argue anything else are obviously arch-apologists who would thank Vincent Baker if he took a shit on their head.

Can you honestly tell me - seeing how honesty is so highly valued here - that you don't see the vast, gaping, continent-wide gulf of difference between those sentiments?

Mythusmage, your assumption about my level of experience and maturity is a little baseless.  I have a family member who was raped when she was prepubescent, and a friend who was date-raped in college.  I was in Air Force intelligence for six years and was lucky enough to watch people be killed by remote-controlled drones.  I lived in South Korea for two years, and saw a man fatally stabbed a couple of yards away from me outside a nightclub.

I consider myself a liberal, a feminist, and something of a pacifist (mostly due to my exposure to actual war, however distanced).  Violence and sexual violence are issues that I take extremely seriously.

I'll thank you to avoid making such judgments in the future.

Quote from: fifth_childI'll thank you to avoid making such judgments in the future.

And that's the more mature approach.

Quote from: walkerpDon't fucking tell me what I do and don't know.  Don't make presumptious assumptions about what I've seen and lived through.  You have no fucking clue.  Don't paint my position with your morality brush.  I've seen some evil and that's exactly why I have no problem with a fictional representation of it.  What I have a problem with is people like you who think controlling what people do and think is fighting evil.  You're the ones telling the child to never go past the cellar door, not me.  And who the fuck is Emo Philips?

Every time you post you expose your ignorance, both what you're ignorant about and how deep that ignorance is. You're easier to read than a 3rd grade writing exercise.

QuoteThe outcry over the game will die down, the game will sell however well or poorly it's going to sell. Some people will play it and enjoy it, some people will play it and not enjoy it, and many others won't play it at all.

If it matters so little, then what the fuck are you doing here?  Why would you go out of your way to register on another forum just to defend a game from people you already knew and had decided were predisposed to dislike it, and had already made up their minds quite solidly by the time you jumped in the thread?

If it's so inconsequential, why the fuck do you care?  And why choose this game of all things to decide to leap to defend?

Quote from: walkerpSo wait, have you done this?  Because that I do find disturbing.  I sincerely hope it was a matter of starvation and necessity rather than choice.

You do have a talent for deliberate misinterpretation. Goes well with your studied moral outrage.

Let's not play the I've Had Personal Experience You Can't Say Shit To Me cards, fellahs. Anyone can say that, and anyone can top it. It's a pointless play, and boils down to a competition of weeping and wailing.

Let's stick to the established facts. There were some game sessions in which people had their characters commit murder, rape, and defiling of corpses of children and adults both. Their players variously claim that this was a serious emotional experience, and good old woopin' yeehaw fun.

The original post of this thread brought up the point that if System Matters, then Vincent Baker's system brought up this kind of play. If Vampire and D&D get credit or blame for the good or bad play they produce, then this game must get credit or blame, too. gleichman's point was that people become less keen on saying System Matters when a system they like produces results they don't like, or when a system they dislike produces results they do like. So the original post was about the hypocrisy in application of Big Model theory. System Matters, Unless It Doesn't is the conclusion we end up with, which is not terribly helpful or profound.

The second issue brought up in the course of this thread is what are suitable things to present in a roleplaying game session. Some say that sex crimes, murder and such are suitable, others say not. My own position, which is I think that of most of the people here speaking against this play style, is that it's one thing to present evil being done, and it's another thing for the PCs to be doing the evil. The difference between The Accused and Vincent Baker's game sessions is that while both had rape scenes, in the movie we were expected to sympathise with the victim, while in the rpg session we were expected to sympathise with the perpertrator.

This, I think, is the key issue which has caused so much disgust and anger.

So, again the two issues are: inconsistent application of "System Matters", and whether we should roleplay perpertators of horrible crimes.

