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: HollianQuoteOriginally 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.
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. :(
Dude, it's
one tiny thread. Would it kill you to ignore it?
I haven't read as as much about Forgeyness (especially Story Game Forgeyness in this case) as others have, but I gotta say that Gleichman's interpretation matches mine. You give a game a specific idea and tightly shape the system to refer to and encourage that idea in play. You make a game about being a ruthless and vile pirate, then you make the rules to give players who act ruthless and vile the benefits. As a result you get a Great Story, and folks who are willing to describe the sodomizing of esophogi.
Those who defend the game on the grounds you mentioned are missing the whole point of Story Game philosophy. A much better argument in defense of the game would revolve more around the Social Contract, and how players must be willing to express their personal limits in order to customize the comfort level for everyone involved.
And another thing, the only thing more distasteful than the snippet of AP was the fanboyish drooling over the game in general. I mean, people are bound to geek out over stuff they think is cool, but this game and what it's willing to stand for? It's a head shaker
Quote from: SettembriniBrian, if you really want to investigate, look into Vincents forrum. It´ll show you your assertion 1) is basically true.
Edit: skip that.
One point of my post here was to show a means by which one could reach the conculsion based upon the printed game and printed Forge Theory- without digging through who knows how many words for the few that would indicate this.
Quote from: WarthurFor 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.
Of course - most gamers would approach it in this fashion. Design a game where the mechanics require aberrant behavior, and the more aberrant the more benefit you get, then they're going to go balls-to-the-wall (literally, I suspect) to get as much benefit as they can. Its combining Munchkinism with "Hostel". I can't imagine it serves any purpose in the sense of true "gaming" any more than "Saw" is a real film as opposed to torture porn.
I'm not a prude, believe me - but my god, there ARE limits! I can maybe see evil NPCs doing it, but PCs? Erm.
I already said my bit, which is that when it comes to the experience of violence this game, as described in the thread, doesn't go far enough. It thereby enables wallowing in violence, and so makes it tolerable if not vicarious. That, and not this or that excess, is the perversion.
Looking at that example, I have as much desire to play this game as I do FATAL. Which is to say, not at all.
There's a real, fundamental difference between playing a game like D&D, where basically you kill things and take their stuff on a kind of abstract level; and a game like this, where you revel in rape & corpse mutilation.
-O
Quote from: JamesVThose who defend the game on the grounds you mentioned are missing the whole point of Story Game philosophy. A much better argument in defense of the game would revolve more around the Social Contract, and how players must be willing to express their personal limits in order to customize the comfort level for everyone involved.
A better argument, yes. It is after all way traditional rpgs handle the matter.
But it's an impossible argument for a Forge Theorist to make. Given how defensive they are about their ideas, they should rushing to shoot down defenses like this.
Instead they appear to be allowing others to defend them incorrectly in order to make sales and win fame.
Another fallacy I've noticed the game's defenders deploying frequently on the Big Purple thread: analogies with movies. "Terrible things happen in good movies, sometimes, so what's the difference if they happen in a game?"
Which is ridiculous. You're not necessarily meant to be identifying with and supporting the actions of characters in movies who do terrible things. PCs in roleplaying games are protagonists directly controlled by their players, on the other hand, and while it's entirely possible that a player can make their character do repugnant things in order to make some kind of point, I suspect it's more common for players who make their character break out the rape to do so out of wish-fulfillment, or a power trip, or simply through mucking about and not especially lending much importance to what is happening in-game (the last is, I think, probably the most common motive).
If I saw a movie where the director had a clearly identifiable self-insertion character, and said character proceeded to insert himself into unconsenting victims in a manner which can be clearly identified as being wish fulfillment or stupid messing about on the part of the director, I'd say that was a pretty damn shitty film.
This game is disgusting. There is always an element of self in RPGs, and frankly, I don't want to know that much about my players.
Oh man, there's arguments from the White Wolf playbook as well as the standard excuses for FATAL:
Quote from: Alathon, on the Big PurpleIf you're not comfortable with attempting a mature game which includes some really ugly themes, by all means excuse yourself from such. You might want to excuse yourself from this thread, since we're discussing such a game. We certainly won't hold it against you.
It's mature and edgy! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, grandpa! We cool artsy kids are totally grown up because we talk about the rapes!
Quote from: WarthurAnother fallacy I've noticed the game's defenders deploying frequently on the Big Purple thread: analogies with movies. "Terrible things happen in good movies, sometimes, so what's the difference if they happen in a game?"
I consider this line of defense at least somewhat rational according to Forge theory, after all one of the main goals is to make the rpg more like a movie or book.
That of course ignores the idea of player identification as you point out, and which according to their own theories has to exist (i.e. the game affects the player).
Quote from: The Good AssyrianNot 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
While I might agree that walking away is reasonable in this case on the grounds that harping on it is like throwing fuel on the fire... I do not agree at all with your assertion that it's only a game and therefore it doesnt matter.
Games are a reflection of our culture. Games teach lessons, and most moral lessons are learned via story telling. Our outlook on life is largely informed by the stories we listen to and tell. Therefore I think it is important to pay attention to what stories are being told via games. To me the game in question appears to be just another example of Nihilism in 21st Century Story Telling.
http://elthosrpg.blogspot.com/2007/01/21st-century-nihilism-in-story-telling.html
Personally, I think this is
very important. Bad Stories make bad vibes, which in turn creates cynicism, which in turn destroys civilizations just like ours. Good stories do the opposite. They create healthy minds. Unfortunately, we are in the Bad Story part of the cycle at this point. Maybe it is inevitable. But I don't think so. I think it is much more that people are so saturated with negativity coming at us from almost every (mass media) direction that they've now come to accept Nihilism as both "Normal" and "Cool" at the same time (a telling contradiction). The more this spreads the worse off civilization will be.
But do I think it should be "Stopped"? No. That would be counter productive, and frankly quite impossible to achieve. The only alternative would be override these Bad Stories with Good Stories. Currently our culture appears to have lost track of what Good Stories actually mean. That's a pity. We could use some Good Stories about now. Well, I know I could, anyway.
Quote from: gleichmanI consider this line of defense at least somewhat rational according to Forge theory, after all one of the main goals is to make the rpg more like a movie or book.
Which is, of course, hilarious. Most Actual Play accounts - whether of Forge games or traditional RPGs - would make completely shitty movies and books. (Heck, some of them have actually done so... (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dragonlance-Chronicles-Fantasy-Margaret-Weis/dp/0140115404/ref=pd_bbs_4/203-3179199-3240711?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188580144&sr=8-4))
Quote from: gleichmanI consider this line of defense at least somewhat rational according to Forge theory, after all one of the main goals is to make the rpg more like a movie or book.
That of course ignores the idea of player identification as you point out, and which according to their own theories has to exist (i.e. the game affects the player).
Terrible things happen in really crappy movies too. dosn't make 'em good movies.
Quote from: VBWyrdeGames are a reflection of our culture. Games teach lessons, and most moral lessons are learned via story telling. Our outlook on life is largely informed by the stories we listen to and tell. Therefore I think it is important to pay attention to what stories are being told via games. To me the game in question appears to be just another example of Nihilism in 21st Century Story Telling.
Nicely stated.
People focus too much on the large events as being important. They are, but they come but rarely and how we confront them when they do arrive is determined by how we dealt with all the little things that came before.
WHAT .... THE ....FUCK??
If I didn't already find the Forge type games strange this whole AP report and example would clinch my dislike (hate?) of them.
There is mature roleplaying....and then there is doing sick stuff just to see what you get away with.
Thats just fucked up . Both the AP incident and the game and mindset that encourages it.
- Ed C.
Quote from: WerekoalaTerrible things happen in really crappy movies too. dosn't make 'em good movies.
One other problem with the Movie defense is that all it really does is move the debate without changing it. It's the old playground defense of "But Billy did it first". One would hope that adults would leave that behind.
This game sounds vile. :(
My game actually does reward certain behaviour through game mechanics -- but I chose to make a heroic fantasy game instead.
Quote from: StuartThis game sounds vile. :(
My game actually does reward certain behaviour through game mechanics -- but I chose to make a heroic fantasy game instead.
Here fucking here!
Quote from: gleichmanOne other problem with the Movie defense is that all it really does is move the debate without changing it. It's the old playground defense of "But Billy did it first". One would hope that adults would leave that behind.
The other thing they're missing is that Billy did it first for a damn good reason (if we're talking about the "high art" type of movie they claim to emulate here). With this game, from what I've read on that thread...not so much beyond getting more dice or whatever.
Quote from: KenHRThe other thing they're missing is that Billy did it first for a damn good reason (if we're talking about the "high art" type of movie they claim to emulate here). With this game, from what I've read on that thread...not so much beyond getting more dice or whatever.
That's sort of the core concept of Forge theory isn't it? It claims that people are unable to develop story unless they get more dice, so their games give more dice.
Story by bribe instead of story by reason. Appears akin to the monkey theory of novel writing.
Too true. I wonder how many of the Forge folks have ever sat down and tried to write an honest-to-goodness literary story. Something that does everything their games claim to do: feature plot, theme, character development, explorations of things we're often uncomfortable exploring. Maybe if more of them did, they'd realize how backwards their approach to narrative was on so many levels.
Bah, anyway, I've wasted too much time reading that trainwreck of a thread. Back to working on my great big honkin' dungeon... :)
I think I need a good Silkwood shower after that read.
Quote from: VBWyrdeWhile I might agree that walking away is reasonable in this case on the grounds that harping on it is like throwing fuel on the fire... I do not agree at all with your assertion that it's only a game and therefore it doesnt matter.
I am sorry if I came off as implying that it doesn't matter at all, but I was trying to counter the implication that it was some high moral duty to engage in what would likely be yet another pointless Internet squabble.
You do make a very good point about this being perhaps a reflection of the coarsening of our culture, and I agree that it should be condemned as such. I just believe that elevating it to a moral crusade on the Internet is counter-productive as it may just bring in the "publicity at any cost" brigade and give them the attention that they crave.
Then again, I am much more of an "act locally" sort of person, so this is my own personal bias showing.
Quote from: VBWyrdeCurrently our culture appears to have lost track of what Good Stories actually mean. That's a pity. We could use some Good Stories about now. Well, I know I could, anyway.
On that we fully agree. I could use some of those myself.
TGA
I just can't stop laughing at the fact that the Forge swine are so enamored with Vince, that they can't allow themselves to see that Poison'd is a close cousin of FATAL.
If you took Poison'd, removed Vince's name, and replaced it with Pundit's, these exact same people defending the game now would be raising all kinds of hell about it, guarenteed.
It's like a bad Andy Warhol joke. It's pretty clear that Baker is just trying to see how bad of a game he can put out and get these same idiots to buy it just because they think it will make them "cool".
Quote from: StuartMy game actually does reward certain behaviour through game mechanics -- but I chose to make a heroic fantasy game instead.
You know, it wouldn't be difficult at all to create a
Nobilis character who gains power through atrocities, no more difficult than creating a perfect saint in fact, and the only thing stopping a player from choosing such a PC is the good judgment of the rest of the group. It would require a customized Code, though, since all the great factions (even Hell and the Dark) have their own reasons for condemning behaviour like killing folks and raping their corpses, and harming innocents would also soon bring the Wild Hunt to the culprit's doorstep. Still, it
would render the character more powerful, at least temporarily. It's an amoral universe.
Is this post by GrimGent for real?
Allow me to suggest Wushu instead.
Quote from: KenHRToo true. I wonder how many of the Forge folks have ever sat down and tried to write an honest-to-goodness literary story. Something that does everything their games claim to do: feature plot, theme, character development, explorations of things we're often uncomfortable exploring. Maybe if more of them did, they'd realize how backwards their approach to narrative was on so many levels.
Mechanics have dick-all to do with story or narravite. I could sit down with my friends and we could tell an interactive story without a single mechanic, without dice, without anything except taking turns to add to the story (okay, that's a rule/mechanic, but its the most basic one in human history). Or we could have a nicly plotted out story within a game of D&D, or GURPS, and have many times in the past. Hell, my dungeon I threw together last weekend has a story behind it, that will be uncovered as they move through it an uncover pieces *if they WANT to learn the story*. Or they can just hack 'n slash it. Fine with me.
Honestly, is there ANY way to make a plotted narrative a requirement of a ruleset? If most players are like MY players, they'd fight that with every fiber of their being.
Quote from: KenHRToo true. I wonder how many of the Forge folks have ever sat down and tried to write an honest-to-goodness literary story. Something that does everything their games claim to do: feature plot, theme, character development, explorations of things we're often uncomfortable exploring. Maybe if more of them did, they'd realize how backwards their approach to narrative was on so many levels.
You raise a good question.
I know that in my case that rpgs are a bit of wish fullfillment. Fighting the good fight, defeating evil, etc. and doing it in style. Being the Hero. If any of that happened in real life I'd be road kill assuming I didn't die from fear first. But I can do it in the game. But I also don't claim the game as some deep reflection upon the nature of Heroism.
I wonder how many of them are in the same boat with story telling- worthless, but they can convince themselves they can do it in the game? And in a telling difference, they seem to consider it a deep reflection upon the nature of Story.
Quote from: The Good AssyrianOn that we fully agree. I could use some of those myself.
Dude, from what I've read of you on this board, you're fully capable of making good -- no, great -- stories. Anyone is, really!
Meaning doesn't inhere in things. You don't need gimmicky game mechanics, a college education or lots of red to make a story meaningful. Stories get meaning from your interpretation of events, how the events you're recounting impacted you and how you're able to relate that impact to others. That's something we're all able to do, and it has nothing to do with a silly set of rules on paper.
Stories are a way we have of organizing our experiences and making sense of what happened. They're told after the fact (yes, I know there are narratives told in the present tense, but every rule has an exception, and I'm not getting into lit theory or the mechanics of authorship here). Which is why the Forge method of narrative legislation -- putting the narrative cart before the horse, as it were -- strikes me as backward.
EDIT: And Werekoala said some of the same things while I was busy typing this!
Quote from: SettembriniIs this post by GrimGent for real?
Sure. I mean, you already have to tiptoe along a tightrope if you play, say, a servant of Hell, since the devils expect you to cause suffering but the law forbids you from harming innocents. Catch a sinner, though, and you can rightfully make him suffer seven times as much as he has hurt others.
Incidentally, I just read that entire thread over at RPGnet, and the play report on
Poison'd certainly doesn't seem to do justice to the whole game. Don't expect me to be horrified if the text mentions sodomy as a possible sin in passing and the players then choose to elaborate on that.
Isn't this game just another version of Grand Theft Auto? And didn't that game get a lot of press from people condemning it?
Correct my memory if you will, Mr. Chuckles, but I don't think GTA's transgressions were coated with Baker's Own(TM) Christian morality syrup.
Get it before they excise the hot cofee mechanic....
Quote from: chucklesIsn't this game just another version of Grand Theft Auto? And didn't that game get a lot of press from people condemning it?
No such thing as bad publicity, apparently. But going by what I've read,
Poison'd doesn't actually demand a PC to do horrible things to anyone: that's just the easiest way to power at the cost of the character's soul.
Quote from: gleichmanYou raise a good question.
I know that in my case that rpgs are a bit of wish fullfillment. Fighting the good fight, defeating evil, etc. and doing it in style. Being the Hero. If any of that happened in real life I'd be road kill assuming I didn't die from fear first. But I can do it in the game. But I also don't claim the game as some deep reflection upon the nature of Heroism.
I wonder how many of them are in the same boat with story telling- worthless, but they can convince themselves they can do it in the game? And in a telling difference, they seem to consider it a deep reflection upon the nature of Story.
It's an interesting thought, and if true, it would mirror their whole approach to "RPG theory." To wit, no real, formal study of the matter at hand, but a bunch of poorly thought-out ideas dumped on a public messageboard and presented as dogma. Admittedly, I have found some very useful ideas and approaches from reading theory, but most of the good comes from RGFA; those folks spoke from long experience actually playing and discussing matters in an honest manner.
Quote from: GrimGentNo such thing as bad publicity, apparently. But going by what I've read, Poison'd doesn't actually demand a PC to do horrible things to anyone: that's just the easiest way to power at the cost of the character's soul.
So it's kind of like how major food corporations aren't really force-feeding the poor a bunch of cheap junk food that destroys their health. Those poor people could eat better quality food if they wanted, they'll just have to learn to only eat a few meals a week because they can't afford the usual 3/day.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityCorrect my memory if you will, Mr. Chuckles, but I don't think GTA's transgressions were coated with Baker's Own(TM) Christian morality syrup.
"Why, I have been guilty of all the sins in the world! I know not where to begin. I may begin with gaming! No, whoring, that led on to gaming; and gaming led on to drinking; and drinking to lying, and swearing and cursing, and all that is bad; and so to thieving, and to this!"--the pirate John Brown of Sam Bellamy's crew, at the gallows.
Don't waste my time, GG.
Quote from: jgantsSo it's kind of like how major food corporations aren't really force-feeding the poor a bunch of cheap junk food that destroys their health.
That's not really a valid comparison, since any pirate in the game can
choose not to sin, even if it means suffering hardship because of it. Taking care of your soul and pursuing nobler ambitions is every bit as possible as wallowing in depravity, and unlike the sinful life, it will even get you to Heaven in the end.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityDon't waste my time, GG.
I've been reading
Under the Black Flag by David Cordingly lately. It contains all kinds of interesting snippets of information which should prove useful if I ever happen to run a pirate game.
Quote from: KenHRIt's an interesting thought, and if true, it would mirror their whole approach to "RPG theory." To wit, no real, formal study of the matter at hand, but a bunch of poorly thought-out ideas dumped on a public messageboard and presented as dogma.
Indeed it would. Seems likely doesn't it?
Quote from: KenHRAdmittedly, I have found some very useful ideas and approaches from reading theory, but most of the good comes from RGFA; those folks spoke from long experience actually playing and discussing matters in an honest manner.
There are some interesting differences between rgfa and the Forge.
RGFA's statements were born in conflict. Flatly few people there agreed with anyone else. To this was added a desire by a few to understand how and why people so different from themselves worked. Out of that fire came some interesting and worthwhile ideas. It died when the flames became too hot, and the desire for agreement too great.
The Forge in contrast was taken and turned into a platform for one man. And disagreement was disallowed from the beginning. It's already basically died in my mind (it's place taken over by Story Games), but will finally end when Edwards does.
So...I just want to be clear..it's much more difficult to take care of your soul, I think being noble you put it, than it is to submit to Sin and be rewarded.
If I have the right of it, the first question to answer is there any long term impact to submitting; something beyond the reward? I keep hearing things like you lose your Soul - what does Soul get you?
I just get the sense that there's a piece missing...
These questions will lead to hell in a handbasket I fear.
Quote from: GrimGentThat's not really a valid comparison, since any pirate in the game can choose not to sin, even if it means suffering hardship because of it. Taking care of your soul and pursuing nobler ambitions is every bit as possible as wallowing in depravity, and unlike the sinful life, it will even get you to Heaven in the end.
All of which addresses the point of my original post in no way.
Nor even in the context you've put it does 'getting into Heaven' matter, you've exited play of the game on that event (be it Hell or Heaven) and are either on to something else or creating another Pirate- at least as far as the rules go.
Quote from: James J SkachI keep hearing things like you lose your Soul - what does Soul get you?
Stamina and fortitude, basically: Soul is what allows you to suffer hardship of any kind without being hardened by the experience, to "endure duress". It also makes you more sympathetic towards others, to the point where harming anyone might become unthinkable.
A thing I've noticed: the mechanics in Forge games try to encourage good story by giving mechanical inducements to players to have their characters behave in a manner consistent with the kind of story the game in question wants to tell.
However, in most works of great literature the characters don't all respond to the same inducements - even though in especially structured Forge games, like Poison'd or My Life With Master (and Poison'd seems to be based very much on MLWM), the very psychological makeup of all the PCs are essentially the same. For example, on the Big Purple thread we read how pirates in Poison'd have a Brutality score, which goes up whenever horrible things happen to them, and represents their ability to be nasty and vicious - but undermines their ability to be sneaky and underhanded. It all goes back to the idea that people who are abused tend to become abusers, which is fair enough - but the way it's set up means that you can't play a pirate who, say, endures horrible torment, realises that he is too much of a weakling to stand up to his tormentors directly, and therefore takes revenge through guile and betrayal as opposed to direct violence - which would be a perfectly appropriate character for the sort of story Poison'd is.
My Life With Master, Poison'd, and similar games hinge on the game designers deciding how human nature is going to work in their game - just as authors, if only on a subconscious level, decide how human nature works in their novels - rather than letting individual players decide how their characters' psyche works. Which might work perfectly well for ensuring that sessions of MLWM or Poison'd will produce the sort of stories the game designers want, but it seriously undermines the ability of the players to contribute to the story by deciding how their character's mental makeup functions - which is surely against the "shared narrative" aim of Narrativism.
(To be fair, this isn't a universal problem of Forge games - Dogs In the Vineyard and The Shadow of Yesterday, for example, give the player absolute freedom to decide how his character's mind functions. I would also argue that they are less purely Narrativist than MLWM or Poison'd.)
Quote from: gleichmanNor even in the context you've put it does 'getting into Heaven' matter, you've exited play of the game on that event (be it Hell or Heaven) and are either on to something else or creating another Pirate- at least as far as the rules go.
Consider it a "victory condition", and one that simply cannot be reached by a character who has lost all of his soul to the Devil.
Quote from: James J SkachSo...I just want to be clear..it's much more difficult to take care of your soul, I think being noble you put it, than it is to submit to Sin and be rewarded.
If I have the right of it, the first question to answer is there any long term impact to submitting; something beyond the reward? I keep hearing things like you lose your Soul - what does Soul get you?
I just get the sense that there's a piece missing...
Reading between the lines, it seems that the state of your Soul (vs the state of your Devil stat) determines what happens to your character when he dies - whether he goes to Heaven or Hell, or haunts the earth as a sad, mad ghost.
Which sounds an awful lot like the endgame scenarios in My Life With Master: a nice idea to see how your character ends up, but who really cares what happens to your PC after the game finishes?
Quote from: GrimGentI've been reading Under the Black Flag by David Cordingly lately. It contains all kinds of interesting snippets of information which should prove useful if I ever happen to run a pirate game.
I wouldn't deny that all sorts of terrible violence, plunder, and rape happened in times past. I just think there's something, for lack of a better word here
swinish, to build a game that encourages it in the name of arty, edgy, and hip roleplaying.
Quote from: GrimGentConsider it a "victory condition", and one that simply cannot be reached by a character who has lost all of his soul to the Devil.
So basically the choice is to endure and be a wimp, and win a victory condition at the end once play ceases...
...or be a Sinful pirate who gets all sorts of rewards in the here an now during the actual play of the game?.
Ok, let's agree for a moment that's a fair choice just for the sake of the exchange here.
How does it change the basic claim that by Forge Theory- the game is encouraging Sinful play? It may also be encouraging wimp play ("the meek" and all that) in addition, but multiple ends does not remove all offered roads.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityCorrect my memory if you will, Mr. Chuckles, but I don't think GTA's transgressions were coated with Baker's Own(TM) Christian morality syrup.
Poison'd says it's Christian to rape someone's throat? That seems hard to support.
Quote from: gleichmanHow does it change the basic claim that by Forge Theory- the game is encouraging Sinful play?
Hey, I have nothing against the Forge, but don't particularly agree with all their theories, either. I'm just reacting to the "OMG in D&D you'd go to hell and burn for that" attitude which seems to have sprung up around this game.
Quote from: GrimGentHey, I have nothing against the Forge, but don't particularly agree with all their theories, either. I'm just reacting to the "OMG in D&D you'd go to hell and burn for that" attitude which seems to have sprung up around this game.
Ok, different thread then. At least for me.
As cute as this latest Forge advertising thread is, a game that encourages its players via mechanics to deliberately fuck over each other in game will not be commercially viable because it will turn off most of its potential buyers. So, with this in mind, I'd like people to remember this shining example of a Forge game when someone whines about why most indie games don't sell and why game store owners won't carry them.
Quote from: gleichmanSo basically the choice is to endure and be a wimp, and win a victory condition at the end once play ceases...
...or be a Sinful pirate who gets all sorts of rewards in the here an now during the actual play of the game?.
Not to mention that, again, if you want a good STORY then by definition different characters are going to have different ultimate desires - victory for one may be a miserable second place for another.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAllow me to suggest Wushu instead.
Nah. Then you'd just have, "I rape the corpse / while doing a backflip / in the conservatory / with the candlestick," or whatever.
Quote from: jeff37923As cute as this latest Forge advertising thread is, a game that encourages its players via mechanics to deliberately fuck over each other in game will not be commercially viable because it will turn off most of its potential buyers.
Yeah, remember how Paranoia completely bombed and there's no market for competitive boardgames and wargames?
There's definitely scope for competitive games. But Poison'd isn't the one to grab that market.
Quote from: WarthurThere's definitely scope for competitive games. But Poison'd isn't the one to grab that market.
Frankly, I don't think that anyone seriously expects it to compete even with
Amber.
Quote from: jeff37923As cute as this latest Forge advertising thread is, a game that encourages its players via mechanics to deliberately fuck over each other in game will not be commercially viable because it will turn off most of its potential buyers. So, with this in mind, I'd like people to remember this shining example of a Forge game when someone whines about why most indie games don't sell and why game store owners won't carry them.
To be fair, Diplomacy was popular for a long time and sold very well.
Never underestimate people's enjoyment of fucking other people over. Its the basis for 98.4%* of all internet debates.
*Offical statistic made up on the spot, thereby ensuring its as accurate as 99%** of all other internet statistics.
** See above
Quote from: GrimGentFrankly, I don't think that anyone seriously expects it to compete even with Amber.
or even with
Nobilis...
Sorry...couldn't resist...
Quote from: James J Skachor even with Nobilis...
Nob is fundamentally cooperative rather than competitive, unlike
Amber (especially in its Throne War mode).
Quote from: chucklesPoison'd says it's Christian to rape someone's throat? That seems hard to support.
No, what it does is deflect the real horror of violence by making it an excuse for syrupy soul-searching. As in: "Gee whiz, I sure feel deep fucking that throat. Ain't I a conflicted, twenty-first century angsty middle-class snowflake (with a dash of nineteenth-century Christianity for added weirdness)."
As somebody called it in that Holocaust RPG thread we had: emo tourism, masquerading as profundity.
You want the real thing, don't chicken out, dare go there. Read American Psycho. Read Dispatches. Check out that TV interview with the Iceman. Watch the odd documentary on atrocities. Those things are nearly unbearable. Poison'd fails not because it's brutal but because it's not brutal enough.
What was that point you were making about GTA again?
Quote from: WarthurNot to mention that, again, if you want a good STORY then by definition different characters are going to have different ultimate desires - victory for one may be a miserable second place for another.
Almost certainly, after all one of the goals expressed by the designers of these games is to force the Story down unexpected paths. It can't be unexpected if everyone is aiming for (and reaching) the same thing.
It suddenly strikes me that Poison'd may be a failure for the same reasons I felt kpfs was a fantastic success.
In kill puppies for satan, the PCs are horrible people who do horrible things for crappy little bits of power that probably won't be enough to save their asses once the consequences of those horrible thing come up. They know up front that they're going to meet a horrible end and the roast in Hell for all eternity. They're given pretty much exactly enough rope to hang themselves. Not so much Grand Theft Auto as Jackass. It's also a frickin' perfect skewering of Vampire as I remember it being played in high school. I'd love to play or run a game, except that I couldn't deal with the whole animal murder thing, and it doesn't work without it.
Poison'd sounds like it does pretty much the same thing, but replaces "pathetic animal murderer" with "cool pirate." It negates the cockroach-under-a-microscope effect and becomes naked masturbation.
A lot of moral righteousness here. I'm sort of surprised. I really don't know anything about the game but what I've read in this thread (though I'm going to go back and find that thread now for sure) but minus syrupy soul-searching, it sounds like it could be kind of fun for a one-shot to play totally evil (like real evil, not D&D evil) pirates that rape and torture and kill. It'd be a bit like being the vampire family in Near Dark.
Assuming Gleichman's summary of the original thread and Poison'd's game mechanics is accurate, any moral refutations of that AP do seem to fly in the face of the System Matters ideas. But it sounds like many of the people over there are expressing the same kind of kneejerk faux-morality that I'm hearing here. It's a natural human reaction for us wealthy citizens of the world. Theory doesn't come into play.
oops, my bad, I thought it was on Story-Games, not the rpg.net. I misread the OP. Even better! I can't wait to see righteousness-trumping by the mods!
Quote from: ghost ratNah. Then you'd just have, "I rape the corpse / while doing a backflip / in the conservatory / with the candlestick," or whatever.
Winner!
Quote from: walkerpA lot of moral righteousness here. I'm sort of surprised. I really don't know anything about the game but what I've read in this thread (though I'm going to go back and find that thread now for sure) but minus syrupy soul-searching, it sounds like it could be kind of fun for a one-shot to play totally evil (like real evil, not D&D evil) pirates that rape and torture and kill. It'd be a bit like being the vampire family in Near Dark.
My point was - do you need a whole ruleset devoted to that particular form of evil in order to simulate it? I say no.
Making a game SOLELY to be neck-raping pirates is pretty sick. If thinking that = moral righteousness, then guilty as charged.
Quote from: WerekoalaMy point was - do you need a whole ruleset devoted to that particular form of evil in order to simulate it? I say no.
Well now that's a whole nother argument. I wasn't naming any particular names, I just saw a lot of "that's sick" comments. Pointless moralizing, in my opinion.
QuoteBut it sounds like many of the people over there are expressing the same kind of kneejerk faux-morality that I'm hearing here. It's a natural human reaction for us wealthy citizens of the world.
Are you implying that the poorer citizens of the world would be more prone or accepting of the idea of raping someone's bloody neck stump?
Or that a morality that disapproves of raping someone's bloody neck stump, or getting off on such fantasies, is somehoe the sole domain of the rich?
Quote from: Pierce InverarityWinner!
Thanks! :D I was beginning to think that one had just bombed.
To begin with, Brian is correct, this is clearly a case of people wanting to have it both ways. It's been pointed out before: if you have an awful time with D&D, or you disapprove of how someone plays D&D, it's the fault of the game; if you have an awful time with Forge game X, or some AP grosses you out, it's your fault.
The star of the thread (as I skimmed it) was David R (who seems to have stopped posting here, I hope that's not permanent), when he said he'd go ahead and buy the game because he was sure his group would make something enjoyable and not-gross out of it, same as happened when he compared DitV AP reports with his experiences. This points up the weakness of Forge theory & culture in the area of what they call "social contract"; a cursory nod is given to the importance of having the right people and the right "attitude" going into a game, but then the actual discussion is all about using game mechanics to legislate social relations.
However, there's a bit of a problem with how some people (e.g., KenHR here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134653&postcount=37)) 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.
Now this goes back to the recent thread on Gygax's Roleplaying Mastery (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7320) and/or the Story Games thread that Kyle linked from there. It's clear to me that the core of the "original" RPG hobby aesthetic was one of viewing most or all of the mechanical rules not as a framework guiding play, but as an adjunct to two fundamental "deep rules":
1) Make Believe, or as Sett calls it, the Method of Roleplay. Meaning that "by and large, we are making this stuff up socially, not through a mechanical procedure".
2) The GM plays the world and has final say on what happens, while the players control their characters.
[I refer the reader to the account of the original Braunstein game, through Blackmoor, and into D&D.]
Under this aesthetic, the mechanical rules are basically just expressions of areas where the group does not wish to rely purely on human input/judgment. (E.g., rolling a die to see if you find a secret door, because there are limits to the ability of the GM to describe the room, limits to the ability of the player to realistically control the character's action, etc.)
Again, the Make Believe or "freeform" interaction of (1) and (2) was the original heart of hobby RPGs, and--of course--its presence means that "thematic play" is always possible...with the right group of people, right attitude, etc.
On the other hand, the ideology often expressed for Forge games is that the role of the mechanical rules is to shape social interaction, not merely act as an adjunct. Whether successful or not from a design standpoint, this is a wholly different philosophy from the original RPG concepts, and it's easy to see why it fails as a framework for critiquing "traditional" games: "the rules" in "traditional games" don't necessarily define what the game is about, and trying to treat them as such leads to a reductionist view which completely misses the point. (At best, it leads to a critique of excessively involved rules sets, which arguably exhibit hypertrophy for an element which is allegedly peripheral to the main point of the game: roleplaying.) And as far as design goes: again, the goal of "shaping social interaction" can never free itself entirely from the need for a group of players who are socially compatible with each other and with the game itself. Otherwise the natural freedom or "wiggle room" found in any RPG will allow the group to work around the rules and either mess themselves up or thwart the designer's intent.
I 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.
I'd really like to see the books on the shelves of these self-styled sophisticated storytellers. I have the feeling we'd see more Koontz than Kundera.
Okay, gang, while I think all of your "swine" talk is a bunch of bullshit, I do think I have found a prime example in that thread of what you are talking about:
Here:
Quote from: Ian NobleQuote from: Posted by Christopher V. BradyHmm, given Hollian's description of what the game entails (Without the lurid savagery they are so fond of, apparently) there's nothing in it that I can't do with Pirates of the Spanish Main.
Moving on then.
Happy gaming!
Except PotSM doesn't enforce anything with its rules so comparing Poison'd to it is missing the point entirely.
and
Quote from: Ian NobleThe great thing about this thread is that it's probably provoked more sales of the game in the past few days than Vincent would have seen in a year.
It's the one-two punch of intellectual snobbery and stealth marketing, all within two pages and by the same poster.
It's all true! :eek: ;)
Quote from: J ArcaneAre you implying that the poorer citizens of the world would be more prone or accepting of the idea of raping someone's bloody neck stump?
Minus all the false extremes and forced extrapolations that you put in your phrase above, yes.
Quote from: J ArcaneOr that a morality that disapproves of raping someone's bloody neck stump, or getting off on such fantasies, is somehoe the sole domain of the rich?
Again, minus the word "sole" and the general tone that forces an excluded middle, yes.
Wow. It's like I've stepped back into the 19th century.
So, tell us some more about the evil poor. Maybe a little social Darwinism and white man's burden too.
Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, there's a bit of a problem with how some people (e.g., KenHR here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134653&postcount=37)) 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..
I tend to side with the "other hand" here (and with KenHR), and generally feel that the Forge focus on "moral statements" is a matter of focusing on method as opposed to the real goal. After all, they didn't name their leading website "Moral Statements"- they named it Story Games.
Quote from: Elliot WilenUnder this aesthetic, the mechanical rules are basically just expressions of areas where the group does not wish to rely purely on human input/judgment. (E.g., rolling a die to see if you find a secret door, because there are limits to the ability of the GM to describe the room, limits to the ability of the player to realistically control the character's action, etc.)
Again, the Make Believe or "freeform" interaction of (1) and (2) was the original heart of hobby RPGs, and--of course--its presence means that "thematic play" is always possible...with the right group of people, right attitude, etc.
A concept that I attempted to explain some years back with my article on Layers (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html). The Forge rejects all this, seeing only the Game Layer or at best Near-Game.
They remind me of a child with a hammer swatting ants, completely unaware that it could be used to build cathedrals.
Sounds like fun to me....SOLD!
Wow. The Forgies must be getting really desperate for attention.
RPGPundit
Quote from: gleichmanI tend to side with the "other hand" here
I do, too. Malcolm Sheppard had a blog post a while back called something like "Food First, Morals Follow Later", where he makes a similar point. [Edit: Malcolm's hidden or deleted much of his livejournal, so only the original post, without the comments, is viewable over at shootingdice here (http://shootingdice.blogspot.com/2006/03/food-is-first-thing-morals-follow-on.html).]
QuoteA concept that I attempted to explain some years back with my article on Layers (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html). The Forge rejects all this, seeing only the Game Layer or at best Near-Game.
At least the most radical (often the newly-converted) Narrativists do. Not all--though, should I name them? Or would they then risk being seen as "giving ground to the enemy" and then either lose cred in their community, or start self-censoring?
I remain highly amused at the unsophisticated Puritanism displayed here and elsewhere. Like it or not, it is the 21st century. At least Pierce does some philosophical justification to back up his squeamishness.
Quote from: droogI remain highly amused at the unsophisticated Puritanism displayed here and elsewhere. Like it or not, it is the 21st century. At least Pierce does some philosophical justification to back up his squeamishness.
Oh I'm not squeamish, baby. Renegade pastor Baker is. He can't face meaninglessness. He needs to call it the devil.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh I'm not squeamish, baby. Renegade pastor Baker is. He can't face meaninglessness. He needs to call it the devil.
As I've said to you before--it's everywhere. You should watch more TV.
I thought your points were more about aesthetics than morality, but I didn't want to get into some big thing about the relationship.
Just to point out the obvious here, there is a world of difference between competitive playing and fucking people over. Its really hard to justify playing a game that encourages the fucking over since players usually don't like to be fucked over. Even on a one-shot lark, because you'd hope your players would have enough common decency to feel unsatisfied and dirty afterwards. But hey, the ones who enjoy shit like this would also enjoy FATAL and d20 Blood and Faith.
Paranoia doesn't come into the equation, its a parody game designed for humor. I see no humorous intent with Poison'd besides the author laughing at those who defend his crap.
You've got to draw the line somewhere on what is in good taste and what isn't. This is just another place where I draw my line and say that I find the game in poor taste and don't think that it would survive on the open market. If that means that having personal standards leaves me labeled as morally righteous, then so be it.
I'm personally really sick of obvious lowest common denominator sensationalism masquerading as good game design in order to virally market an odious piece of crap as a game.
Quote from: walkerpWell now that's a whole nother argument. I wasn't naming any particular names, I just saw a lot of "that's sick" comments. Pointless moralizing, in my opinion.
"Moralizing" isn't always pointless.
Sometimes something good comes out of it.
...but yeah, that scene described in the actual play example IS sick.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat was that point you were making about GTA again?
:D
Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, what it does is deflect the real horror of violence by making it an excuse for syrupy soul-searching. As in: "Gee whiz, I sure feel deep fucking that throat. Ain't I a conflicted, twenty-first century angsty middle-class snowflake (with a dash of nineteenth-century Christianity for added weirdness)."
What GTA does is deflect the real horror of violence by making it an excuse for brutal machismo, As in: "Damn, I sure feel bad ass punking that bitch. Ain't I a hardcore, ain't I G'd up. (with a dash of Capitalism for added flavor.)"
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs somebody called it in that Holocaust RPG thread we had: emo tourism, masquerading as profundity.
Somebody didn't call it, I assume, but they should have: hood tourism, masquerading as street cred
Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou want the real thing, don't chicken out, dare go there. Read American Psycho. Read Dispatches. Check out that TV interview with the Iceman. Watch the odd documentary on atrocities. Those things are nearly unbearable. Poison'd fails not because it's brutal but because it's not brutal enough.
Do I really need to go on? Watch the news, listen to the radio, head to any reasonably sized metropolitan area. These things are unbearable. Soon GTA will seem benign, as video games continue to get more and more brutal.
So is it a little more clear now?
droog, you missed my point, sorry.
Quote from: Pierce Inveraritydroog, you missed my point, sorry.
I don't think so.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, what it does is deflect the real horror of violence by making it an excuse for syrupy soul-searching. As in: "Gee whiz, I sure feel deep fucking that throat. Ain't I a conflicted, twenty-first century angsty middle-class snowflake (with a dash of nineteenth-century Christianity for added weirdness)."
As somebody called it in that Holocaust RPG thread we had: emo tourism, masquerading as profundity.
You want the real thing, don't chicken out, dare go there. Read American Psycho. Read Dispatches. Check out that TV interview with the Iceman. Watch the odd documentary on atrocities. Those things are nearly unbearable. Poison'd fails not because it's brutal but because it's not brutal enough.
What was that point you were making about GTA again?
Excellent post Pierce, I think you're correct.
It's sophomoric philosophy, to use an Americanism, philosophy-lite, phatic philosophy.
American Psycho, Dispatches, Brighton Rock, The Talented Mr Ripley (the book and not the sequels to it either), Clockwork Orange, these are books which deal with atrocities and terrible crimes in a genuinely adult fashion. They contain horror and are horrific, but challenge us also by making it human.
By contrast, challenging Forge stuff is basically 14 year olds showing how edgy they are. It's pampered rich folk playing at experiencing the world's underbelly, it's disaster tourism (which sadly now really exists, people pay to go on guided tours of warzones to see what's happening on the ground, how sick is that?). This is the gaming equivalent.
The only Forge game I've seen produce actual plays that if converted into another medium I would think anything other than formulaic shite is Primetime Adventures, which contains no mechanics forcing this kind of crap at all.
Incidentally, I saw My Life with Master get mentioned above, it's half-rpg half boardgame and is actually a lot of fun. I wouldn't put it at all in the same camp, if you like gothic horror and feel like a light hearted couple of hours recreating the genre it works pretty well. I don't know if it's quite an rpg, but it is a fun game and it doesn't merit being in this particular company.
Movements are big things, even narrow minded movements like this one, Paul Czege produces quality stuff regardless of what the folk he hangs out with produce, and I still personally think PTA is a brilliant piece of game design.
Oh and Droog, I'm Scottish, of course I'm a fucking puritan :D
So in this Poison'd game, the conflicts are mostly player vs. player? The guy who was neck-fucked was a PC not an NPC?
Quote from: chuckles:D
What GTA does is deflect the real horror of violence by making it an excuse for brutal machismo, As in: "Damn, I sure feel bad ass punking that bitch. Ain't I a hardcore, ain't I G'd up. (with a dash of Capitalism for added flavor.)"
Somebody didn't call it, I assume, but they should have: hood tourism, masquerading as street cred
Do I really need to go on? Watch the news, listen to the radio, head to any reasonably sized metropolitan area. These things are unbearable. Soon GTA will seem benign, as video games continue to get more and more brutal.
So is it a little more clear now?
I didn't take Pierce as defending GTA actually.
I will though, it's a fun game, good art defeats bad morality for me every time. If Dogs were a better game it's adolescent morality wouldn't trouble me.
And it's not about the fantasy of being a gangsta, it's about open gameplay with tons of features which make no real sense but which are tons of fun and some really solid design of challenges and use of evocative art styles. Though the spacing of save points is a fucking bitch and there's no excuse for them on the PC. The thing people frequently miss with the GTA series is irrespective of its content, it's an incredibly well designed game.
Funny, chuckles doesn't get the point, either.
Head to a metropolitan area? Thanks for the advice, I lived in East Harlem for three months. The diff between GTA and that pirate shit is the former isn't claiming to teach a tacky lesson about the human con-FUCKING-dition.
But it doesn't register. Dingdong, nobody home. And so, I'm throwing my hands in the air theatrically, side with Settembrini and say: Exceptions proving the rule, a whole generation has been emotionally soap-operatified. -> Watch LESS tv. There's no real violence on there.
EDIT: Balbinus, we miss you! :D
Ripley and Clockwork Orange are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I don't know Brighton Rock, but I guess I should...
What is so wrong with calling sick stuff...well "sick stuff" ?
I'd never want to game with someone who thought that violating an NPC's corpse made him a better gamer - Thats a twisted(WRONg twisted) individual I don't want at my game table.
To use that example to promote a game is almost equally wrong.
Why can't these FORGE "designers" just get therapists and not inflict their games on the world?
- Ed C.
Quote from: BalbinusBy contrast, challenging Forge stuff is basically 14 year olds showing how edgy they are. It's pampered rich folk playing at experiencing the world's underbelly, it's disaster tourism (which sadly now really exists, people pay to go on guided tours of warzones to see what's happening on the ground, how sick is that?). This is the gaming equivalent.
Absolutely. Which is why i posted this to pundits thread about 'the most mature thing you're done in gaming'
Well, there's 'adult' and then there's 'mature'. Those two words do seem to get switched around a lot with 'adult' being more likely to be stuff that an adolescent would consider 'mature'.