Quote from: fifth_childMythusmage, your assumption about my level of experience and maturity is a little baseless.  I have a family member who was raped when she was prepubescent, and a friend who was date-raped in college.  I was in Air Force intelligence for six years and was lucky enough to watch people be killed by remote-controlled drones.  I lived in South Korea for two years, and saw a man fatally stabbed a couple of yards away from me outside a nightclub.

I consider myself a liberal, a feminist, and something of a pacifist (mostly due to my exposure to actual war, however distanced).  Violence and sexual violence are issues that I take extremely seriously.

I'll thank you to avoid making such judgments in the future.

And you learned nothing from it. For here you are trying to justify a game about rape and murder. A game about mutilation, necrophilia, pederastry, and degradation. A game where people glory in it and call it good. That family member must be proud of you. Or does she know about your postings here? What would she say about them if she did know?

Ever kill a man up close? Do it when he was right there in your presence? Ever sink a blade into a man's guts and watched him bleed his life out? You really expect me to think watching an image on a cathode ray tube, no matter how live, is in any way the same. Hurting someone you can't even smell of feel, who's separated from you by a tv camera, is a damn sight different from hurting someone you can smell and feel, and who can smell and feel you. It's called immediacy, it's time you learned about it.

You ever put yourself in that family member's place. Do you even know how. Learn how. Learn how to put yourself in another's place. Learn how to put yourself in the place of another at the time and place they were hurt, and then come and tell us about Poison'd

Quote from: J ArcaneIf it matters so little, then what the fuck are you doing here?  Why would you go out of your way to register on another forum just to defend a game from people you already knew and had decided were predisposed to dislike it, and had already made up their minds quite solidly by the time you jumped in the thread?

If it's so inconsequential, why the fuck do you care?  And why choose this game of all things to decide to leap to defend?

I already explained.  It irks me to see people making misinformed judgments and not even admitting the possibility that they may be mistaken.  You want to come up with informed criticism?  Be my guest.  For example, -E. and Pierce Inverarity have both had some decent points, although I think they're a bit quick to rush to aesthetic judgment.  I don't believe that there's nothing to criticize about this game - there isn't anything in the world that isn't flawed in some manner, and this is an ashcan to boot.  I've already pointed out to Vincent a few places where the rules seemed unclear, mentioned that there's precious little advice of any sort, and agreed that the game has a tendency to push towards a certain amount of brutality during play.  I just think that truthful criticism is rarely as absolute as a lot of people here would like to believe, and find attempts at claiming the moral high ground or at diagnoses of mental illnesses and such distasteful.

Why this game?  Because I like what I've read of it, and think it will be fun to play.  Just to note: while I really like Dogs in the Vineyard quite a lot, I don't feel strongly about Kill Puppies For Satan one way or the other.  It was a somewhat funny read, but I don't feel any draw towards actually playing it.  Just so you know they I don't fawn after every one of Vincent Baker's releases.

Quote from: James J SkachIsn't that what GNS/TBM does?  Isn't that presumptuous?

Do I care what an acronym soup does suddenly?

QuoteI already explained. It irks me to see people making misinformed judgments and not even admitting the possibility that they may be mistaken.

I take it you haven't had much of a life since discovering the Internet then?

Quote from: Kyle AaronLet's not play the I've Had Personal Experience You Can't Say Shit To Me cards, fellahs. Anyone can say that, and anyone can top it. It's a pointless play, and boils down to a competition of weeping and wailing.

Thanks.  I got a little righteous there.  Sorry about that.  It was really the utter misreading of my position that pissed me off more than anything.  It's clear to me now that Mythusmage is the ultimate internet warrior and I must only stay out of the ring when he is around.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo, again the two issues are: inconsistent application of "System Matters", and whether we should roleplay perpertators of horrible crimes.

I would say there is inconsisten application of "System Matters" on both sides of this debate.  Baker himself said that it did.  I go with Skach's equation (for which I've already forgotten the variables) that it's some combo of Players and System which created this outcome.  I don't argue with anyone about that.