Quote from: jeff37923As cute as this latest Forge advertising thread is, a game that encourages its players via mechanics to deliberately fuck over each other in game will not be commercially viable because it will turn off most of its potential buyers. So, with this in mind, I'd like people to remember this shining example of a Forge game when someone whines about why most indie games don't sell and why game store owners won't carry them.
It's so commercially unviable that it sold out it's run at GenCon. :)
One of the copies that was sold there was bought by yours truly. And to say that people are mischaracterizing this game is a massive understatement.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityFunny, chuckles doesn't get the point, either.
Head to a metropolitan area? Thanks for the advice, I lived in East Harlem for three months. The diff between GTA and that pirate shit is the former isn't claiming to teach a tacky lesson about the human con-FUCKING-dition.
But it doesn't register. Dingdong, nobody home. And so, I'm throwing my hands in the air theatrically, side with Settembrini and say: Exceptions proving the rule, a whole generation has been emotionally soap-operatified. -> Watch LESS tv. There's no real violence on there.
EDIT: Balbinus, we miss you! :D
Ripley and Clockwork Orange are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I don't know Brighton Rock, but I guess I should...
You should read Brighton Rock, definitely. Graham Greene at his incredibly depressing finest. I'm part way through Hangover Square by Patrick Hamilton currently which may also be worthwhile, you me and Droog should start a decent literature thread (decent as in not shite) over on Off Topic some time, Droog knows his books too.
You have to watch with Greene by the way, blink and you can miss one line that changes the whole book. A lot of folk still think Our Man in Havana has a happy ending when the ending if you actually pay attention is tragic.
Personally incidentally I grew up in what you would call in the US the projects, a truly shitty low rise council estate in one of the poorer parts of London, almost everyone unemployed and heavy drug use and crime. GTA is a fantasy, it has nothing to do with that (not that I know the American experience of course, but I do know what poverty is like and it's not dayglo). You don't need personal experience to see that though, I don't believe one need experience something to be able to take a view on it.
Does the game claim to provide moral lessons about the bad stuff? Does it talk about exploring themes of depravity and violence?
I ask because I haven't seen anything about the game itself and I think a lot of people are extrapolating or making assumptions just because it's an "indie" game. DitV didn't do any moralizing or try to make deep psychological statements about conflict.
Maybe it just encourages the players to go for it (it being the evil, depraved extreme).
I'm just curious, because if it does, I'm interested. If it's about exploring what that means or whatever, than I'm not.
Quote from: RezendevousIt's so commercially unviable that it sold out it's run at GenCon. :)
One of the copies that was sold there was bought by yours truly. And to say that people are mischaracterizing this game is a massive understatement.
To be fair, it was fans that mischaracterised it.
That said, I prefer internet discussions based on ignorance, they're more fun, it's why I love the 4e stuff so much. We don't get guys like you there bringing facts into play and killing the fun. My ideal thread is a bitter flamewar about a game that never actually gets released.
Ah well, it was too good to last, I'm guessing the players in that rpg.net thread brought that shit to the game and it's not necessarily there in the written text any more than it is in say Cyberpunk. Would I be right?
Quote from: BalbinusTo be fair, it was fans that mischaracterised it.
That said, I prefer internet discussions based on ignorance, they're more fun, it's why I love the 4e stuff so much. We don't get guys like you there bringing facts into play and killing the fun. My ideal thread is a bitter flamewar about a game that never actually gets released.
Ah well, it was too good to last, I'm guessing the players in that rpg.net thread brought that shit to the game and it's not necessarily there in the written text any more than it is in say Cyberpunk. Would I be right?
Yep, they did first, but that doesn't excuse people doing that here. People shouldn't make judgments about games until they've actually played them (which is why I'm trying really hard to take what I'm hearing about 4E with a grain of salt), or at the very least read the game themselves.
And yes, it's not there in the game unless you bring it yourself. No neck-fucking rules in the copy I have, at least. :)
*double post*
Quote from: Pierce InverarityHead to a metropolitan area? Thanks for the advice, I lived in East Harlem for three months. The diff between GTA and that pirate shit is the former isn't claiming to teach a tacky lesson about the human con-FUCKING-dition.
But the similarity is that they can both be fun. And that, being as how this is a game, is the point.
I understand your problem, I just don't find it very important.
Yes but according to the descriptions in that thread ...the game rewards brutality and appears to encourage it.
No thank you.
That stuff is for bad guy/evil NPCs that I want my players to dislike - NOT for the players to be involved in.
- Ed C.
Quote from: RezendevousYep, they did first, but that doesn't excuse people doing that here. People shouldn't make judgments about games until they've actually played them (which is why I'm trying really hard to take what I'm hearing about 4E with a grain of salt), or at the very least read the game themselves.
And yes, it's not there in the game unless you bring it yourself. No neck-fucking rules in the copy I have, at least. :)
You are officially no fun at all.
I've looked at the original thread now too, as best I can tell it's a group's actual play that brought in the saddo edgy stuff, not the game as written.
I do still think it's adolescent and emo-tourism as someone wonderfully said up above. But I'm talking about a style of play now, not about the actual written game.
I've seen similar Dogs threads, people boasting about how kewl it was when their character blew some kid away (in a non-sexual sense I believe), it just comes across as a bit patheticand pampered, but I owned Dogs and nothing in it requires that.
Quote from: KoltarYes but according to the descriptions in that thread ...the game rewards brutality and appears to encourage it.
No thank you.
That stuff is for bad guy/evil NPCs that I want my players to dislike - NOT for the players to be involved in.
- Ed C.
At the risk of taking the Forge side for a moment, that's a reason for not buying certainly but is it any more than that? Is it ultimately any different to that d20 tome of ultimate evil (apparent from probably better designed and written)?
Quote from: BalbinusI didn't take Pierce as defending GTA actually.
I will though, it's a fun game, good art defeats bad morality for me every time. If Dogs were a better game it's adolescent morality wouldn't trouble me.
And it's not about the fantasy of being a gangsta, it's about open gameplay
I've only played GTA III, not all the way through, and I will cop to enjoying the content; in fact, I think that elements of the gameplay ultimately soured me on the game sooner than the content did. (I.e., I gave up on sniping that dude over at the waterfront, it was just too hard, while in terms of gameplay I think I enjoy 1st/3rd person shooters, RTS, and flight sims better.)
But did I take the content
seriously? No, I took it as a seriously
ironic take on both modern urban life and on pop-media portrayals of street life and organized crime. In short, pretty irresponsible, playful, dark comedy, more
Pulp Fiction than
Scarface. (And I love
Pulp Fiction, while
Scarface left me cold at best.)
Quote from: BalbinusAt the risk of taking the Forge side for a moment, that's a reason for not buying certainly but is it any more than that? Is it ultimately any different to that d20 tome of ultimate evil (apparent from probably better designed and written)?
Bzzt. Wrong. Quite a lot of people were just as displeased with books like Book of Erotic Fantasy and Book of Vile Darkness, and seemed to feel they were juvenile wastes of paper.
Quote from: J ArcaneBzzt. Wrong. Quite a lot of people were just as displeased with books like Book of Erotic Fantasy and Book of Vile Darkness, and seemed to feel they were juvenile wastes of paper.
Fair point.
Reading the rpg.net thread, it's just Ian and Hollian pushing the being edgy is fun angle isn't it? I don't really see anyone else there doing that though I admit I didn't have the will for the whole thing.
I mean, if they hadn't boasted (I suspect in full knowledge of what would happen) of how evil their characters were we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?
It's not the game, it's Ian actively engaged in viral marketing, rather successfully to in one sense his credit (though not a credit I would wish myself). We know almost nothing about the game, all we know is that Ian is a skilled viral marketer.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI've only played GTA III, not all the way through, and I will cop to enjoying the content; in fact, I think that elements of the gameplay ultimately soured me on the game sooner than the content did. (I.e., I gave up on sniping that dude over at the waterfront, it was just too hard, while in terms of gameplay I think I enjoy 1st/3rd person shooters, RTS, and flight sims better.)
But did I take the content seriously? No, I took it as a seriously ironic take on both modern urban life and on pop-media portrayals of street life and organized crime. In short, pretty irresponsible, playful, dark comedy, more Pulp Fiction than Scarface. (And I love Pulp Fiction, while Scarface left me cold at best.)
I'd agree with all of that.
And yeah, some of the gameplay is not so good, it's just much of it is so great I keep pushing on, but at times I want to throw it at the wall.
Curiously, I did get more moral reaction with CoD2 which I finished last night, at times the sheer amount of killing did weary me and leave me feeling a bit revulsed, but then I got attacked by more enemies and had to fire too quickly to dwell on the point.
Quote from: J ArcaneWow. It's like I've stepped back into the 19th century.
So, tell us some more about the evil poor. Maybe a little social Darwinism and white man's burden too.
You made me chuckle. If this was TBP I'd tell you to take the laugh point.
Quote from: droogI remain highly amused at the unsophisticated Puritanism displayed here and elsewhere. Like it or not, it is the 21st century. At least Pierce does some philosophical justification to back up his squeamishness.
Ahem.
Just because people in this day and age (and in all ages previously) do cut people's heads off and rape their neck holes, or firebomb villages, or slowly flay the skin of keetoms in their basements, does NOT mean that it has to be paraded about as an example of how sophisticated and "edgy" someone is. I'm fairly certain that most psychologists would say that people who are NOT at least slightly put off by such things are the kind of folks that society needs to keep an eye on.
Watching "Faces of Death" in the privacy of your home is one thing. Thinking yourself more enlightened than the plebs outside your door for doing so is another. Parading up and down the street showing it on a portable TV and tooting your own horn while doing so is yet another.
Quote from: WerekoalaAhem.
Just because people in this day and age (and in all ages previously) do cut people's heads off and rape their neck holes, or firebomb villages, or slowly flay the skin of keetoms in their basements, does NOT mean that it has to be paraded about as an example of how sophisticated and "edgy" someone is. I'm fairly certain that most psychologists would say that people who are NOT at least slightly put off by such things are the kind of folks that society needs to keep an eye on.
Oh, lighten up!
Quote from: BalbinusI've seen similar Dogs threads, people boasting about how kewl it was when their character blew some kid away (in a non-sexual sense I believe), it just comes across as a bit patheticand pampered, but I owned Dogs and nothing in it requires that.
True, again look to David R's post.
Quote from: RezendevousIt's so commercially unviable that it sold out it's run at GenCon.
If the print run is only 20 copies then that doesn't say much.
Quote from: RezendevousOne of the copies that was sold there was bought by yours truly. And to say that people are mischaracterizing this game is a massive understatement.
So here's your chance to change my opinion. Tell me about the game and why I'm mischaracterizing it. In your own words, of course.
Quote from: gleichman1. 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.
It'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. For example, old Uncle Ronny told us that if you had no fun playing D&D or
Vampire or whatever, it's because those games are fucked-up and made you crazy. But if you had no fun playing
Sorcerer, it's because you didn't
understand it, man.
Me, as you all know I say, "fuck system, people matter." Your game session is an expression of
you. So if your game is twisted and fucked-up, it's you. If your game session is brilliant and interesting and fun, it's you. You, the player or GM, get the blame and the credit for everything that happens at the game table. The system's just a tool.
Some tools are better or wose for some jobs than others, but in the end it's a bad tradesman who blames his tools, and a modest tradesman who credits them. People matter to the outcome of a game session much much more than any system.
Quote from: walkerpit sounds like many of the people over there are expressing the same kind of kneejerk faux-morality that I'm hearing here. It's a natural human reaction for us wealthy citizens of the world. Theory doesn't come into play.
You're a fuckstick.
Quote from: BalbinusCuriously, I did get more moral reaction with CoD2 which I finished last night, at times the sheer amount of killing did weary me and leave me feeling a bit revulsed, but then I got attacked by more enemies and had to fire too quickly to dwell on the point.
Is 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.
Quote from: KoltarWhat is so wrong with calling sick stuff...well "sick stuff" ?
I'd never want to game with someone who thought that violating an NPC's corpse made him a better gamer - Thats a twisted(WRONg twisted) individual I don't want at my game table.
To use that example to promote a game is almost equally wrong.
This is my point of view as well.
It also breaks RPG.net's rules:
Quote from: RPG.net Rules & GuidelinesRule 5: Respect the audience. Do not post pornography and/or anything that can be considered inappropriate graphic sexual content in any format; this includes detailed descriptions of sex acts. Do not post links to pornography or otherwise inappropriate sexually explicit sites.
Yes, well, rules only apply to those not in the Clique over there, as I'm sure you know. :)
Actually, 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?
No and no.
Rpg.net is not Forge home turf, not by any stretch.
Ian Noble started the thread. He's generally a good guy, and most certainly not a shill, as somebody upthread suggested who clearly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
The only GTA I've played is Vice City and part of its sequel, and those remind me of RoboCop.
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 (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=7752810&postcount=251) 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.
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 (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=7752810&postcount=251) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134653&postcount=37)) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6569), 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.
Quote from: jeff37923If the print run is only 20 copies then that doesn't say much.
So here's your chance to change my opinion. Tell me about the game and why I'm mischaracterizing it. In your own words, of course.
I have no idea what size the print run was, but there appeared to be more than 20 copies at the booth when I bought it (it's in pamphlet form, since it's just an ashcan at this point).
As for the game, I think I'll write a review of it, preferably after a playtest game.
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.
Oh there's more to that leap than that simple dodge you either knowingly or unknowingly made there.
DitV is basically the exact same product and attempt as
Poison'd- making a game that explores "how far will you go". The only difference is that it picked a subject that wouldn't by it's natue immediately go as far as fast.
Quote from: One Horse TownConsidering 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.
Excellent point.
Quote from: KenHRTo imagine that this can be legislated from the outset by a set of rules is dubious at best, dishonest at worst.
I agree with everything in your post; however, the mechanics of Forge-y games do accomplish something, it's just not something as sexy as reliably producing the next
Godfather or
Taxi Driver. Namely, they arbitrate the moment-to-moment question of who has narrative authority, and some of them even include a formal feedback system where you tend to get more authority if the other players like what you do with it. (No, they don't do this perfectly; it's often still possible within the formal mechanics to try an end-run. E.g., in
Dogs, you could make ridiculous Raises or try to declare a conflict that resolves the whole scenario in one go. Or in
Polaris you could simply narrate stuff that contradicts or undercuts whatever the people to your right and left have done, as long as the person opposite you agrees.)
The people playing still need to be socially and aesthetically compatible, but if we take that as given--and in some ways, this is accomplished through culture-formation among Forge fans--the power-sharing undoubtedly has benefits (note, benefits, not necessarily advantages over traditional games), while the arbitration at least offers a way to avoid unintentional "power struggle" compared to freeform rules-less collaborative storytelling.
QuoteThe 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.
I think it could do better, but again, it would depend on the players. The game can also help by including excellent advice & guidelines, or analysis and criticism of genre sources. Thus the "rules" for town creation in
Dogs are a useful structure (even if they'll still yield trite situations in the hands of a hack), and the analysis of S&S (esp. as compared with generic or "Tolkien" fantasy) in
Sorcerer and Sword is pretty useful (not to mention the campaign examples). But those are things that most people would see as "fluff" which could be applied to any game, Forge-y or not.
Quote from: Kyle AaronMaybe, 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.
As an aside, I think it was a woman who narrated that bit at the demo...
EDIT:
Quote from: HollianI apologize for my general fucked-upness. I am aware that rape is not cool. There's a whole other thread possible on why we say sick things and find them funny, but I do and mostly get away with it because I'm a girl.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI agree with everything in your post; however, the mechanics of Forge-y games do accomplish something, it's just not something as sexy as reliably producing the next Godfather or Taxi Driver.
I think the simple statement of your post comes down to this- it provides an illusion that they are doing something they think is art.
Hey, they may very well produce art (or rather quality stories combined with a meaningful shared experience, I'm not very enthusiastic about the "is it art?" debate). It's just that the game itself doesn't guarantee it; to be snarky, which is the road we're going down now, you could say the game provides cover for believing you're doing something great and meaningful even if you aren't, or for justifying what happens in-game by appealing to the same authority/insecurity dynamic which is often used to justify stuff like a $100 million diamond-studded platinum skull.
Quote from: Elliot WilenHey, they may very well produce art (or rather quality stories combined with a meaningful shared experience, I'm not very enthusiastic about the "is it art?" debate). It's just that the game itself doesn't guarantee it; to be snarky, which is the road we're going down now, you could say the game provides cover for believing you're doing something great and meaningful even if you aren't, or for justifying what happens in-game by appealing to the same authority/insecurity dynamic which is often used to justify stuff like a $100 million diamond-studded platinum skull.
So this is more of a debate as to whether the games are high art or low art?
Quote from: Kyle AaronMaybe, 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.
I've gotten the impression that the circle of gamers is fairly large, but kind of spread out, with smaller sub-sections kinda spread across long distances.
Games tend to be at conventions or small groups at home. In a lot of ways, not much different then the situation for lots of gamers, except it's a small group that games according to a subset of theory, and so the one group is nearly fully representative.
Quote from: BalbinusBut 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.
That was just incredible. Best computer game moment I remember having.
QuoteIncidentally, 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.
Yes, stated like that it's true, but there's a difference between enthusiastically if misguidedly posting about a game and being a snake-oil merchant. And that diff is a function of competence. Ian has played a vast range of games. The kool-aid faction are clueless 25-year-olds who no longer even know what *nineties* games were all about.
I don't have much to say about the game in particular. It's a Vincent Baker design, so it most probably has issues in play anyway. I'm not too outraged by the themes, although this definitly isn't my cup of tea.
But I find the contrast between the reactions to FATAL and Poison'd on rpg.net to be very enlightnening.
Really makes me happy I'm not posting there anymore.
I know this is going to sound like heresy but after RPGsite, my second favorite forum is quickly becoming story-games.
RPG.net is now strictly a "what's new" ressource for me. It's so big that it pretty much garantees they break many news. But as far as actual discussions? It wasn't worth posting anymore and now, it's isn't even worth reading for me.
PS, wow it's all about art now. Well, have fun with all that, but as someone who deals with this professionally I've seen very, very few real artists in the RPG scene. Gene Weigel is definitely one, and I'm not referring to his cyclops drawing skills (which aren't bad, mind you), ditto in a different way David Johansen. But the Forge... I can't think of one, frankly... there may be one or two around, but they get buried under all these ISSSUES, like "ediginess" and all that shit. So, the pretenses, so far from actually being the art, make the art so much harder to spot.
Quote from: John MorrowAnother article you might be interested in on this topic, and relevant RPGs, too:
http://hollylisle.com/fm/Workshops/suckitudinous.html
Yessss... Embrace the Tapioca, brother, and join the Gray Side of the Force.Yup, that would be what I'm talking about, there. Thanks for the linkie.
:)
I received this link from someone recently and thought it may have some bearing on this: The Secret Source of Suckitudinousness (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/08/the-history-of-.html). I suspect this has at least *something* to do with all the Story-Nihilism spewing out of Hollywood, the News/Mass Media and Game Industry. :eek:
In any event, I maintain that Good Story is the best counter-attack, and Great Story is even better. The cognisant dissonance comes in, however, when I try to contemplate: Why it is that those who are promoting "Narrativist - Story Games" (who I should think *would* be natural allies in the Quest for Great Story) would also be the same ones championing Suckitudinousness in the form of
Poisonous Games... ??
*
Zzzzzzot!* Synaptic Melt Down.
What the fuck is so great about art?
For myself, as a good hardcore Nietzschean, to name the guy who's not so strangely absent from that website even though it was he who put the term on the seriously philosophical map, I consider "stories" in general to be nihilist. Very much including "good" ones.
Nihilism is a hatred for the world fueled by fear--the fear that the world is not made for humans, that it doesn't bow to their wishes, that the meaning they map onto it is just that, an add-on that sometimes comes off, and what's laid bare at that moment is not pretty.
Vincent Baker's moralization of the meaninglessness of violence is an example for that fear. His remedy: story. You may commit the most atrocious act of violence... but at least you go to hell for that. So it wasn't all in vein. There's some real meaning to be had here--punishment, torment and all the rest of it.
In other words, nihilism is not about the edgy erosion of "values" (which doesn't happen in Poison'd, given its moralism). It's about trying to glue values to the world until it looks tolerable.
So it's not okay to criticize other people's playstyle or systems of choice, but it is okay to judge them based on the moral content of their games?
Talk about having it both ways.
I guess we're creatively relativists but moral absolutists here on therpgsite.
Quote from: walkerpSo it's not okay to criticize other people's playstyle or systems of choice, but it is okay to judge them based on the moral content of their games?
Talk about having it both ways.
Playstyle and moral contents are two entirely different matters, so I don't see the connection you're trying to make at all.
(And no, I'm not particularly outraged by Poison'd. But playstyle is apple and moral content is orange)
Quote from: walkerpSo it's not okay to criticize other people's playstyle or systems of choice, but it is okay to judge them based on the moral content of their games?
Talk about having it both ways.
I guess we're creatively relativists but moral absolutists here on therpgsite.
Somehow, I don't think you'd be defending this game so adamantly if it were d20, walkerp.
Quote from: jeff37923Somehow, I don't think you'd be defending this game so adamantly if it were d20, walkerp.
...Also, if the same scene were described as taking place in a D20 game - I still would not ever want to play with the people that enjoyed such a bit of roleplay.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar...Also, if the same scene were described as taking place in a D20 game - I still would not ever want to play with the people that enjoyed such a bit of roleplay.
- Ed C.
Agreed.
That's why I condemn d20 tripe like
Faith and Blood as well. I don't think a game should be designed that supports sociopathic behavior in play that isn't a parody.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat was just incredible. Best computer game moment I remember having.
Moments like that are why I play computer games, we should chat about great gaming moments in the electronic gaming forum, usually I find online everyone just talks about games that are only on consoles (I play on the PC) and often just about japanese console rpgs which I don't play and to be honest which sound way too scripted for my tastes (nothing against them, they just don't grab me).
CoD, CoD2 in that wonderful scene where the lieutenant is wondering what to do and some guy says "let's go" and then you're all charging up the hill, Halo the first time the battle music kicks in, truly great stuff.
Note: Haven't read 19 pages of this thread; this post is responding to the OP. I assume by this point the conversation has drifted pirates versus ninja or something and my response is purely irrelevant.
But that's never stopped me from posting in the past.
...
One of the reasons it's "demanding and painful" to talk about RPG criticism online is that the thought that comes out of the forge is incoherent (and I mean that in the normal, not-logical, doesn't-make-sense meaning of the word).
Brian points out the example (a good one) from the thread ref'd in the OP.
What you have to understand is that the less coherent the theory is, the better it actually works for what it's really used for: judging other people's fun.
A real, cogent, theory wouldn't give them the results they're looking for (a claim of superiority) -- it would, mostly, suggest they're doing what everyone else is... well almost: I've *never* played in a game like that. If I had, I wouldn't be proud of it.
I have heard about "evil" games where people get off on atrocity. I thought it was a strictly adolescent thing.
Apparently, for the indie crowd, it's not.
Hmm.
-E.
Quote from: gleichmanOh there's more to that leap than that simple dodge you either knowingly or unknowingly made there.
DitV is basically the exact same product and attempt as Poison'd- making a game that explores "how far will you go". The only difference is that it picked a subject that wouldn't by it's natue immediately go as far as fast.
And your point is...?
Quote from: walkerpSo it's not okay to criticize other people's playstyle or systems of choice, but it is okay to judge them based on the moral content of their games?
Talk about having it both ways.
I guess we're creatively relativists but moral absolutists here on therpgsite.
Let's keep something in sight here--we're not talking about some grey-area moral issue here, such as a heroine agonzing over an abortion or someone stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.
We're talking about decapitating, throatfucking pedophilia.
I don't give a shit about art, shock value, relative morality, or whatever other cards folks want to play. If folks want to try to be edgy and play devil's advocate and shill for the game by being "outrageous" and defending it or whatever, hey, its your time. But I have to say I'd be pretty disturbed if folks weren't, well, disturbed, by that sort of sociopathic such-and-such.
OK, seriously, done with the topic now.
Quote from: walkerpSo it's not okay to criticize other people's playstyle or systems of choice, but it is okay to judge them based on the moral content of their games?
Talk about having it both ways.
I guess we're creatively relativists but moral absolutists here on therpgsite.
I don't need to be a relativist to expect criticism to make sense and to expect the principles used to criticize to be consistent.
RPG theory doesn't make sense and isn't applied consistently by its advocates -- that's the whole point of this thread.
There are frameworks of moral judgment -- deontological ones -- that can be applied consistently (and they make sense if you accept the foundational axioms).
People in the business of RPG criticism should get their own house in order before they set forth into the world; they'll get a better reception that way.
Anyone who doesn't expect to be judged for talking in public about how they raped a decapitated head is a moron.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstLet's keep something in sight here--we're not talking about some grey-area moral issue here, such as a heroine agonzing over an abortion or someone stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family.
We're talking about decapitating, throatfucking pedophilia.
I don't give a shit about art, shock value, relative morality, or whatever other cards folks want to play. If folks want to try to be edgy and play devil's advocate and shill for the game by being "outrageous" and defending it or whatever, hey, its your time. But I have to say I'd be pretty disturbed if folks weren't, well, disturbed, by that sort of sociopathic such-and-such.
Thing is, we're not talking about real things. We're talking about fiction.
I've heard things just as bad come out of the mouths of my own friends. In fact, I think one of my friends independently invented the neck-rape in a game called 'What's My Perversion?' (think yes/no questions). Maybe I'm old and jaded, but you know, it's just not shocking. It's certainly not 'edgy', what ever that means this week. It might be funny, depending on content and delivery.
Honestly, some of you need to lighten up. There are terrible things going on every day. How can you get so hot about some chick taking it a bit far in a game?
And the first week I ran D&D, the players were committing atrocities. Sure, they were on orcs and kobolds, but at that point I could have gone well fuck, D&D makes people act like dipshits.
Quote from: droogThing is, we're not talking about real things. We're talking about fiction.
I've heard things just as bad come out of the mouths of my own friends. In fact, I think one of my friends independently invented the neck-rape in a game called 'What's My Perversion?' (think yes/no questions). Maybe I'm old and jaded, but you know, it's just not shocking. It's certainly not 'edgy', what ever that means this week. It might be funny, depending on content and delivery.
Honestly, some of you need to lighten up. There are terrible things going on every day. How can you get so hot about some chick taking it a bit far in a game?
And the first week I ran D&D, the players were committing atrocities. Sure, they were on orcs and kobolds, but at that point I could have gone well fuck, D&D makes people act like dipshits.
Why do you keep leaving out the pedophilia?
Cuz, you know, that could be
real funny. Depending on content and delivery, of course.
Quote from: droogThing is, we're not talking about real things. We're talking about fiction.
Calling something "fiction" does not give it a blanket excuse or out. Sick shit is still well,
sick shit.QuoteI've heard things just as bad come out of the mouths of my own friends. In fact, I think one of my friends independently invented the neck-rape in a game called 'What's My Perversion?' .......
...and you're still friends with them....interesting.
QuoteAnd the first week I ran D&D, the players were committing atrocities. Sure, they were on orcs and kobolds, but at that point I could have gone well fuck, D&D makes people act like dipshits.
No people and GMs can act like dipshits or let their players act like dipshits. its not the game.
(Tho some games might set up tables and charts that encourage it)If you and your um...friends chose to act stupid ...then that was your choice to act adolescent or even less mature than that.
- Ed C.
Quote from: droogThing is, we're not talking about real things. We're talking about fiction.
I've heard things just as bad come out of the mouths of my own friends. In fact, I think one of my friends independently invented the neck-rape in a game called 'What's My Perversion?' (think yes/no questions). Maybe I'm old and jaded, but you know, it's just not shocking. It's certainly not 'edgy', what ever that means this week. It might be funny, depending on content and delivery.
Honestly, some of you need to lighten up. There are terrible things going on every day. How can you get so hot about some chick taking it a bit far in a game?
And the first week I ran D&D, the players were committing atrocities. Sure, they were on orcs and kobolds, but at that point I could have gone well fuck, D&D makes people act like dipshits.
I don't think anyone's confusing reality with fiction; but people are judged by the fiction they produce.
Now it's true: quality counts and if you're funny or insightful you can get away with a lot... but let's face it: based on what I read in that thread, it sounds like the material we're talking about is a lot more Richard McBeef (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html) than American Psycho (http://www.amazon.com/American-Psycho-Bret-Easton-Ellis/dp/0679735771) (and quality-wise, American Psycho is about as low as I'd go and have my name publicly attached to something).
Part of going public with something is risking being judged. People who aren't willing to accept that risk should keep their role-playing amongst friends. People who expect to brag about this kind of stuff and not get harshly judged for it... well, I already addressed that a couple of posts up.
Cheers,
-E.
It's not pedophilia, Zach. It's somebody making shit up.
Here you go: licking new-born babies was my best effort when we played 'What's My Perversion?' Would you like to paint me as a child-molester now?
[And seeing you edited: I made a table of guys piss themselves laughing with a pedophile joke a couple of weeks ago. Want to hear it?]
Quote from: One Horse TownConsidering 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.
And don't forget that someone else said that his friends played in a demo game that sounded exactly like that example, and it sounded like it was a different demo game. So unless they determined that it was actually the same game, then it sounds like two demos at GenCon went down that route.
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?
There's no victory in this. There's not even a battle. All you're doing is stating your opinion and spreading awareness of the game at the same time. You're not going to change the author's mind, you're not going to stop the game from being produced/sold, and you're not going to keep people who are interested in this sort of game from buying it. In fact, after 20 pages of discussion, I would hazard a guess that, like One Horse Town said, you've actually helped to sell at least one copy of the game. I don't see how you can say that's a victory.
Pete
PS - I'd never buy or play this game, but I probably would never have heard of it either if you hadn't brought it up here. Any publicity is good publicity.
*double post*
Quote from: hgjs*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.
I've met droog, and he's no catpissman. He's just a gamer like everyone else. My impression is that after many years of gaming, he's just always on the lookout for something new and different he can experiment with, but that at the same time his satedness with gaming makes him a bit detached from it, and easy to bore.
So freaky shit will spark his interest!
Quote from: StuartAs an aside, I think it was a woman who narrated that bit at the demo...
And I'd say it's likely that she also doesn't have a regular game group, or at least has a narrower range of gamers to choose from than do people with... less gross tastes in gaming.
I once knew a woman gamer who as GM kept having male PCs' bollocks cut off. She said of the game, "if the character lose Humanity, I want the players to lose some humanity, too!" by which she meant we would be freaked out. But see, horror's a hard thing to do. That's why she as GM, like so many movie-makers, just went for squirm-inducing gore and violence. There were other scenes that I'd rather not recall - I don't watch movies like
Saw, and I'm not interested in that kind of thing in my rpg sessions. And she no longer has a regular game group.
It takes effort, consistently-applied effort, some imagination and rapport to hold a game group together through a whole campaign, and not just have the group fizzle out. Or you have to be offering something else, like a gamer I know who stuck with a horrible campaign because the GM provided great food, and he could swap pirated movies and games with the other players. But anyway, to hold the game group together for a real campaign people remember with any fondness, that takes effort, imagination and some rapport. And from what I've seen, the people who like this gross shit in their game sessions, it just doesn't last. That campaign doesn't last, and neither does the group. And nobody remembers it fondly.
Quote from: Consonant DudeI know this is going to sound like heresy but after RPGsite, my second favorite forum is quickly becoming story-games.
RPG.net is now strictly a "what's new" ressource for me. It's so big that it pretty much garantees they break many news. But as far as actual discussions? It wasn't worth posting anymore and now, it's isn't even worth reading for me.
I can see that. I recently posted to SJGames forum this warp drive idea, idea was
we get a cheap and easy warp drive in the modern day, okay what are the campaign possibilities? But let's ignore any weapon stuff, I said,
I just want to talk about setting and roleplaying stuff. Of course they ignored that and started rabbitting on about blowing shit up. Now, people will still do that sort of thing here, but at least here you can call them cocksmocks and they might go away. At SJGames, the moderated politeness means that genuinely annoying people get to keep yapping. rpg.net's much the same.
So on rpg.net you can talk about how much fun it was in a game session to have your character decapitate a child and fuck his oesphagus, but you can't say, "you're a freak." The result is that the first type of guy hangs around, while others go away. That's like when you've got an annoying gamer in your game group and do nothing so the good gamers get pissed off and leave, and the annoying gamer stays. Not, I think, an optimum result.
Quote from: walkerpSo it's not okay to criticize other people's playstyle or systems of choice, but it is okay to judge them based on the moral content of their games?
I never said it wasn't okay to criticise other people's playstyles. I think
everything's open to criticism - but you should have some basis to that criticism, or admit it's just personal taste.
That said, I think that for most people the distinction is between things that matter and things that don't. Whether you're more hacky or more thespy, like d20 or SotC, those are things that don't really matter. Fantasies of murder, rape, etc - to most people, those things matter.
I think the issue is also public image. We instinctively worry what non-gamers will think of us. Now, if we're just pretending to be elven princesses and noble knights and grumpy dwarves with battleaxes, people will think we're childish and silly, but not nasty. We can handle people laughing at us and our hobby, everyone's hobby gets laughed at by
someone. But if we're pretending to be necrophiliac child rapists, then...
Basically, these kinds of gamers are an embarassment to the gaming world, for the same reasons that the catpissman is. They make us look bad, and are an obstacle to recruiting new gamers. This sort of gamer is the "Achtung! Minen!" sign outside Gamesville. People won't cross that space.
Quote from: jeff37923So this is more of a debate as to whether the games are high art or low art?
The fuck?
No, I'm saying that the "a-word" is all too often deployed as a means of cowing people into discarding their own critical faculties, lest they be seen as yokels, and as a way of shoring up the self-esteem of self-indulgent adolescents.
I was surprised that Vincent took the time to post to the thread, but said nothing about the Actual Play report, or the overall discussion going on. Hopefully he's taking his time to write something well thought out and will post it soon.
Quote from: -E.I don't think anyone's confusing reality with fiction; but people are judged by the fiction they produce.
If they were, there' be a report with law enforcement filed (GenCon was the scene of the crime, etc.).
As is, we're responding with opinion against opinion. That likely means we have reality straight here.
Quote from: droogAnd your point is...?
Beyond you it seems, both morally and Intellectually.
There's a comparison going on in the thread concerned here and elsewhere.
D&D also allows you to be evil and do fucked up things!
Yes, yes, it does, but there's a very large difference between what has been presented with P and d&d and other comparisons.
The 'P' game gives you short term bonuses (apparantly), as well as consequences for commiting the 'sins' presented in the game. We already know that a woman dressing as a man (as boasted in the GenCon AP thread) gets a blasphemy rating for raping a woman dressed as a 'man'; whatever the fuck blasphemy does, no one bothered to address that. The sins affect the core 'personality mechanics' of the game. Be a bastard and you find it difficult to be trusted and be 'kind' later on, but you get a bonus for being a bastard later on.
If i saw the example below in d&d, then i would be convinced of the defense put up that d&d is no different.
Human Pirates
HD 1
AC 15
Attack +2 Cutlass
Damage 1d6 +1
CR 1
Xps 300
Murder, +1 BaB next combat
Rape, +2 Bonus Intimidate, - 2 Penalty Bluff & Dimplomacy
Adultery, + 1 Bonus Bluff, - 1 Sense Motive
etc, etc. There is a difference here. Sure, juveniles can do exactly what they please, but the mechanics of the game do not plug directly in the way that sins do in Poison'd as they have been presented so far.
Note that if such an incident of pedo-necrophilia occurred in real life, their ship mates would kill them for being too untrustworthy to live. Even pirates had a moral code.
Quote from: mythusmageNote that if such an incident of pedo-necrophilia occurred in real life, their ship mates would kill them for being too untrustworthy to live. Even pirates had a moral code.
Wow.... That was often very true.
Wish I had remembered that in this whole debate.....on both forums.
Heck, in real life even criminals in jail treat child molesters as pariahs and often deal out their own version of "justice" to them.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Kyle AaronSo on rpg.net you can talk about how much fun it was in a game session to have your character decapitate a child and fuck his oesphagus, but you can't say, "you're a freak."
Well, close.
You probably couldn't get away with it on RPG.net if you said you used FATAL to fuck the child's head. But using a game by a run-of-the mill, "edgy" pervert-designer? You get a round of applause.
Well, either way - that the mods told me I didn't fit into rpg.net no longer feels like an insult.
Quote from: gleichmanBeyond you it seems, both morally and Intellectually.
Strong response, g, very strong.
Nobody 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.
whoa! I don't want to get in the way of the personal attacks, or anything, but can we talk about the Evil Poor some more? I think they're cool.
Quote from: One Horse TownThere's a comparison going on in the thread concerned here and elsewhere.
D&D also allows you to be evil and do fucked up things!
Yes, yes, it does, but there's a very large difference between what has been presented with P and d&d and other comparisons.
What I find hilarious is that this argument totally blows all of that "system matters" nonsense out of the water. If you can get the same sort of game out of D&D as you can out of Poison'd and there is effectively no difference between the two, then why play Poison'd? Doesn't that mean that system doesn't really matter at all?
I guess system stops mattering the moment it causes a darling game to get blamed for a vile bit of actual play.
Settembrini, you are a paragon of morality and erudition.
Quote from: John MorrowWhat I find hilarious is that this argument totally blows all of that "system matters" nonsense out of the water. If you can get the same sort of game out of D&D as you can out of Poison'd and there is effectively no difference between the two, then why play Poison'd? Doesn't that mean that system doesn't really matter at all?
I guess system stops mattering the moment it causes a darling game to get blamed for a vile bit of actual play.
Well, here we are back to the start of the thread, so I'll explain how I see it.
Obviously, players can have their characters do terrible things in just about any roleplaying game I can think of. In D&D my players bashed orc babies against walls etc, in RQ there was torture now and then, in
Pendragon a player had his chr's knights murder sleeping men, and so on.
So on the level of content, plainly there's little difference. On the level of form, as Pierce likes to remind us, the differences are profound.
Quote from: droogSo on the level of content, plainly there's little difference. On the level of form, as Pierce likes to remind us, the differences are profound.
I don't think that's what they mean when they say "system matters".
Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that's what they mean when they say "system matters".
Do you really want to go through this discussion? It boils down to this: you think it does or not.
Quote from: Kyle AaronI think the issue is also public image. We instinctively worry what non-gamers will think of us.
No, we don't. Or at least not all of us, not anymore.
I came into gaming in the early 80s when the witch-hunt was
on. I don't know how many times that I, as a child mind you, had to explain to adults basic concepts like, "D&D does not teach you real magic. The demons and devils are bad guys in the game. I will not kill myself if my character dies." Much of the time they'd ignore everything I was saying because it was obvious that I'd been indoctrinated into some cult or another if I was actually defending this heinous activity of gaming.
I spent ages 8 through 18 doing this.
After that I spent many years explaining to people that a band called Napalm Death is actually a leftist protest band who took the name as an anti-war statement, and people don't give a fuck - they just want me to stop wearing the damn shirt. (of course there was no defense for the Cannibal Corpse shirt I wore for a number of years, but then again, why did there need to be one?)
I've learned that attempting to please people to not seem like a freak to them just completely neuters the imagination and waters down whatever creative enterprise you're involved in and it won't satisfy the complainers anyway. So to hell with all of them, and to hell with the people telling me I need to worry about what non-gamers think of my gaming, whether I'm playing Superman, Aragorn, My Little Pony, or a child-killing necrophiliac.
"Isn't all that role-playing stuff satanic?"
"Yes. Want to play?"
Quote from: Elliot WilenThe fuck?
No, I'm saying that the "a-word" is all too often deployed as a means of cowing people into discarding their own critical faculties, lest they be seen as yokels, and as a way of shoring up the self-esteem of self-indulgent adolescents.
OK, gotcha.
Quote from: droogAnd your point is...?
I think his point is that 'seeing how far you will go' is a game most of us get over by the time we're about 15. So if people want to get some good ole' juvenile kicks out of revelling in sick shit to gross their buddies out, then fine. Have at it. Just don't pretend you're engaging in anything more sophisticated than burning ants with a magnifying glass. And don't get defensive when people shake their heads at the pretentious gloss you apply to your crude thrills.
Quote from: HaffrungI think his point is that 'seeing how far you will go' is a game most of us get over by the time we're about 15. So if people want to get some good ole' juvenile kicks out of revelling in sick shit to gross their buddies out, then fine. Have at it. Just don't pretend you're engaging in anything more sophisticated than burning ants with a magnifying glass. And don't get defensive when people shake their heads at the pretentious gloss you apply to your crude thrills.
Okay, I won't get defensive.
Now, 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?
So what, you're suggesting I'm not a man because I don't fantasize about decapitating children and fucking the open wound where their head once was?
I mean really, in case anyone's forgotten, this is a goddamn roleplaying game we're talking about here. An act that by nature is essentially nothing more than conscious fantasizing, and this is what you choose to fantasize about? Fucking children's corpses?
And yet somehow we're the fucked up ones for thinking that maybe, just maybe, fantasizing about pedo-necro porn is just plain beyond the pale?
I mean for fuck's sake, plain old regular pedophilia in the form of fiction and art is at present the source of considerable debate in a number of countries, with Canada having flat out illegalized it. And yet you're surprised when the addition of bloody dismemberment, necrophilia, and corpse mutilation turns more than a few heads?
Situations like this are what Skarka's Law was founded on. You're either completely full of shit, and basically just trying to get a rise out of people, or you're a genuinely sick, sociopathic fuckhole.
Out of curiosity, where is that bit about children coming from? As far as I can tell, the "boy" in question was a captured sailor from a merchant ship. Nowhere does it mention how old he was.
You're right J, I'm probably just a sick, sociopathic fuckhole.
Quote from: droogYou're right J, I'm probably just a sick, sociopathic fuckhole.
Well, you do like that railroaded piece of shit The Pendragon Campaign...
Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, you do like that railroaded piece of shit The Pendragon Campaign...
That's neurosis, not psychosis.
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 :D
Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, you do like that railroaded piece of shit The Pendragon Campaign...
This makes me wish we had a "Go back to WoW" icon.
Quote from: RPGPunditIf 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
This game is fun.
Let's play!
Quote from: RPGPunditGranted, that campaign also had its own element of sexual controversy, a little later when I had to basically present pederasty in its Roman context during the time of the emperors Trajan and Hadrian. What's more, I had to present it in a somewhat positive light, what with the story of Hadrian and Antinous and all.
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=133787&postcount=20
So, your glorifying man-boy love in the name of history is okay but us defending someone else's right to play a game with content that, though many of us are disgusted by, feel that each table should define their own level of squick isn't okay?
This is rather ominous coming from a guy who is marketing his game to the young boys of the third world.
Paka,
There is NO comparison there.
That isn't just apples and oranges - thats apples and badly made chicken meatloaf.
- Ed C.
...and Vincent Baker himself has now posted a second time to that thread that got us all talking...here I'll save you time...its post #391.
Take a look:
QuoteLumpley/Vincent Baker said: System matters. My game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which someone had their character commit a horrible murder-rape. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise. (I'm not sure if anyone has, in fact, argued otherwise - I've found this thread kind of hard to take seriously and I may be missing some arguments. Doesn't really matter.)
If anyone's still curious about the game's rules or whatever, please come ask me in the lumpley games forum at the Forge.
I'm going to keep reading this thread, but I'm not EVEN going to try to have a conversation in it.
-Vincent
Is that a sidestep? or what?
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarIs that a sidestep? or what?
- Ed C.
In terms of gleichman's OP, no its not a sidestep at all. He's frankly stating, in his first two sentences, that it was his system that allowed this Actual Play to occur. So system matters.
Case settled.