The second part is where my argument is.  If the group is comfortable with playing evil, then I have no problem with it.  It might not be my cup of tea, but then I won't play with them.  

It's this righteous fury and assumption that your "good" position is the right one that I find very disturbing.  I also wonder how many people here might have changed their tune had the system been D&D (and I guarantee you there are some groups doing just as sick shit as this with non-indie systems).  Though that argument works the other way too, as I am sure there are some people in Forge land who wouldn't be so quick to defend the game if it wasn't one of theirs.

There is something else that strikes me as I write this.  I wonder if Baker and crew aren't flaunting their AP a bit because they are trying to show how you can have an abusive in-game situation where all the players are okay with it (or at least think they are okay with it; but that's another issue entirely).  I mean, so many "sick" roleplaying situations we usually hear of, involve an abusive GM or abusive player, where some guy has his character rape a girl's character.  In those cases, it's quite clear that the in-game event was a proxy for an out-of-game personal attack.  Maybe Baker and crew are trying to show the opposite thing, an in-game extreme abuse is an example of profound player trust and cooperation.

Whether that's a worthy endeavour, I really couldn't say.  I'm just throwing that suggestion out there for a possible motivation for doing what they were doing.

Quote from: fifth_childIt's not a side-step, nice or otherwise.  If you're going to use provocative wordings, it's advisable to be aware of precisely what they mean.

Yes it is. Perhaps before you try to insult someone by telling them they don't know what they're talking about you should make at least a minimal effort to know more about them first. As to your answers, I don't have time tonight to read your whole post, but I appreciate the response and I'll get to reading and responding tomorrow.

It's trivially easy for me to prove what my career field was and where I was stationed, Kyle.  Keep in mind that I'm not making any jackass claims to special forces training or some such bullshit.  I'm not a terrifically impressive physical specimen - although I'm a pretty decent runner - and I've never been in a fist-fight.  I was in Air Force intelligence for six years, and reached the enlisted rank of Staff Sergeant (E-5), so not exactly big cheese or anything.

Mythusmage... the things you're saying are significantly more insulting to me than any name-calling might be.  I know you probably don't care, because you think I'm THE ENEMY and therefore sub-human, but I'll ask you politely to stop, on the off-chance that you might listen.

I've never used a weapon on a living thing, no, but there was one time in my life where it was distinctly possible that if things went badly, I might have ended up shooting at and being shot at by other human beings.  I am immensely grateful that it never came to that, and I have no idea why you'd wish otherwise on anyone.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf it matters so little, then what the fuck are you doing here?  Why would you go out of your way to register on another forum just to defend a game from people you already knew and had decided were predisposed to dislike it, and had already made up their minds quite solidly by the time you jumped in the thread?

If it's so inconsequential, why the fuck do you care?  And why choose this game of all things to decide to leap to defend?

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree, J Arcane. It's one thing to say you'd do something, another to actually do it. Any dog is as brave as brave can be when there is a fence between you and he. But remove that fence and watch as he shrinks before your eyes.

What compels people to defend something vile lest it be ignorance and/or obstinancy? Or is it a need for a perverted justification? A reactive defense against attack.

This thread really has nothing to do with Poison'd now, it's about how people dealt with an in game situation, and how people have reacted to the relating of that incident. People have said that what the participants did as their characters was wrong, and the participants are having a tizzy about it. How dare we judge them? Because what they did, as their characters, was rotten and vile and thoroughly fucked up.

And what gives us the right to judge these others? We did. For any society that does not establish and enforce standards of behavior will die. You do not murder, you do not covet, you do not lie. For when neighbor cannot trust neighbor it all deteriorates into chaos and insanity. Can we trust anyone who would defend murder, mutilation, and necrophilia, even imaginary murder, mutilation, and necrophilia.

You'll know who this is intended for, "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin." Translation: You're in deep shit, dude. I'd hate to be the guy standing behind you when you die and finally stand before God.