Now if you find that Actual Play morally repugnant and if you conclude that skullfuckers are the kind of people this game attracts, that's your call to make.
I think I'm with Temple on this one. The game itself doesn't seem to be an issue for me as the recent sugar-coating of pirates for kids is a little unsettling. They may have buckled the odd swash, but they also practised murder and rape, so lets not go completely overboard on making heroes of them without some redress.
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.
ah-fucking-men.
And I'm not defending the game. I'm not really interested. If I want to play vile pirates sacking a defenseless town and doing terrible things to the people, I'll use Pirates of the Spanish main. I'm attacking all the judgemental and righteous critiquing of the game play going on. Just seems lame to me.
It's a game. Most adjusted people understand the difference in fantasy and reality. I think if this kind of game were the norm for a group, I might have some concerns for them. But I wouldn't try to say what they were doing is wrong or try and prevent them from doing.
And I would feel the same way about it no matter the system (though I'd probably rather play Poison'd than D20).
Quote from: PeteIn terms of gleichman's OP, no its not a sidestep at all. He's frankly stating, in his first two sentences, that it was his system that allowed this Actual Play to occur. So system matters.
Case settled.
That's ridiculous. (Not you, the statement). Just about every game I own would allow me to do that. How can someone claim that it was the system that allowed it - the player, and the GM by proxy, is the one who allowed it.
Still - its an interesting line of attack - the vanity press boys are all about really classy games like RaHoWa and Panty Explosion.
Classy.
Quote from: Kyle AaronWell, either way - that the mods told me I didn't fit into rpg.net no longer feels like an insult.
In my case I consider it a compliment.
Quote from: Thanatos02Do you know what the core mechanics are? The purpose of the game? How is it played?
I know what I've read on the internet, which is probably what everybody else has read.
[Hey, by the way, this whole thing reminds me greatly of the flamewars around the time DitV was released. Funny thing is, Vincent's already got us playing his game.]
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).
You're very right, and I think this shows some unspoken assumptions in the theory. Theoretically, it's kind of incoherent to throw these sorts of sops to Gamist play in a supposedly Narrativist game, because according to GNS theory approaching a Narrativist game with a Gamist attitude is acting in bad faith - you're setting up a conflict between the agenda of player and game. And, as a friend of mine point out, games that are designed with the assumption that players are going to approach them with bad faith tend to be clunky. Any game system can be broken if you put your mind to it. The trick is to choose your group such that everyone is coming to the game with good faith, and to have a system which lets you translate that good faith to fun at the gaming table.
I wonder whether many Forge designers worry that there aren't actually enough Narrativists out there to put together all-Narrativist groups, so they slip these mechanics in to tempt the Gamists in and to make them behave once they're there.
Quote from: Aoswhoa! I don't want to get in the way of the personal attacks, or anything, but can we talk about the Evil Poor some more? I think they're cool.
You'll have to ask walkerp about them. He's the one who brought 'em up.
Quote from: PeteIn terms of gleichman's OP, no its not a sidestep at all. He's frankly stating, in his first two sentences, that it was his system that allowed this Actual Play to occur. So system matters.
Case settled.
So it would appear to me, he frankly can't argue otherwise without undermining
System Matters.
So point 1, down and proven. The designer did intend (unless he wishes to claim he botched his design) to produce these types of events in game.
That leaves point 2, if Edwards is correct about games causing developmental changes in their players (i.e., the Brain Damage post), then it would be very difficult to deny that this game is not also causing developmental changes in its players. And that as a result, Baker is wanting to not only have these types of events happen in his game- but to instill them in other following games and perhaps (like story damage) beyond.
The only problem is that I don't know if Baker agreed with Edwards on his Brain Damage post or not...
But that's certainly how Edwards should view things. Is the Forge singing the praises of this game (I don't visit the place)?
Quote from: gleichmanSo it would appear to me, he frankly can't argue otherwise without undermining System Matters.
So point 1, down and proven. The designer did intend (unless he wishes to claim he botched his design) to produce these types of events in game.
That leaves point 2, if Edwards is correct about games causing developmental changes in their players (i.e., the Brain Damage post), then it would be very difficult to deny that this game is not also causing developmental changes in its players. And that as a result, Baker is wanting to not only have these types of events happen in his game- but to instill them in other following games and perhaps (like story damage) beyond.
The only problem is that I don't know if Baker agreed with Edwards on his Brain Damage post or not...
But that's certainly how Edwards should view things. Is the Forge singing the praises of this game (I don't visit the place)?
They are in full defense mode. So, yes.
Quote from: Kyle AaronYou'll have to ask walkerp about them. He's the one who brought 'em up.
Not me. That's that blue blob guy just putting words into my mouth based on his own biases. I said it's easy to be moralistic when you're not hungry.
Quote from: walkerpNot me. That's that blue blob guy just putting words into my mouth based on his own biases. I said it's easy to be moralistic when you're not hungry.
Being hungry has nothing to do with tearing someones head off and throatfucking them.
Quote from: Erik BoielleStill - its an interesting line of attack - the vanity press boys are all about really classy games like RaHoWa and Panty Explosion.
Classy.
Come on, Erik! You're a bigger fan of Dogs than me! You know as well as I do that this could be interesting.
(http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v2_x3_s02_ss00_04.jpg)
Quote from: Pakadefending someone else's right to play a game with content that, though many of us are disgusted by, feel that each table should define their own level of squick isn't okay?
First, I'd never seen the word 'squick' before, and had to look it up on Wikipedia.
Quote from: WikipediaAn element of fanfiction is squick, most often used as a warning to refer to a reader's possible negative reaction to scenes in the text (often sexual) that some might find offensive or distressing. This may include, but is not limited to, incest, BDSM, rape, scat, or torture. The term originated in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.bondage in 1991.[6] Squicks are often listed as a warning in the header of a fanfiction story.
Not sure why we're using such an obscure term in regular conversation...
Anyway. :)
Let's keep in mind that we're not talking about consenting adults behind closed doors. We're talking about:
* A public game demonstration at Gen-Con, the largest Role-playing Game convention in North America.
* A post describing the game / story on RPG.net, the largest public Role-playing Game site on the web.
* Vincent Baker confirmed that "system matters", and his game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which that kind of story would occur
When we're talking about public places, and publishing (both print and online) there are actual laws governing what is, and isn't an acceptable level of obscenity.
The FBI's Anti-obscenity squad was specifically created to accumulate evidence to use against those that produce and distribute criminally obscene content. They have shut down websites that published criminally obscene text stories.
What's criminally obscene content?
Quote from: Washington PostSo what constitutes criminal obscenity, and how does that relate to our first amendment rights? Under current American law, the Miller test is the means by which the courts determine if content is obscene and consequently not eligible for first amendment protection. The Miller test evaluates the literary, artistic, political, and scientific value of content as well as contemporary community standards. If content or expression is well within accepted community standards or it has intrinsic value, it does not constitute criminal obscenity. According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
I'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization. I mean... how much worse that that could you really get?
Public demos and posts to message boards with that type of content are against the law.
Quote from: StuartLet's keep in mind that we're not talking about consenting adults behind closed doors. We're talking about:
* A public game demonstration at Gen-Con, the largest Role-playing Game convention in North America.
* A post describing the game / story on RPG.net, the largest public Role-playing Game site on the web.
* Vincent Baker confirmed that "system matters", and his game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which that kind of story would occur
When we're talking about public places, and publishing (both print and online) there are actual laws governing what is, and isn't an acceptable level of obscenity.
The FBI's Anti-obscenity squad was specifically created to accumulate evidence to use against those that produce and distribute criminally obscene content. They have shut down websites that published criminally obscene text stories.
What's criminally obscene content?
I'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization. I mean... how much worse that that could you really get?
Public demos and posts to message boards with that type of content are against the law.
I'd like to see them define the RPG.net "community" as being accepting of neck-rape. I think they'd try to frame it that way as a defense, at least.
Quote from: WarthurI wonder whether many Forge designers worry that there aren't actually enough Narrativists out there to put together all-Narrativist groups, so they slip these mechanics in to tempt the Gamists in and to make them behave once they're there.
I think part of being a "narrativist" is not-being-a-team-player (someone once said "Narrativist is a meaningful designation: it's a *warning* label") ; if you look at the profile*, you see people who are prone to power struggle (and then blame the game) and who seem to have authority issues (the GM-as-tyrant meme).
I don't think those guys 1) have a lot of people they can game regularly with and 2) probably walked out on "good faith" a long time ago (check out some of the attitudes toward competitive play -- especially the asymmetric belief systems).
Given that kind of background, I think Nar folks see gamists as easy-to-manipulate... well, that may be a bit harsh: maybe "easy to align with." After all, if you're playing with someone who slaughters townsfolk for the XP-mechanical-reward, it's clear that they don't care about the in-game action and they might as well be racking up "story points" or whatever.
If you can convince them to play a Nar game, they'll probably play along for in-game points. I'm not sure I'd consider that a "win."
On the other hand, check out their attitude toward Simulationist: people who want immersion and internal game logic: hostility. That's because you can't really fake that stuff and system doesn't cut it either. For most Simulationists, system is all about modeling the character / world... the story and role-playing elements come from the creativity of the people involved.
In short: I completely agree with you: to the extent that forge-derived theory has any applicability at all, it's probably in the narrow space of getting people who care a lot about mechanical benefits to behave the way you want them to.
Cheers,
-E.
*I'm not talking about *you* -- you're an alpha
who's well adjusted and certainly not a stereotype in any way.
Quote from: WerekoalaI'd like to see them define the RPG.net "community" as being accepting of neck-rape. I think they'd try to frame it that way as a defense, at least.
Actually, their moderators should have stepped in and shut that thread down after the [offending] post. Most hosting companies and domain registrars say something similar to:
QuoteNetwork Solutions neither sanctions nor permits any web site content or the transmission of data that contains illegal or obscene material or fosters or promotes illegal activity. Network Solutions reserves the right to immediately suspend or terminate any site or transmission that violates this policy, without prior notice.
Edit: I should have said offending post -- the first post was fine.
I'm pleased to see that Vincent is directly addressing the issue (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24737) over on The Forge:
QuoteThanks for asking, Levi.
Before I even start, "rewarded for" isn't really it. Your character doing horrible things and having horrible things done to him has game-mechanical consequences, none of which are unequivocally to your benefit. Not doing horrible things and not having horrible things done to him has game-mechanical consequences too, as (equivocally) beneficial. What you're rewarded for is more complicated than that, and has to do with bargains and ambitions far more than it has to do with doing and done to. Doing and done to is a small piece.
But I'll fully grant that the design creates an atmosphere of brutality. That's on purpose, and that's what I'll tell you why for.
I remember, like, 1995 or whenever, me and Emily coming out of Cutthroat Island with Geena Davis. I was clutching my head. I said, "they'll never, ever, ever let me make a pirate movie. Know why? Because it'd be Reservoir Dogs on a boat." Look at Pirates of the stupid Caribbean, even. There's Elizabeth Swann on board the Black Pearl, and all the pirates are leering and closing around her, and she shouts out "parlay," right? There's a threat there. And we know that in Disney's Caribbean, the threat will never come true, but in my movie, my Reservoir Dogs on a boat? We don't know any such thing. In my movie Elizabeth Swann is in danger. When that scene starts, you in the audience don't know whether this is the scene where I (as writer-director) back away from brutality or the scene where the gloves come off.
And that's how Poison'd works. You can play it like Disney would if you want to - all that means is that every single time, you back away from brutality. I've played the game like that, and it's fine. Nobody wants to go there, so nobody does. The PCs' stats stay more or less how they were at the end of character creation and the reward system tears away on history, bargains and ambitions like it's supposed to. All good.
Or, sometimes, you see the violence implicit as a possibility in a given scene, and you're like, "crap. I knew my character was capable of brutality, and here it comes." Then your pirate's stats destabilize and the reward system tears away on history, bargains and ambitions like it's supposed to anyway. Also all good.
So, that's why. Given that I was going to make a pirate game, it was always going to be a game where rape and torture were on the table, available as elements in the fiction whether you choose to include them directly or leave them implicit.
Followup questions welcome!
-Vincent
That's even lamer than I thought it is.
Which ultimately still amounts to blaming the player, which is directly contradictory to his RPGnet post supporting the notion that "system matters".
Quote from: StuartI'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization.
Probably not, in many or even most jurisdictions...at least on the "how much worse can you get" part. [Lack of intrinsic value, maybe.]
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the
content of the AP is irrelevent--heck, I just remembered that I used to read and enjoy S. Clay Wilson's "Captain Pissgums" comics. The only thing I can say at this remove is: (1) if the content's a problem, you don't erase that just by invoking "art" (a point I've made above), and (2) you also don't erase it by invoking "deep meaning" or some other moralizing (probably related to Pierce's comments).
And seriously, what the fuck is up with Baker's hard-on for outdated and primitive Christian theology?
The guy used to be an exorcist. He's exorcising his own demons.
Gotta love spiritual struggle. It produces some great shit!
Quote from: J ArcaneWhich ultimately still amounts to blaming the player, which is directly contradictory to his RPGnet post supporting the notion that "system matters".
There is no contradiction.
It's called "system matters", not "system is all that matters".
Just wanted to correct a couple of things here.
First, the AP referenced on the rpg.net thread was not a demo at Gen Con. This was someone buying the game and, after-hours, playing it. That is to say it wasn't organized by the game's writer, or anyone involved with Play Collective (http://playcollective.org), the booth at which Vincent (full disclosure: and I) was based, which is my definition of demo. It appears to be much more accurate to say that these are pick-up games of Poison'd we're talking about.
Second, Poison'd didn't technically wind up selling out because there were about 25 (I may have that number wrong) copies found after the end of the con. I believe 100 were printed in total. It was a $9 ashcan; the game is not yet fully done.
--
Further:
My understanding of "System Matters" is not that game systems are deterministically guaranteed to produce certain kinds of games, but rather that the system one designs tends to produce play of certain kinds. Therefore the fact that something many people find repugnant came out of a given game session does not mean the game is necessarily to blame, nor does it mean that one cannot have good clean fun with rules that actually do encourage repugnant behavior.
Or to put it another way, system matters, and so do people. Fervor over this sort of thing, statements that tacitly demand that one pick a side, remind me of nature/nurture arguments in a lot of ways. It's both. It's always both.
Quote from: Consonant DudeThere is no contradiction.
It's called "system matters", not "system is all that matters".
GNS Cop!
System matters, in forge theory, means a very specific thing: specifically that
- Fun = Creative Agenda Fulfilled
- There are exactly 3, non-intersecting CA's
- Systems can promote CA's and, to produce fun gaming, should ideally focus on a single CA
Under The Big Model SDM means slightly more -- system is defined as "how decisions about what happens in SIS get made" meaning that system is *all* that matters, since anything that affects the game is System.
Now it's true that TBM defn of system is so broad that saying "system matters" under that definition is a useless tautology ("what matters = what matters"), but there you go: if you try to apply forge theory rigorously, everything resolves to nonsense.
On the other hand, if you watch theory folks talk amongst themselves (where rigorous use is not appreciated) then you'll see an approximation: the idea that what gets mechanically rewarded (or, in some formulations, what there are mechanics for) is what shows up in the game.
Hence: D&D has combat rules and gives points for killing things so that's what D&D games are about. Pirate Atrocity has rules for buggering people and a-buggering they will go... but apparently not: it turns out you can ignore the buggering rules if you want to... does that mean my fighter can come out of the dungeon now? ;)
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: RobNJSecond, Poison'd didn't technically wind up selling out because there were about 25 (I may have that number wrong) copies found after the end of the con. I believe 100 were printed in total. It was a $9 ashcan; the game is not yet fully done.
Thanks for the info; I stand corrected. :)
Quote from: RobNJFirst, the AP referenced on the rpg.net thread was not a demo at Gen Con. This was someone buying the game and, after-hours, playing it. That is to say it wasn't organized by the game's writer, or anyone involved with Play Collective (http://playcollective.org), the booth at which Vincent (full disclosure: and I) was based, which is my definition of demo. It appears to be much more accurate to say that these are pick-up games of Poison'd we're talking about.
Thanks for clarifying that Rob -- good to know you guys weren't directly involved in that specific game. :)
Quote from: RobNJMy understanding of "System Matters" is not that game systems are deterministically guaranteed to produce certain kinds of games, but rather that the system one designs tends to produce play of certain kinds.
Wait, so the game is designed to encourage reugnant play?
Quote from: RobNJTherefore the fact that something many people find repugnant came out of a given game session does not mean the game is necessarily to blame, nor does it mean that one cannot have good clean fun with rules that actually do encourage repugnant behavior.
But didn't you just say above that the game was designed to "tend" to generate these repugnant play results?
Quote from: droogThe guy used to be an exorcist. He's exorcising his own demons.
Mighty generous of him to let others partake in the endeavor.
QuoteGotta love spiritual struggle. It produces some great shit!
News to me.
Quote from: StuartActually, their moderators should have stepped in and shut that thread down after the [offending] post. Most hosting companies and domain registrars say something similar to:
Edit: I should have said offending post -- the first post was fine.
Actually I just checked - looks like that thread is open again for posting - but the moderators have gone in and trimmed close to 300 posts.
Maybe they finally read a few of the "Bad post" reports that people were sending.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Joshua FordI think I'm with Temple on this one. The game itself doesn't seem to be an issue for me as the recent sugar-coating of pirates for kids is a little unsettling. They may have buckled the odd swash, but they also practised murder and rape, so lets not go completely overboard on making heroes of them without some redress.
So the esophagus-fucking was done out of fidelity to history?
...Okay I was wrong - about the editing over there. All those pages and posts seem to be back again.
Looks like the moderators over there don't care ...as long as its a trendy Indie/Forge game it doesn't get touched.
- Ed C.
QuoteLook at Pirates of the stupid Caribbean, even. There's Elizabeth Swann on board the Black Pearl, and all the pirates are leering and closing around her, and she shouts out "parlay," right? There's a threat there. And we know that in Disney's Caribbean, the threat will never come true, but in my movie, my Reservoir Dogs on a boat? We don't know any such thing. In my movie Elizabeth Swann is in danger. When that scene starts, you in the audience don't know whether this is the scene where I (as writer-director) back away from brutality or the scene where the gloves come off.
So you have two choices folks - Disneyfied pap, or graphic sadism. And we know which ones the mature, cool kids will pick.
This type of crude pretension - that the remedy for schlock is to glut yourself on depravity - isn't confined to this tiny off-shoot of RPGs. We see it in movies, books, television. Some brooding wanker who holds pop culture and mainstream society in contempt gets the thoroughly unoriginal notion that if you embrace the opposite aesthetics of safe, phoney, mainstream art, then you will be brave, important and truthful.
Which is of course a load of shit. Revelling in muck for its own sake is no more insightful or sophisticated than Hollywood or Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean. If you really want to tell truthful stories and examine the human condition in a serious fashion, then grow up, take your hand off your cock, and stop deluding yourself that bad taste is brave.
Quote from: StuartI'm quite certain that the Actual Play from Poison'd posted to RPG.net would fall under the "criminally obscene" categorization. I mean... how much worse that that could you really get?
Well they certainly would have a difficult time arguing that it had literary, artistic, political, or scientific value since they've already argued that it was produced by either (A) a desire to get a mechanical bonus in a game or (B) a player just saying twisted things and was posted to promote a game.
I don't know about this "criminally obscene" nonsense, but I would have thought... supposedly, the reason to close Tangency Open off to the general reading public, and restrict it to over-13s, is that it sometimes contains rude stuff, like people talking about their sex lives. So I'm puzzled as to why that nasty thread remains out in Tabletop Roleplaying Open where everyone can see it.
Also supposedly, one of the reasons to ban people who call each-other "fuckhead" or whatever is to help ensure the place has an okay image. So again, I'm puzzled.
I was amused by the fact that in the thread there was a minor drama over some guy using the word "nigger" - not as an insult, but as an example of something gratuitously offensive - and they got him to edit it out to "the n- word". Yet molesting the dismembered corpse of a child remains. They have a strange idea of what is too offensive to even read in type.
Quote from: jeff37923Wait, so the game is designed to encourage reugnant play?
Well, no, that's not what I said and it seems highly unlikely that you don't know that. Why are you willfully misinterpreting what I said? How can we have a conversation under such circumstances?
Quote from: jeff37923But didn't you just say above that the game was designed to "tend" to generate these repugnant play results?
Again, no.
Quote from: RobNJMy understanding of "System Matters" is not that game systems are deterministically guaranteed to produce certain kinds of games, but rather that the system one designs tends to produce play of certain kinds. Therefore the fact that something many people find repugnant came out of a given game session does not mean the game is necessarily to blame, nor does it mean that one cannot have good clean fun with rules that actually do encourage repugnant behavior.
So you're saying that the perverse nature of the events in the game session didn't necessarily have anything to do with the game book itself.
I agree, but that's not actually what "System Matters" says. If you look at Uncle Ronny's essay (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html) on the topic, he specifically says that
"I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely disagree.
[...]
To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks. Its resolution method(s) are appropriate for the outlook: they have search and handling time that works for that outlook, in terms of both what the players have to do and what happens to the characters."Now, when he speaks of system mattering, what he specifically means is that system matters in producing one of the three types of play he recognises: gamist, narrativist, or simulationist. He does not speak of system mattering in other respects, whether system can make a game humorous or serious or noble or puerile or whatever. But it's a logical extension of what he says, and it's also the way "System Matters" has been taken by the Forger disapora, as evidenced by numerous posts about D&D, Vampire and so on.
So "System Matters" from the Forger point of view may be taken as saying a bit more than it "
tends" to produce certain kinds of play. If Ron Edwards gets to blame
Vampire game design for "brain damage" impairing our ability to tell "real stories", then by the same principle we must blame
Poison'd for the child murder and necrophilia in the game session we're discussing.
Now, I don't think system matters very much. I don't think anyone has any kind of brain damage due to bad roleplaying game books, or even bad roleplaying game
sessions, nor yet do I think that it's Vincent Baker's fault if some players of his games did some fucked-up shit in-game. They're just expressing some fucked-up part of themselves, that's all.
But then, I'm not the one saying "System Matters". A simple requirement of any theory is that it should be internally consistent. What the Big Model says about (for example) D&D and
Vampire must also be applicable to
Poison'd,
Sorcerer and so on. We can't say that System Matters when it's talking about games we dislike, and System Doesn't Matter when it's talking about games we like. A theory must be consistent. And that's what the point of the original post of this thread was. The Forgers are very dogmatic about their theory, unless applying it could make them have to say that their own games are bad. "System Does Matter! Look, D&D makes you just kill things and take their stuff!"
"What about that fucked up
Poison'd session? Is that the fault of the system?"
"Well... system only
tends to produce certain types of play, in... um..."
If the D&D and Vampire systems deserve blame for the fucked-up play they produced under the "System Matters" principle, then indie games deserve blame, too.
But then I think that system doesn't matter much, really. People matter. Again, I know nothing of this game book - only the play report, which is seriously fucked-up. I blame the people involved.
Quote from: RobNJWell, no, that's not what I said and it seems highly unlikely that you don't know that. Why are you willfully misinterpreting what I said? How can we have a conversation under such circumstances?
I think you are trying to obfuscate the truth of the situation, that with a game mechanic designed to reward sociopathic behavior the players will tend to engage in that sociopathic behavior in order to gain the reward.
Quote from: jeff37923I think you are trying to obfuscate the truth of the situation, that with a game mechanic designed to reward sociopathic behavior the players will tend to engage in that sociopathic behavior in order to gain the reward.
I'm frankly not entirely sure what this particular game does and doesn't reward because no two advocates seem to give exactly the same answer nor are the answers always particularly clear. I'm currently guessing the intent of the game is to put characters into brutal situations to see if they fight turning brutal or become brutal, giving different advantages and costs for either choice.
That said, this is exactly the reason why many people object to the idea of giving players experience points primarily for killing things and taking their treasure. It can encourage psychopathic behavior in order to gain the reward.
Well, Baker himself says,
"My game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which someone had their character commit a horrible murder-rape. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise."
If he's willing to take the blame then let's give it to him. :p
Quote from: Kyle AaronWell, Baker himself says,
"My game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which someone had their character commit a horrible murder-rape. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise."
If he's willing to take the blame then let's give it to him. :p
I think he really catch himself into his own trap. System in sense of Lumpley principle means everything not just rules he designed. So how does he know, it was the part of the system (the rules that he designed) that create or contributed the murder-rape?
BTW: Hi Killraven, happy lurking! :-)
Is there mileage in talking about Torture Porn and how it applies?
QuoteFor your entertainment
Mainstream movies are getting darker and more violent. And as Quentin Tarantino's latest project, Grindhouse, demonstrates, the worst of the violence is often directed at women. Kira Cochrane on the rise of 'torture porn'
Tuesday May 1, 2007
The Guardian
Out on a limb... Rose McGowan in Death Proof.
Talking about his upcoming film Hostel II at a press junket recently, the young director Eli Roth couldn't contain his enthusiasm for the poster devised by the film's marketing team - a close-up of some sinewy, gleaming boar meat. "Any time people see women in a horror film," he noted, "they say, 'Oh, these girls are just pieces of meat.' And, literally, in Hostel Part II, that's exactly what they are. They are the bait, they are the meat, they are the grist for the mill. So I thought it was actually a really smart poster ... and really, really disgusting! I love it."
Unless you have a taste for seriously gory films, chances are you haven't heard of Roth. Last year, though, the first instalment of Hostel - the story of a Slovakian boarding house where rich men pay to enact tortures on unwitting victims - was a massive hit, topping the US box office on its opening weekend. The trailer promised that, "There is a place where your darkest, sickest fantasies are possible, where you can experience anything you desire," and the film strove to live up to that promise. Hostel's most famous scene shows a man taking a blowtorch to a woman's face, her eyeball coming out and dangling from the socket. Later, another character snips it off with some scissors.
Horror films have, of course, always been full of nasty, misanthropic imagery. In many other films, extreme, sexualised violence against women has frequently been a theme (Clockwork Orange, Boxing Helena and many others spring to mind). But recently the levels of horrific violence on show at the multiplexes - and the sheer cynicism of the films involved - have gone through the roof. And a lot of the most nasty, unrepentant and terrifyingly pointless violence is aimed at women. At least Clockwork Orange had a political point to make. (There can be no excuses for Boxing Helena.)
Hostel is just part of a new subgenre of horror films which are so dehumanising, nasty and misogynist that they are collectively known either as "gorno" (a conflation of "gory" and "porno"), or, more commonly, as "torture porn". Other films that make it into the torture porn category are Wolf Creek, Turistas and The Devil's Rejects, with each new film promising higher levels of violence - guaranteeing not just a considerable body count, but long, lingering scenes of terror, torture and pain.
In most of these films, both men and women end up being sliced, gored, dismembered, decapitated. In that sense they offer audiences equal-opportunity gore. But it's the violence against women that's most troubling, because it is here that sex and extreme violence collide.
The publicity campaigns for many of these films flag up the prospect of watching a nubile young woman being tortured as a genuinely pleasurable experience. So, for instance, a recent US billboard campaign for the upcoming (mainstream) film Captivity featured the film's star Elisha Cuthbert (just voted the 10th sexiest woman in the world by the young male readers of FHM magazine) in a series of four photographs. In the first (labelled ABDUCTION) a black-gloved hand covers her mouth. The second (CONFINEMENT) shows her, with bloody fingers, struggling to get out of a cage. The third (TORTURE) has her face encased in an odd white mask, tubes shoved up her nose, and apparently filled with blood. Finally, under the word TERMINATION, she is shown laid out, apparently dead.
The billboard attracted a barrage of complaints, with Jill Soloway (one of the writers of Six Feet Under) leading a campaign against it - the poster was soon taken down. In a piece on the Huffington Post website, Soloway wrote that the images were "the most repulsive, horrifying, woman-hating, human-hating thing I have ever seen in public" and didn't just represent "horror, this wasn't just misogyny ... It was a grody combo platter of the two, the torture almost a punishment for the sexiness. It had come from such a despicable inhuman hatred place that it somehow managed to recall Abu Ghraib, the Holocaust, porn and snuff films all at once." Joss Whedon, creator of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series, agreed, writing in a letter to the MPAA, the US ratings board, that the ad campaign "is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it's an assault ... this ad is part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have to see it. It's like being mugged."
Many of today's torture porn films are being made on tiny budgets by little-known directors, but with the release of the new Tarantino/Rodriguez double-bill, Grindhouse - designed as a tribute to the ultra-violent B-movie programmes of old - the trend officially reaches the mainstream. Made up of two films plus a clutch of trailers for non-existent movies, Grindhouse bombed when it was released in the US last month. American audiences were said to have been put off by the three-hour running time, and last week it was announced that Grindhouse will be released in a different format in the UK, the two films sold as separate features. Whether either film is any good is still up for debate - I, for one, found them both suicidally boring. What isn't in question is the disturbing attitude towards women in these films.
First on the programme is Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, a repetitively gory, gloomily depressing zombie picture, which opens with Rose McGowan pole dancing. There are close ups of her bottom and breasts in those initial scenes, and then she appears to be kissing another woman. In a feature about Grindhouse in Rolling Stone last month, Rodriguez noted that, "When we started talking about the movie, Quentin said, 'There should always be a lesbian kiss just around the corner - possibly.' I took that to heart, and in my very first scene, I have two female tongues going at each other and licking. You find out that it's Rose licking a mirror, but it gets across the idea that it could be around the corner at any time."
So far, so predictable. It isn't surprising that the film's main female character is a go-go dancer - Rodriguez is, after all, the director who made Sin City, in which the female characters ran the gamut from prostitutes to strippers. But having established McGowan's sexiness, in Planet Terror, the attacks on her begin. First a zombie rips off McGowan's leg, and then Tarantino (playing a zombie soldier called Rapist Number One) holds a gun to her head, before threatening her with rape. You can currently buy a Rapist Number One action figure online for your kids, should you so wish.
Then there's Tarantino's Death Proof, in which Kurt Russell stars as Stuntman Mike, a guy who gets his kicks from stalking groups of gorgeous young women, following them in his car and ramming whatever vehicle they happen to be travelling in, until they are dead. Severed limbs and bloodied faces abound. Interestingly, of all the women actors in Grindhouse, McGowan is the only one to appear in both films, and, while she survives Planet Terror (fitting the age-old horror archetype of the "final girl" who persists to the end - usually, it seems, to help justify the misogyny that has gone before) this triumph is short-lived. In Death Proof, McGowan's character is swiftly - gruesomely - dispatched. (In that same Rolling Stone feature, McGowan talked about her own attitude towards today's horror films, saying that, "all they do now is think about ways to torture women, primarily. I don't really get that. What is this, a manual for young, budding serial killers? Can't we just go watch Pillow Talk?")
Some of the nastiest images in Grindhouse arise in the fake trailers. Rob Zombie, director of The Devil's Rejects, creates one for a dream project - Werewolf Women of the SS - which includes the image of a topless woman, bound and gagged, being tortured by cartoonish Nazi soldiers. And Eli Roth - him again! - packs a host of sex and gore into his three-minute trailer for a potential film called Thanksgiving, including an image of a cheerleader peeling off her clothes while bouncing on a trampoline, before apparently being impaled with a large, gleaming knife - through the vagina, no less. (Horrifying though this is, it isn't actually original - the 2005 film Chaos showed a woman being anally raped with a knife.)
Unsurprisingly, the cheerleader scene in Grindhouse attracted some attention from the MPAA, the US ratings board, and Roth was forced to change it, to make the imagery much more suggestive than explicit. Addressing this at the American press junket for Grindhouse, he commented that "when I shot that trailer for Thanksgiving, I really thought there was no problem with anything - it just shows you how genuinely out of touch I am! I was like ... a full frontal labial shot, to camera, of a girl landing on a knife seemed like no problem to me ..."
Of course, maybe Roth's just trying to be funny - his tone is gleeful throughout this interview (a transcript and audio version of which can be found on a number of film websites). Later in the interview he says: "Let me tell you, I heard that Stanley Kubrick did a lot of takes on Eyes Wide Shut, it was nothing compared to the amount of takes we did once we had that cheerleader naked and bouncing around on a trampoline! I mean, she was great, she got it on the first take, but we did take, after take, after take! And we finished early and we had like three hours, and we're like, 'Well, how much film do we have?' And we're like, 'All right, let's ... let's do it again!' And she just had a smile on her face the whole time."
Grindhouse is, in many ways, a cartoon, and its intersection of sex and violence is meant to be ironic, funny even. It makes multiple nods to parody and pastiche. I'm not so sure that British audiences will share the directors' humour though. As one of the stars of Planet Terror, the British actor Naveen Andrews, has said on the subject of the B-movie films Grindhouse is based on: "Obviously, Quentin and Rodriguez saw some kind of aesthetic in these kinds of films, and for the life of me I was trying to grasp what it was. They were laughing like maniacs and I didn't find it funny for more than like a minute."
Over the years, many directors have defended the violence in their films by claiming that it's ironic. But is an image of a nubile woman having her innards pulled out - as occurs in Planet Terror - any less problematic because it has been made in a knowing way? You could argue that it's more problematic. Irony - with its inherent insincerity - can be an emotionally deadening tool, and, in terms of their content, these films are already deadening, de-sensitising enough. The irony just adds another layer of soul-sucking cynicism to the mix.
Watching Grindhouse, I felt fundamentally depressed: who would seek out this experience as entertainment? What is more depressing is the fact that such films seem to be part of a wider trend towards the mainstream depiction of women as highly sexualised bait and prey: meat, as Roth had it. Over the past year, for example, we've seen mainstream fashion images that have shown highly made up, designer-clad women being brutalised (Italian Vogue), apparently about to be gang raped (a Dolce and Gabbana ad), and shot, stabbed and electrocuted (America's Next Top Model). On shows such as CSI and its many spin-offs and imitators, the victims of each weekly murder case are, disproportionately, nubile young women. Lisa de Moraes of the Washington Post came up with an apt shorthand for such series in 2005, dubbing that year's programmes the "season of Die, Women, Die!".
Of course, watching one of these films won't turn a sane, decent individual into a killer or a torturer, but you have to wonder what effect this widespread meshing of sexuality and graphic violence will have on the young men at whom they are primarily aimed. The clear logic behind all these films, TV shows and images appears to be that if a young, good-looking, barely-clad woman is sexy while alive, she's even sexier when she's being tortured, or when she's a bloody corpse.
In an article in Newsweek last year, Tony Timpone, editor of the horror magazine Fangoria, commented that "in 1990, I had to pull my hair out just to find a movie to put on the cover. There were only three or four major horror releases a year. Now there are three or four a month. We're like pigs in slop." That's not a bad way of putting it.
Nasty and nastier
Xan Brooks on the history of misogynist violence in film
Blood Feast (1963)
Blood Feast was the forefather of the exploitation genre, a strain of low-budget, cheap-thrill cinema that catered to America's burgeoning drive-in market and its attendant teenage demographic. Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis, this amateurish, ketchup-drenched affair offered viewers the chance to "witness the slaughter and mutilation of nubile young girls", culminating in a scene in which one victim is pinned to a bed while her tongue is torn loose. Where previous horror films had run shy of graphic gore, Blood Feast laid it on with a trowel.
The Last House on the Left (1972)
Ingmar Bergman's Oscar-winning drama The Virgin Spring was the unlikely inspiration for this bloody tale of two good-time girls who are raped and murdered while on a jaunt through the backwoods. Creator Wes Craven hastened to explain that the sadistic violence was an artistic response to the war in Vietnam, although this cut little ice with the UK censors, who effectively banned the film until 2003. In the meantime, Last House proved hugely influential, kick-starting a run of women-in-peril slasher movies that stretched throughout the 1970s.
Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS (1974)
Rob Zombie's spoof trailer for "Werewolf Women of the SS" (in Grindhouse) has a real-life ancestor in Ilsa. She's the jodhpurwearing, cleavage-baring nymphomaniac Nazi who plies her trade as the mistress of a concentration camp-cum-knocking shop (her mission: to prove that women can withstand more pain than men). Don Edmonds' dubious cult offering was shot on the cheap on the discarded set of the TV show Hogan's Heroes, with the extras billed as "Big Busted Prisoners". In a touching display of cultural sensitivity, he went on to dedicate the film to all "victims of the Holocaust".
I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
This sleazy B-movie outing gained a new lease of life when it was singled out as the archetypal "video nasty" in the early 1980s. It starred Camille Keaton (grand-niece of Buster) as a career woman who becomes an angel of vengeance after she is assaulted by a bunch of brutish yokels. The notorious video sleeve (bloodstained rump, clenched dagger) looks like an X-rated version of that iconic Athena poster of a tennis player scratching her bum.
Baise-moi (2000)
Baise-moi was a rape'n'revenge saga that attempted to have its cake and eat it; a hardcore Thelma and Louise that dispatched a pair of ass-kicking porn starlets on a mission of reprisal. The fact that the film was French gave it the veneer of art-house class in the UK, where it largely escaped tabloid attention. Moreover, the behind-the-scenes presence of two female directors supposedly inoculated it against charges of misogyny, with one of its creators explaining that "this movie is not for masturbation, so therefore it is not porn". Not everyone was convinced. On its release in France, Baise-moi was dismissed by critics as "a sick fi lm" that "throws sex in your face to sell blood and gore".
Grindhouse (2007)
Grindhouse is Tarantino and Rodriguez's homage to the exploitation genre: a gleeful double feature that comes awash with vixenish go-dancers and killer zombies; peppered with fictional trailers and spoof commercials. Despite glowing reviews, the wheeze appears to have flummoxed the American public. There have been reports of audiences filing out after the first half, apparently unaware that there was another feature still to come, and the box office has been middling. The production will now be sawn in two and released as two separate pictures. Tarantino's section competes for top honours at next month's Cannes film festival.
QuoteSeen any good surgery on unanesthetized people lately? Millions have, in Hostel, which spent a week as America’s top moneymaker. It’s actually not a bad little thriller, if you can live with the odd protracted sequence of torture and dismemberment. The director, Eli Roth, captures the mixture of innocence and entitlement in young American males abroad: They breeze into a former Soviet-bloc country the way teens in old sex comedies headed for Daytona, confident that their country’s power and prestige will make them babe magnets. And those are some supermodelish babes in Hostel’s Slovakian village, where life appears to be a nonstop naked sauna party. One of our heroes is confused about his sexuality, though, and sympathetic to an old man who makes a pass at him. It’s quite a shock when he wakes to find himself in chains, with that same old man preparing to eviscerate him. The poor sap screams, pleads, weeps: He doesn’t understand why he’s in that place.
As for me, I didn’t understand why I was in that place either, watching through my fingers—or why I’d found myself in similar places many times during the past few years, at The Devil’s Rejects, Saw, Wolf Creek, and even (dare I blaspheme?) The Passion of the Christ. Explicit scenes of torture and mutilation were once confined to the old 42nd Street, the Deuce, in gutbucket Italian cannibal pictures like Make Them Die Slowly, whereas now they have terrific production values and a place of honor in your local multiplex. As a horror maven who long ago made peace, for better and worse, with the genre’s inherent sadism, I’m baffled by how far this new stuff goes—and by why America seems so nuts these days about torture.
It might be, as a screenwriter friend argues, that this trend is mainly a way of ratcheting up the stakes—that in the quest to have a visceral impact, actual viscera are the final frontier. Certainly television has become the place for forensic fetishism. But torture movies cut deeper than mere gory spectacle. Unlike the old seventies and eighties hack-’em-ups (or their jokey remakes, like Scream), in which masked maniacs punished nubile teens for promiscuity (the spurt of blood was equivalent to the money shot in porn), the victims here are neither interchangeable nor expendable. They range from decent people with recognizable human emotions to, well, Jesus.
Is there a masochistic as well as a sadistic component to the mayhem? In the same way that some women cut themselves (they say) to feel something, maybe some moviegoers need to identify with people being cut to feel something, too. Maybe. I can think of no other reason to endure Greg McLean’s extraordinarily cruel Wolf Creek. He creates an overpowering sense of place: the Australian outback, where the mix of endless vistas and claustrophobic confinement leaves you shaking, and where the serial killer—a sociopathic inversion of “Crocodile” Dundee—slices through the heroine’s spinal cord and announces, with satisfaction, “Now you’re just a head on a stick.”
As potential victims, we fear serial killers, yet we also seek to identify with their power.
Some of these movies are so viciously nihilistic that the only point seems to be to force you to suspend moral judgments altogether. In Rob Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects, crazed mass murderers take a group of touring musicians hostage before slaughtering them all. Well, one of the women isn’t exactly slaughtered: She’s left hanging in the doorway wearing her lover’s detached face; she ends up running into the road, where a semi turns her into multiple heaps of gleaming innards. When, during filming, the actor playing the most sadistic of the psychos became traumatized by what he had to do, Zombie reportedly told him, “Art is not safe.” But with characters who have no larger awareness—who are just inexplicably deranged—The Devil’s Rejects isn’t art by any definition I can think of.
Are there moral uses for this sort of violence? Certainly Mel Gibson aimed to achieve a kind of catharsis—a purification—via the two-hour beating, lashing, and scourging of his Jesus, although some of us felt that he’d made his usual bloody revenge picture in which the revenge part had been lopped off (or left to the spectator).
Stephen King has written that horror “feeds the alligators of the mind,” yet it remains an open question whether those alligators have a little nap after they’re fed or get busy making more alligators. In her book Men, Women, and Chain Saws, Carol Clover argues that many hack-’em-ups are empowering; the “final girl” always slays the monster. But the “final girls” in Wolf Creek and The Devil’s Rejects die ghastly deaths, and while Hostel ends with bloody retribution, it’s set in a world in which people pay big money for the opportunity to torture and murder—a world of latent serial killers.
In an essay called “The American Vice,” Will Self speaks to the “moral displacement” of modern cinema—which is far different from the viewer’s perspective on, say, Guernica. Of the scene in Reservoir Dogs in which a sadist exuberantly mutilates a bound policeman, Self writes, “We lose sight of whose exact POV we are inhabiting. The sadist who is doing the torturing? The policeman? The incapacitated accomplice? It is this vacillation in POV that forces the sinister card of complicity upon the viewer. For in such a situation the auteur is either abdicating—or more likely foisting—the moral responsibility for what is being depicted onscreen from himself to the viewer.”
That’s a tough charge—and the issue of where the spectator’s sympathies lie at violent movies has always been a complicated one. But there’s no doubt that something has changed in the past few decades. Serial killers occupy a huge—and disproportionate—share of our cultural imagination: As potential victims, we fear them, yet we also seek to identify with their power. A key archetype is Will Graham in Thomas Harris’s Red Dragon—a genius serial-killer tracker because he can walk through grisly crime scenes and project himself into the killers’ heads. He’s both the instrument of justice and the empathic consumer of torture porn.
Fear supplants empathy and makes us all potential torturers, doesn’t it? Post-9/11, we’ve engaged in a national debate about the morality of torture, fueled by horrifying pictures of manifestly decent men and women (some of them, anyway) enacting brutal scenarios of domination at Abu Ghraib. And a large segment of the population evidently has no problem with this. Our righteousness is buoyed by propaganda like the TV series 24, which devoted an entire season to justifying torture in the name of an imminent threat: a nuclear missile en route to a major city. Who do you want defending America? Kiefer Sutherland or terrorist-employed civil-liberties lawyers?
Back in the realm of non-righteous torture, the question hangs, Where do you look while these defilements drag on? Consider a nightmarish film that many critics regard as deeply moral, Gaspar No’s Irreversible, which delivers a nine-minute anal rape (of a pregnant woman). Noé means to rub your nose in the violence and make you loathe it, but my nose had been pretty well rubbed after the first two minutes. For a while I stared at the EXIT sign, then closed my eyes, plugged my ears, and chanted an old mantra. I didn’t understand why I had to be tortured, too. I didn’t want to identify with the victim or the victimizer.
I am complicit in one sense, though. I’ve described all this freak-show sensationalism with relish, enjoying—like these filmmakers—the prospect of titillating and shocking. Was it good for you, too?
Will talking about nasty misogynist vanity press games land?
Yeah - So ?
Those aren't RPGs that are trying to be Oh so trendy and "edge-y".
I don't enjoy thse kinds of sick movies....and recent box office indicates they are not making money like they used to.
Only kind of horror movies I even like grudgingly are what others might call "Dark Fantasy" - for example NIGHTBREED. In that one the monsters are actually odfffshoots from humanity trying to survive in a secluded enclave of their own.
Trying to claim sick shit in RPGs is okay because sick stuff in Movies seems to be popular is one of the weaklest defenses I've seen in the whole discussion so far.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarTrying to claim sick shit in RPGs is okay because sick stuff in Movies seems to be popular is one of the weaklest defenses I've seen in the whole discussion so far.
Actually, I was wondering if linking such games to Torture Porn would be a useful attack.
I like a good spot of good clean violence like 300, but I've not seen things like Saw, precisely because the thought of just how nasty modern CGI could get rather frightens me.
Certainly, theres a market for some really nasty comic books:
WARNING! NOT SAFE FOR WORK! FULLY PORN! I'M NOT KIDDING!!!!!
http://www.nazirape.net/
FOR GODS SAKE DON'T CLICK ON THAT IN FRONT OF YOUR OLD MOM!!!!!!!!
Cross those with Kong level production values.......
I mean, okay, sitting around with your friends making child molestation jokes (do you want to see my puppies little boy... one of them's got a wet nose... Oh! Hes thrown up!) is possibly comparatively innocuous and inevitable, but good god, this can get seedy.
Quote from: John MorrowThat said, this is exactly the reason why many people object to the idea of giving players experience points primarily for killing things and taking their treasure. It can encourage psychopathic behavior in order to gain the reward.
I'd agree here, but instead of talking about psychopathic behavior in-game between characters or NPCs, I'm busy talking about sociopathic behavior in-game between players. Therin lies the rub...
Quote from: Pierce InverarityMighty generous of him to let others partake in the endeavor.
No, you have to pay.
Quote from: Vincent Baker himselfOr, sometimes, you see the violence implicit as a possibility in a given scene, and you're like, "crap. I knew my character was capable of brutality, and here it comes." Then your pirate's stats destabilize and the reward system tears away on history, bargains and ambitions like it's supposed to anyway. Also all good.
Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Oh, come on. You thought of it too.
Quote from: Kyle AaronIf you look at Uncle Ronny's essay on the topic, he specifically says that
Ron had an opinion, Ron did not write dogma that is strictly adhered to.
Quote from: Kyle AaronThe Forgers are very dogmatic about their theory, unless applying it could make them have to say that their own games are bad.
Honesty, nobody I know spends this much time worrying about theory-purity or -rigor. To me and most people I know, "system matters" is the by-now-trivial, but at-the-time-not-so-trivial notion that game design can influence resultant play, so keep that in mind when you design. It seems like you're expecting a level of attention to theory that is relatively rare these days, either focused at our own games or at others'.
Quote from: RobNJHonesty, nobody I know spends this much time worrying about theory-purity or -rigor. To me and most people I know, "system matters" is the by-now-trivial, but at-the-time-not-so-trivial notion that game design can influence resultant play, so keep that in mind when you design. It seems like you're expecting a level of attention to theory that is relatively rare these days, either focused at our own games or at others'.
Ah-heh.
No one you know? Try criticizing the theory... you'll find people popping up everywhere to lecture you on the fine points of theoretical rigor.
Oh, sure -- Vincent can get the theory "wrong" all over the place, since he's a friend of the theory. Anyone else who's willing to play along is given significant leeway, also.
But here's the thing: part of the reason the theory is crap is because the folks using it don't apply any standard of rigor to their own usage. They don't look at what the theory actually says. They don't ask questions (if you ask questions, in many places, you get moderated and the thread gets shut down).
If I liked the theory, I'd demand that *everyone* use it rigorously -- but that would break it. It would become clear that it fails several significant tests (modeling player behavior, modeling immersion, explaining why popular games are popular, etc.).
It would break or mutate the theory into something that didn't work to suggest very narrow focus games with limited GM authority are actually what people need (it's clear, even to theory people, that those games aren't what they
want/buy).
When people with serious reservations about the theory understand it and apply it better than folks who claim to use to design games, it's time to re-think things.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Kyle AaronBut then, I'm not the one saying "System Matters". A simple requirement of any theory is that it should be internally consistent.
Kyle, "System matters" is one of the few good bits that came out of the Forge. It's just a pity that most Forge-designers don't know what to do with their own bit of wisdom.
I think that, again, you're taking it to an extreme as if system was all that matters. That can't be. Roleplaying games remain an exercise of creativity and part of that is filled by the participants' imagination.
Vincent Baker's position seems pretty simple to me. He readily admits that the book will probably lead to "evil" acts. He's just not responsible if someone wants to explicitly throat-fuck boys. The game and the twisted person contributed to the situation. I doubt the person who came up with that sick shit would have done the same in a Miami Vice-type 80s game rewarding other themes but at the same time, it does take a particularly fucked up mind to narrate throat-fucking. Even in a game such as Poison'd.
It's like WotC's Book of Vile Darkness. If you use it with your players, it will certainly contribute to an evil atmosphere but how vile it will be remains entirely up to you.
Quote from: RobNJHonesty, nobody I know spends this much time worrying about theory-purity or -rigor. To me and most people I know, "system matters" is the by-now-trivial, but at-the-time-not-so-trivial notion that game design can influence resultant play, so keep that in mind when you design. It seems like you're expecting a level of attention to theory that is relatively rare these days, either focused at our own games or at others'.
Well yeah. It never really was much more than an excuse to beat people over the heat with how, scientifically, their favorite game sucked.
Now, if only they could get over the Rebelious Freedom Fighter bullshit...
Quote from: HaffrungSo the esophagus-fucking was done out of fidelity to history?
Do you actually read what people write before setting up strawmen?
Temple's point was that the game itself wasn't the main issue here. Some people's characters committing distasteful acts and broadcasting it on the net doesn't automatically mean the game has no redeeming features. Otherwise we might as well condemn pretty much every rpg out there.
Was there any defence of oesophagus-fucking? Not that I'm aware.
Thanks for playing.
You can tell who is only here for promotion.
By the stench.
And the Avatars.
Quote from: SettembriniYou can tell who is only here for promotion.
By the stench.
And the Avatars.
You're fun-nee. How is it in Setlandonia? Still busy digging trenches, throwing up revetments, forming the forlorn hope?
Quote from: Joshua FordYou're fun-nee. How is it in Setlandonia? Still busy digging trenches, throwing up revetments, forming the forlorn hope?
Keep this in mind:
Your'e the one in uniform, Ford.
Quote from: Abyssal MawKeep this in mind:
Your'e the one in uniform, Ford.
A shame these don't come any bigger :rolleyes:
You think I should register at the Forge or Storygames then?
I wouldn't even have heard of the majority of 'Forge' games but for the bleating on here. You guys do a fantastic job of advertising for them though.
EDIT: What made me don the 'uniform'? That bile and wank-filled thread on Go Play.
Quote from: Joshua FordA shame these don't come any bigger :rolleyes:
Actually...
:rollbarf:
Hope that helps!
Quote from: Joshua FordA shame these don't come any bigger :rolleyes:
You think I should register at the Forge or Storygames then?
I wouldn't even have heard of the majority of 'Forge' games but for the bleating on here. You guys do a fantastic job of advertising for them though.
EDIT: What made me don the 'uniform'? That bile and wank-filled thread on Go Play.
Well, if you show up someplace to fight an ideological battle, don't try to pretend you aren't part of it. Why else are you here? Did you show up to discuss the nuances of the bell-curve?
You're more at war than we'll ever be.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityActually...
:rollbarf:
Hope that helps!
That's the one!
Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, if you show up someplace to fight an ideological battle, don't try to pretend you aren't part of it. Why else are you here? Did you show up to discuss the nuances of the bell-curve?
You're more at war than we'll ever be.
What, because I would like to see somewhere where people who have a love of games in common, if nothing else, spend less time bitching about other places?
Yes, I suppose that does make me an idealist.
First post was about Men Against Fire as it happens.
Quote from: Joshua FordWhat, because I would like to see somewhere where people who have a love of games in common, if nothing else, spend less time bitching about other places?
Yes, I suppose that does make me an idealist.
First post was about Men Against Fire as it happens.
But you're part of the bitching. You're obviously heavily invested in it. You're doing it now. saying you are an idealist is either delusional or simply a lie.
You could set an example and stop bitching about th people here, goplayer.
Quote from: Abyssal MawBut you're part of the bitching. You're obviously heavily invested in it. You're doing it now. saying you are an idealist is either delusional or simply a lie.
What part of bitching ABOUT OTHER PLACES don't you understand?
I enjoy reading a lot of the threads here and spend most of my rpg forum time here. If I feel the urge I'll post, but many people have far better ideas and suggestions that I just enjoy reading. Of late this place is turning into the place where if you don't post what certain people deem appropriate topics your thread will be crapped and your style of play insulted. I couldn't give a shit what games other people enjoy.
Pundit's right to celebrate an anniversary, there are many good posters here. Unfortunately there's a lot of time spent harping on about the past.
You are coming here and bitching about this place. What´s up with that?
We don't want any part of the Go-Play WAR!!!!
(hah!)
Quote from: SettembriniYou are coming here and bitching about this place. What´s up with that?
Because I'd rather see a wider variety of posters discussing an equally varied sort of topics rather than mods thread-crapping and personal attacks when you don't go with the perceived opinion? If I didn't give a shit then I'd have sacked this place off and gone back to rpg.net exclusively. Which I'd rather not have to do.
So you come here and want to change this place.
Shouldn´t you just go, and play?
Stop talking, go, play!
Quote from: Abyssal MawWe don't want any part of the Go-Play WAR!!!!
(hah!)
Was that a genuine laugh there Maw? My own feelings about Go Play aren't the same as many others, but I've already posted about them in the appropriate thread. I'd rather remember that at the end of the day we all play games for fun rather than notion of 'gamer culture' but it would appear you have to be at either end of the spectrum on the issue.
Quote from: SettembriniSo you come here and want to change this place.
Shouldn´t you just go, and play?
Stop talking, go, play!
If you'll read what I wrote elsewhere Sett, I prefer not to see it as an imperative, rather a recognition of something that gives us a great deal of pleasure. Hence, I'm not a fan of Go, play!
If I want posts about a "wider variety" of games (aka Story Games) then I'd go to one of the other forums.
Lots of forums have particular topics, genres, theories, or even publishers that they deal with. The Forge, Story Games, and RPG.net are places you can talk about Forge/Indy games and Forge/Indy theory. Alternate theories or views on "Story Games" aren't generally welcomed there.
With the exception of therpgsite I can't think of any forums where you can discuss alternatives to Forge/Indy theory without it being threadjacked and jargonified.
If such a board existed, I'd probably be there. But there isn't, so I'm here. :)
Mr. Ford, do you have anything else to contribute to this thread, instead of making a show of yourself and bashing this site and it´s users?
And if you don´t want to be associated with Go, Play! then you should change your avatar.
Quote from: StuartIf I want posts about a "wider variety" of games (aka Story Games) then I'd go to one of the other forums.
Lots of forums have particular topics, genres, theories, or even publishers that they deal with. The Forge, Story Games, and RPG.net are places you can talk about Forge/Indy games and Forge/Indy theory. Alternate theories or views on "Story Games" aren't generally welcomed there.
With the exception of therpgsite I can't think of any forums where you can discuss alternatives to Forge/Indy theory without it being threadjacked and jargonified.
If such a board existed, I'd probably be there. But there isn't, so I'm here. :)
How about the fact I enjoy an unmoderated board? I'd rather not register for 4 or 5 forums to read a variety of discussions? It took me 18 months to register on rpg.net and I'd rather not spend too much time flicking between them. This forum was for 'traditional pen and paper rpgs' but of late it feels like that 'traditional' is getting more and more narrow. Alternatives to forge/indy theory may get thread-jacked elsewhere in your opinion, but does that mean this forum has to do the same to every instance of discussion of games that are not approved?
Quote from: Joshua FordA shame these don't come any bigger :rolleyes:
You think I should register at the Forge or Storygames then?
I wouldn't even have heard of the majority of 'Forge' games but for the bleating on here. You guys do a fantastic job of advertising for them though.
EDIT: What made me don the 'uniform'? That bile and wank-filled thread on Go Play.
I am so sick of this one. I mean really, do you people think anyone actualyl buys this line of crap?
"Oh I have nothing to do with the Forge, I just show up to defend them and their games whenever possible, and in fact only seem to have registered for expressly that purpose!"
It didn't fly the last several dozen times some dickfuck tried it, why the fuck would you think we'd believe it this time?
Quote from: Joshua FordAlternatives to forge/indy theory may get thread-jacked elsewhere in your opinion, but does that mean this forum has to do the same to every instance of discussion of games that are not approved?
I'd have no problem with that. I don't mind forums have narrower focus.
Personally, I'd like it if the moderators would lock / delete (or at least move) any threads started with GNS theory jargon, as well as look at other ways of preventing GNS theory threadjacking.
Edit:
Because it feels a lot like evangelizing, rather than actual theory discussion.
Quote from: Joshua FordBecause I'd rather see a wider variety of posters discussing an equally varied sort of topics rather than mods thread-crapping and personal attacks when you don't go with the perceived opinion? If I didn't give a shit then I'd have sacked this place off and gone back to rpg.net exclusively. Which I'd rather not have to do.
Translation: "I want to turn this place into an 'emotionally safe environment', where you can babble all kinds of horseshit and if anyone calls you on it, you get them banned."
Ain't ever gonna happen, and God bless that. You may as well just go crying back to RPGnet now, because trust me, there's no more stubborn human being on the planet than RPGpundit.
Quote from: J ArcaneI am so sick of this one. I mean really, do you people think anyone actualyl buys this line of crap?
"Oh I have nothing to do with the Forge, I just show up to defend them and their games whenever possible, and in fact only seem to have registered for expressly that purpose!"
It didn't fly the last several dozen times some dickfuck tried it, why the fuck would you think we'd believe it this time?
Go on, have a look at my posts. See how many Forge games I've dived in to defend. The Go Play thread? Exasperation after reading a lot of the same arguments on rpg.net.
Quote from: StuartI'd have no problem with that. I don't mind forums have narrower focus.
Personally, I'd like it if the moderators would lock / delete (or at least move) any threads started with GNS theory jargon, as well as look at other ways of preventing GNS theory threadjacking.
Edit:
Because it feels a lot like evangelizing, rather than actual theory discussion.
Fair enough - I don't agree that railing against the Forge actually 'damages' them, but understand your thinking on it. :)
Quote from: J ArcaneTranslation: "I want to turn this place into an 'emotionally safe environment', where you can babble all kinds of horseshit and if anyone calls you on it, you get them banned."
Ain't ever gonna happen, and God bless that. You may as well just go crying back to RPGnet now, because trust me, there's no more stubborn human being on the planet than RPGpundit.
Who gives a shit about 'emotionally safe'? If I wanted moderation and bannings I'd have stayed on rpg.net rather than coming over to see what people were talking about. I posted on-topic about the game in thread though and Sett has nothing to say but insults. Just symptomatic that's all.
Quote from: StuartIf I want posts about a "wider variety" of games (aka Story Games) then I'd go to one of the other forums.
Lots of forums have particular topics, genres, theories, or even publishers that they deal with. The Forge, Story Games, and RPG.net are places you can talk about Forge/Indy games and Forge/Indy theory. Alternate theories or views on "Story Games" aren't generally welcomed there.
With the exception of therpgsite I can't think of any forums where you can discuss alternatives to Forge/Indy theory without it being threadjacked and jargonified.
If such a board existed, I'd probably be there. But there isn't, so I'm here. :)
Word up dawg.
I am sick to fucking death of the Forge and it's evangelists and sympathizers, and it's nice to have a place that, for all it's other faults, can be damn certain not to let that shit gain any traction here, despite what has been a ridiculous blitz of their kind on these shores over the last month, ever since that damn Story-Games thread.
Fuck the lot of you, go back to sucking Ron Edward's cock, or fucking small boys in the throat, or whatever sick shit you're all up to this week, and leave this place the hell alone. It ain't going to work here.
Quote from: droogYou're right J, I'm probably just a sick, sociopathic fuckhole.
Eh, I'm definitely those things, I still think this sounds:
a) profoundly adolescent;
b) about as accurate as the Disney version.
A point I made upthread also, the Disney/Poison'd split is a classic fallacy of the excluded middle, it's also a total ignoring of how it actually worked historically (and several rpgs have done historical pirates pretty accurately, Gurps Swashbucklers, High Seas for Flashing Blades, the ICE Pirates supplement, Run Out the Guns, all of these portrayed fairly historically accurate pirates).
Poison'd as described is as accurate as Pirates of the Caribbean, but with a veneer of sixth form philosophy overlaid on it. There's more to challenging art than putting some freaky shit in, genuinely challenging art plays with our perceptions and preconceptions, this does not. If it is an artistic statement, I don't think it is a successful one. The question for me is not is it art, but is it good art. I don't think we get a happy answer to that question.
And profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.
Incidentally, Joshua Ford has every right to a go play avatar, this board is about sticking up for what you think. If he's into that it's for him to choose to flag it, just as to be fair it's for others to choose (randomly to my mind) to oppose it.
Balbinus,
he is exactly NOT sticking up for what he´s wearing the flag for. He denies being into Go,Play!
And we call that bullshit.
Quote from: SettembriniBalbinus,
he is exactly NOT sticking up for what he´s wearing the flag for. He denies being into Go,Play!
And we call that bullshit.
Not a fan of Go, Play! Sett. Not a fan of Go, Play! (As in stentorian voice, extended index).
Fan of Go Play! As in Gooooo Play! (Wheeee, we actually have something in common despite the arguments and we have fun in the process).
Please read what I wrote. That comma does make a difference.
So what?
You are weaseling around. You are not standing up for the symbol.
The symbol says, Go, Play!
With a comma.
Quote from: SettembriniSo what?
You are weaseling around. You are not standing up for the symbol.
The symbol says, Go, Play!
With a comma.
Here - what I posted last week Sett:
'You can take it as elitist, you can take it as an imperative, 'Go, Play' but personally I preferred the Go Play! celebration take on it. Different strokes.'
The symbol can say whatever the fuck I want it to.
Quote from: BalbinusPoison'd as described is as accurate as Pirates of the Caribbean, but with a veneer of sixth form philosophy overlaid on it. There's more to challenging art than putting some freaky shit in, genuinely challenging art plays with our perceptions and preconceptions, this does not. If it is an artistic statement, I don't think it is a successful one. The question for me is not is it art, but is it good art. I don't think we get a happy answer to that question.
And profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.
I don't always agree with your views, but the good common sense in this one here makes me want to buy you a beer.
Quote from: Joshua FordThe symbol can say whatever the fuck I want it to.
I think Umberto Eco just had a heart attack.
Are you serious? Are you that dumb and ignorant?
In short: No a symbol is something out of your control. It means what it means, it´s not for you to choose what it means. That´s the nature of the symbol.
Quote from: SettembriniI think Umberto Eco just had a heart attack.
Are you serious? Are you that dumb and ignorant?
In short: No a symbol is something out of your control. It means what it means, it´s not for you to choose what it means. That´s the nature of the symbol.
I don't think so Sett. A number of people on here chose to divine one meaning of the symbol (That is was a slur on themselves). Why shouldn't I allowed to do the same?
Quote from: BalbinusAnd profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.
Every teenager making up sick, pathetic crap thinks they have the next Reservoir Dogs on their harddrive.
-E.
Quote from: jeff37923I don't always agree with your views, but the good common sense in this one here makes me want to buy you a beer.
Brian Gleichman and I have always disagreed on a great many things, sometimes quite strongly.
We still always get along, I respect his arguments and the logic of them, even though I disagree by and large with his premises (and he of course with mine).
That said, disagree with my views? That's profoundly disturbing right there :p
Quote from: Joshua FordHere - what I posted last week Sett:
'You can take it as elitist, you can take it as an imperative, 'Go, Play' but personally I preferred the Go Play! celebration take on it. Different strokes.'
This is in fact technically correct, go play was explicitly designed to carry multiple meanings including precisely the one Joshua attributes to it. It's not even him reinterpreting (though he may think he is, I don't know), it's one of the original intended interpretations.
It was intended to be imperative if you wanted it, celebratory if you wanted that, that was explicitly the intent.
I think it's silly, but that doesn't make his usage wrong (though it does make it right but silly...)
Quote from: Balbinus(though it does make it right but silly...)
:D Yup - it was a post on rpgnet that made me see it differently after people on there had argued the toss for ages. The cheerleading feel was a little American for my liking but it was the most apt. Playing games for fun was something I grew up with - if it's not fun I stop doing it.
And now it also reminds that you could pick 5 posters here from 99% of the population and they could all probably sit round a table for an evening's gaming and actually have fun in the process. ;)
Poison'd is great! I had a chance to read it while I was in Seattle for PAX.
Cool/weird format, really well written and it looks sim-tastic! I do not remember reading about throat-fucking but I might have just missed that part.
And now I'm off to punch things!
- J
I fear that Mr. Gleichman was exactly right when he posted that he feared people would miss his point and the thread would degenerate into this nonsense. It is also sad to see everyone get so easily side-tracked. Come on people - stay focused.
This is a prime example, at least one of the most recognizable instances, of the failure of one of the founding aspects of GNS/TBM - "System Matters."
Well, I see the rebuttal that "System Matters, but it's not Only System Matter." Well, that's an interesting approach. If it's the case, then the principle is really something people have known for quite some time, not the revolution or nuggets of wisdom from The Forge. If you don't take it as Only System Matters, it's a trite restatement of something anyone who has every looked at a rule system and said "I think if I house-rule this in this way, I'll get closer to the feel of game play I think the group wants," has always known. So take your choice: either it's Only System Matters, in which case it produced this kind of play (and was intended to), or it's System Matters Too, in which case it's a trite piece of garbage.
So then I thought "Well, wait, they still created a Story - if a disgusting, juvenile, stupid one. So focusing on the Narrativist Creative Agenda still produced a story." But then I realized that's not a defense that can be used to defend the game. This is because one of the things thats supposed to happen if you focus on the Narrative Creative Agenda is that you should come up with a good Story - it's the whole reason for GNS/TBM, isn't it? If you can still create a crappy story like the one described, how is it any different than a rule system that focuses on the Gamist Creative Agenda? so my conclusion is that this must be a rule system built on to focus on the Gamist Creative Agenda, not the Narrativist; or it's a crappy Narrativist focused game; or it's Incoherent; or the GNS/TBM doesn't really mean what they think it means.
What this shows, to the cynical side of me, is that it's all really a marketing tool (as I've said many times before). It's no different than the "white papers" I used to read from companies trying to sell some kind of computer wizbang to my department. None of it was revolutionary, or groundbreaking, or even that accurate. It was just written up to look that way so the sales guys had something to hand out and talk about with potential clients - sometimes converting clients to thinking what they bought was revolutionary or groundbreaking so they would talk up the product as well. Sometimes they were good products, sometimes they weren't - but it never had anything to do with the "white paper," you could never rely on those, you had to do your own investigation and see if it worked for your particular application.
So, Forge guys if you're listening - ditch the theory. Take the good you can salvage from it (whatever that may be), and dump the rest. Then we can discuss the games and how the rules impact the play instead of the theory - you'll likely see less hostility and possibly even some welcoming arms.
I'm tired, I've got a headache, and I have hours to go before I get home. So you probably won't hear from me tonight - meaning yelling at me, if you are so inclined, will be pointless for now....
Quote from: Joshua FordTemple's point was that the game itself wasn't the main issue here. Some people's characters committing distasteful acts and broadcasting it on the net doesn't automatically mean the game has no redeeming features. Otherwise we might as well condemn pretty much every rpg out there.
I thought his point was that we need to look beyond the Disneyfied version of pirates and not candy-coat what pirates really did (the original post seems to have been deleted). I'm questioning what in fuck the anecdote from the AP session has to do with history. If it doesn't have anything to do with history, then why bring Disney and history up in the first place?
Quote from: James J SkachI fear that Mr. Gleichman was exactly right when he posted that he feared people would miss his point and the thread would degenerate into this nonsense. It is also sad to see everyone get so easily side-tracked. Come on people - stay focused.
This is a prime example, at least one of the most recognizable instances, of the failure of one of the founding aspects of GNS/TBM - "System Matters."
Well, I see the rebuttal that "System Matters, but it's not Only System Matter." Well, that's an interesting approach. If it's the case, then the principle is really something people have known for quite some time, not the revolution or nuggets of wisdom from The Forge. If you don't take it as Only System Matters, it's a trite restatement of something anyone who has every looked at a rule system and said "I think if I house-rule this in this way, I'll get closer to the feel of game play I think the group wants," has always known. So take your choice: either it's Only System Matters, in which case it produced this kind of play (and was intended to), or it's System Matters Too, in which case it's a trite piece of garbage.
I think most theory people would argue that they never said system was *all* that matters; but it's still quite a failure.
1) SDM, as expressed in TBM/GNS doesn't mean what Vincent says it means. When *he's* getting TBM/GNS wrong, that's pretty amazing.
2) The idea that rewards systems matter -- a lot -- (enough to get Brain Damage billing) is pretty key. If, in fact, RPG theorists had discovered a set of reward systems that really did drive satisfying thematic play for most people that would be significant.
And that, pretty much, is the claim.
Of course people claimed acid opened the gates of heaven for them. The truth is the insights acid gives most people are banal at best, incoherent, usually, and ridiculous at worst (on the average: all three).
As that became apparent, the acid=enlightenment movement more or less died out. I think looking at the games -- the actual play -- that comes out of these indie games has much the same effect: at best, it provides exactly what traditional systems provide. At worst... it provides threads like this.
As you put it, Story Now isn't (supposedly) about just any old story. It's supposed to be a *good* story... and what is an example of a good story? A "Reservoir Dogs on the High Seas?"
Well, now we know.
Since people (including me) have been throwing around story comparisons, I'll suggest yet another -- this time linked to the comparison of what RPG promises to what it (evidently) delivers: The Emperor's New Clothes. ;)
Cheers,
-E.
You know it must be the fact that I've been running and playing GURPS for so long - but this whole bugaboo about a "rewards system" has never been a big deal for me or my friends that I game with.
We just have a good time with a roleplaying game and sometimes an adventurous rousing story comes out of the mix.
Closest thing GURPS has to the rewards deal is character points - but my players have never been obsessively worried about them. I rewards them , they gradually get better at things - but it was never their end-all and be-all of playing.
If I was in a pick up game and that AP example started to happen - I think I'd get up and say I had better demos or games to check out at the con,...opr possibly even a dance. Or find my friend Liz and get a decent shoulder massage.
- Ed C.
Quote from: BalbinusPoison'd as described is as accurate as Pirates of the Caribbean, but with a veneer of sixth form philosophy overlaid on it. There's more to challenging art than putting some freaky shit in, genuinely challenging art plays with our perceptions and preconceptions, this does not. [..]
And profoundly disturbing works can be great art, but it takes more than crude shock tactics to make profoundly disturbing works.
I think that is very well put, especially after reading that lengthy account of all those torture pr0n movies. First thing I did when I logged on today was to post about the latest Geektogether. I was feeling all happy and optimistic about gamers, then I went and read that shit. It was a lot of crude shock.
And now I read this other shit from people who plainly don't have a game group. Honestly, those are the ones who come up with the most nonsense about gaming. It's like asking a lifetime single bloke who's only had one-night stands for love life advice.
Quote from: SettembriniIn short: No a symbol is something out of your control. It means what it means, it´s not for you to choose what it means. That´s the nature of the symbol.
In this sense, I think perhaps "System Matters", like most of GNS, is more symbol than actual theory. Perhaps as Skach says upthread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=135643&postcount=340), it's a marketing tool. But perhaps really it's a symbol. Perhaps The Big Model is to game designers what the white triangle on green is to gamers - it's a symbol of belonging. Notice that regular D&D or Vampire players don't have the Go Play avatar. It's just the regular "indie" game players.
There's probably overlap between the symbol part of it and the marketing part of it. After all, the "indie" game designers have an arrangement where they vote for each-other's games in awards, give them good reviews, promise to make extra noise during demo games to attract people's attention, and so on.
All that remains is for The Forge to adopt the Go Play symbol as their trademark. It can go in the corner of each book published by Indie Press Revolution. They can put a little "TM" next to it. Then the irony will be complete ;)
Quote from: -E.1) SDM, as expressed in TBM/GNS doesn't mean what Vincent says it means. When *he's* getting TBM/GNS wrong, that's pretty amazing.
Wait, you'll have to spell this out for me. Maybe other people are saying "it's the people, not the game", but Vincent came right out and agreed that the game contributed to the play.
There are fallacies hovering on the sidelines, such as "the play that's encouraged by the game is deep/artistic/more historical than Johnny Depp"...and Vincent himself may have committed one or more of them...but those aren't directly connected to SDM.
Quote2) The idea that rewards systems matter -- a lot -- (enough to get Brain Damage billing) is pretty key. If, in fact, RPG theorists had discovered a set of reward systems that really did drive satisfying thematic play for most people that would be significant.
This is a stronger claim than pure "System Does Matter", though again it's an implicit and sometimes explicit part of Narrativist hype.
Basically I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that, depending on the kind of play-experience you're looking for, a given game can enhance or impede it, or even encourage behaviors in other players that clash with what you want. But the idea that you can actively reinforce "meaningful play" in a paint-by-numbers fashion is, well, dubious at best, and not only that, the idea of "empowering players" is only a good one until you find yourself playing with people whose empowerment messes up your enjoyment.
[EDIT: clarity]
Quote from: Elliot Wilenand not only that, the idea that "empowering players" is only a good one until you find yourself playing with people whose empowerment messes up your enjoyment.
Or even try empowering players who prefer to be passive.
You can end up with some really bitchin' actual plays filled with three hours worth of "So, what do you guys want to do?"
Quote from: Joshua FordThis forum was for 'traditional pen and paper rpgs' but of late it feels like that 'traditional' is getting more and more narrow.
Bullshit. What game was being thought of as Regular before that is no longer being thought of that way?!
RPGPundit
Vincent has posted some of his notes from the GenCon Poison'd game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24749.0).
...
WTF
Quote from: RPGPunditBullshit. What game was being thought of as Regular before that is no longer being thought of that way?!
RPGPundit
It's not about the games, it's about anyone who dares wear a certain avatar, use certain language or have certain opinions get shouted down by the same quartet or so of goons to the point that the noise/signal ratio is starting to overwhelm the coolness of unmoderated boards. I guess that can be the price of freedom, but it really starts to wear. It's an attempt at censorship by popularity. It's not working, though and is instead just dragging the whole site down.
I think this conversation has some interesting threads going on in it. If you could exclude those who only want to grab what they can to shout their agenda at everybody, we might actually find some cogent thought on where System Matters might be flawed as a theory or when is a game no longer fun or "artistic". Instead, it's angry losers screaming about everything that offends them. Shit, I'd rather listen to people whining about what is and isn't sick then the endless futile rage against "indie" games or go play or whatever doesn't fit into their narrow little dogma.
Quote from: Vicent BakerWere we comfortable with what we did in the game? Yes. Well - we thought it was horrific, tragic, fitting, gruesome and bad. But whoever was talking, no matter how horrific and bad the things they were saying, never once did we wish they'd shut up.
After the game ended we sat and talked for another three hours or more, as friends. As, in fact, very good friends. None of us wanted to get up and go anywhere else. None of us wanted to open the circle to include anyone who hadn't been there. We split up for the night reluctantly and only very late. It was too good to leave behind.
That's alright, Vincent, you don't have to open your circle at all. Just keep on keeping to yourselves, please.
Quote from: StuartVincent has posted some of his notes from the GenCon Poison'd game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24749.0).
...
WTF
That game is just not my bag. I haven't heard anything I like about it. I'm done reading about it.
walkerp, I suggest you ignore the parts of the discussion you don't like, and engage the parts you do. Going "meta" just creates more noise.
Quote from: StuartVincent has posted some of his notes from the GenCon Poison'd game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24749.0).
...
WTF
Wow. That's all kinds of fucked up.
So many, many kinds of fucked up.
Quote from: Elliot Wilenwalkerp, I suggest you ignore the parts of the discussion you don't like, and engage the parts you do. Going "meta" just creates more noise.
Or like I said in the forum addict's manifesto, just start a new thread. After a thread has reached 100 posts, it never stays on-topic and drifts in multiple tangential topics, and almost nobody reads all the posts, so it gets repetitive.
Quote from: Kyle AaronOr like I said in the forum addict's manifesto, just start a new thread. After a thread has reached 100 posts, it never stays on-topic and drifts in multiple tangential topics, and almost nobody reads all the posts, so it gets repetitive.
That may be good advice Kyle, - but hardly anybody ever listens to good advice when they should.
Like 10 minutes ago - I haphazardly clicked on that link.
Holy Frakking Kahless !! What a bunch of slimy creeps those guys seem to be. I'm referring to the players at that Gencon game.
Whats worse is they are all proud somehow of their pretend rapes.
Think I gotta go watch
THE PIRATE MOVIE with Kristy McNichol now to get in a mellow mood again. That will be good as fluffy brain soap.
- Ed C.
Quote from: StuartVincent has posted some of his notes from the GenCon Poison'd game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24749.0).
So... what will be next time? Poisn'd LARP, where they will actually rape someone? What the hell? I thought that it was just one occassion, but now, another report, another rape.
:barf:
So can this game actually run without raping?
Quote from: Vincent BakerBut whoever was talking, no matter how horrific and bad the things they were saying, never once did we wish they'd shut up.
You know... this is not a circle of rapists anonymous, so I am pretty perplexed they were so eager to speak about such brutality.
Quote from: Vincent BakerAfter the game ended we sat and talked for another three hours or more, as friends. As, in fact, very good friends. None of us wanted to get up and go anywhere else.
Sounds like accomplices making sure everyone is on the same board.
Oh and happy lurking Killraven!
Sounds like a good game to me. You guys are like a bunch of old ladies.
Quote from: BalbinusA point I made upthread also, the Disney/Poison'd split is a classic fallacy of the excluded middle, it's also a total ignoring of how it actually worked historically (and several rpgs have done historical pirates pretty accurately, Gurps Swashbucklers, High Seas for Flashing Blades, the ICE Pirates supplement, Run Out the Guns, all of these portrayed fairly historically accurate pirates).
I don't think it's about history if it's anything like DitV.
Quote from: droogSounds like a good game to me. You guys are like a bunch of old ladies.
Is that better than being a dirty old man?
(http://www.bobgoat.com/images/video/RandV.jpg)
(Incidentally, balding, black t-shirt, jeans, insistence on talking about anal sex in public - yep those are the gamers I know.
What do trad gamers look like?)
Quote from: droogI don't think it's about history if it's anything like DitV.
As said in another thread, a game in which curses, ghosts and deals with the Devil have mechanical effects instead of being merely superstitions among sailors cannot really be "historically accurate."
Quote from: AlnagSo can this game actually run without raping?
Actually, there was one little tidbit in the RPGnet thread which some of you may have missed: sinning in itself, no matter how gentle or brutal it is, doesn't even make your character a better fighter. Combat efficiency is determined by the "Brinkmanship" rating which equals to the highest of the four stats. That
could be Brutality or Devil, yes, but Ambition or Soul as well. Raising Devil is simply
easy in comparison to the others, but it will damn the character since while Devil can be put down again through redemption (which reduces the stat to zero unless the redeemed sinner later returns to his old ways), lost Soul can never be recovered.
Also, every roll involves one of those stats against the difficulty defined by another, so even the slightest change carries a whole slew of mechanical consequences.
Quote from: StuartVincent has posted some of his notes from the GenCon Poison'd game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24749.0).
...
WTF
Holy god.
It gets even worse if you read the first reply, from one of the players in that game. He explains how the ship was "cursed", and that his PC had found out that to break the curse he'd have to swab the deck with a fellow PC's blood, but then the female PC in question broke into the dude's room and started going at his ass with a dildo and he took it willingly and it was totally beautiful because they were damned and going to hell but it was OK because they'd found true love deep inside their asses.
Is there any element of that actual play that anyone can find which elevates it beyond the level of the nastier sort of Pirates of the Caribbean slash fiction?
Someone should totally cross-post that shit to the infamous "Creepy Gamer" thread on RPGnet.
If that isn't prime material for such a thread, I don't know what is.
Quote from: Elliot WilenWait, you'll have to spell this out for me. Maybe other people are saying "it's the people, not the game", but Vincent came right out and agreed that the game contributed to the play.
I play GNS Cop!
GNS-SDM isn't the part of the theory that says reward mechanics drive / influence play. When Vincent posts
Quote from: lumply on RPG.netSystem matters. My game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which someone had their character commit a horrible murder-rape.
He's conflating the part of the theory that says "system matters" with the part that says "game design can contribute to a play environment."
Certainly most people believe system influences play -- but GNS SDM is specifically about how System aligns or doesn't align with Creative Agendas and how CA's relate to play (getting your CA realized is where the fun comes from).
Necro-buggering, as any GNS Cop will tell you, can take place under *any* CA (and virtually any system).
To be fair, if you spell out Vincent's whole train of logic he's consistent with GNS/TBM... GNS terms, Story NOW! (I always imagine Veruca Salt saying it) comes from answering moral questions during play -- and those questions do appear to be posed by the game...
This isn't a huge mistake (more of a set of omissions, really), but it's the kind of thing someone who cares about using the theory rigorously would be concerned about, especially given the tendency to drift the theory -- and especially given the tendency for people to use the phrase "System Does Matter" in all kinds of ways.
It's the sort of muddled presentation I'd expect a well-read indie-theory fanboy to make... but not one I'd expect a GNS Cop to make.
Quote from: Elliot WilenThere are fallacies hovering on the sidelines, such as "the play that's encouraged by the game is deep/artistic/more historical than Johnny Depp"...and Vincent himself may have committed one or more of them...but those aren't directly connected to SDM.
This is a stronger claim than pure "System Does Matter", though again it's an implicit and sometimes explicit part of Narrativist hype.
Basically I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that, depending on the kind of play-experience you're looking for, a given game can enhance or impede it, or even encourage behaviors in other players that clash with what you want. But the idea that you can actively reinforce "meaningful play" in a paint-by-numbers fashion is, well, dubious at best, and not only that, the idea of "empowering players" is only a good one until you find yourself playing with people whose empowerment messes up your enjoyment.
[EDIT: clarity]
I don't think anyone is going around saying System Doesn't Matter At All. After all, anyone who's ever played 1st Edition GURPS Supers knows that system-impacts-play.
But for the GNS/TBM makes some claims about how system matters that are highly dubious. The AP report looks to me like basic adolescent "Let's Play Chaotic Evil Characters" stuff that occurs all the time in D&D (which provides damn little mechanical support for over-the-top evil play like necro-rape).
If Nar mechanics really mattered, I don't think you'd see such... similarities.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: J ArcaneSomeone should totally cross-post that shit to the infamous "Creepy Gamer" thread on RPGnet.
If that isn't prime material for such a thread, I don't know what is.
Done.
Also, I just noticed that in Vincent's AP he doesn't even give us the full details - in fact, he flat-out refuses to describe some of the stuff that happened.
And yet he happily describes great heaps of rape, fired from all the rape-cannons of His Majesty's Royal Rape Navy.
What the fuck?
Quote from: WarthurAlso, I just noticed that in Vincent's AP he doesn't even give us the full details - in fact, he flat-out refuses to describe some of the stuff that happened.
And yet he happily describes great heaps of rape, fired from all the rape-cannons of His Majesty's Royal Rape Navy.
What the fuck?
Frankly, I think after what's been posted so far, this is one of those moments where I can honestly say I really, really just don't want to know.
Besides, isn't what we have already more than enough?
Quote from: J ArcaneFrankly, I think after what's been posted so far, this is one of those moments where I can honestly say I really, really just don't want to know.
Besides, isn't what we have already more than enough?
I think we have enough.
Forge Games by and for Creepy Gamers- live out your sick sexual fantasies! They should sub-title all their products so.
I had to stop reading the trainwreck when I found this gem of a paragraph:
Quote from: LumplyEbenezer had tried to castrate Cuntface. a) To subjugate him, yes. But also b) out of love, like a big brother's, to prevent this very thing.
This reminded me of some child abuse case studies I read in a developmental psychology class.
But doesn't this say it all? One player character wanted to castrate another player character, to subjugate the character and out of love (like a big brother's).
I'm stunned that people are still talking about the game. The AP examples pretty much say all there is to on the subject.
Talk about free publicity...
Quote from: Vicent BakerWere we comfortable with what we did in the game? Yes. Well - we thought it was horrific, tragic, fitting, gruesome and bad. But whoever was talking, no matter how horrific and bad the things they were saying, never once did we wish they'd shut up.
After the game ended we sat and talked for another three hours or more, as friends. As, in fact, very good friends. None of us wanted to get up and go anywhere else. None of us wanted to open the circle to include anyone who hadn't been there. We split up for the night reluctantly and only very late. It was too good to leave behind.
I wonder, at what point do you stop and think that maybe there is something intrinsically wrong about the whole scenario. I know most intelligent, mature, adults can separate fantasy from reality and understand a game is just a game, but does a line get crossed somewhere when your "pretend" becomes inappropriate. When does "pretend" go from good wholesome fun to not-cool. Are rape, murder and torture all things that can be done in RPGs in good taste?
The whole system matters conversation is becoming laughable. What I'm hearing are game designers playing politician. They'll stand on the podium proclaiming system matters, games they designed help people play a particular way, and yes, it was their game design that made things fun. However, when something questionable comes up and people use the system matters arguments to point the blame back on the designer, then the tune changes. "Sure system matters, but in this instance, it was the players who made all the bad things happen, not the game. But the game still matters! Blame the players, it wasn't my fault, but I still matter!"
It was nice of Jared to stop by and add something to this conversation. Always a pleasure to have Forgites contribute to a discussion and not just plug each other's games. Very refreshing indeed. (Just curious, how many regular posters here stop by the forge, story-games or whatever and drop one liners about how great GURPS or D&D is?).
Quote from: Kyle AaronAll that remains is for The Forge to adopt the Go Play symbol as their trademark. It can go in the corner of each book published by Indie Press Revolution. They can put a little "TM" next to it. Then the irony will be complete ;)
The Forge isn't a company, and Indie Press Revolution does not publish any books (or anything else).
This basically ends the fun for me.
Pretentious guys, and calling them on their shit with my own hysterical and looney internet persona are one thing.
But these people have some serious problems.
I already got the impression when checking out some threads at Vincents Forum. But now he´s officially a person that shouldn´t be discussed at fun places, and his games alongside. Now, I know, the discussion will go on, and his games will still be mentioned. But I think this is not suited for hysterical TEH SWINEWAR!-Fun. This is un-fun, serious shit. And he and his followers bring it into the realm, my realm of RPGs. And I don´t want that. I positively don´t want that.
Please, keep away from our hobby. I hereby stop defending the technical attribute of "RPG-ness" of Thematic Games. Sure there might be other games, that are okay and in reality arwe RPGS, and not bringing up such gameplay. But as DitV and Mr. Baker are a cornerstone of any debate involving Thematic Games, it will be brought up sooner or later.
I urge everyone of you to stop any discussion or mentioning of these Games and their creators alltogether. These people don´t need to be called on their bullshit, they need something else, which nobody online can provide.
I used to be content with the notion that my ravings and attacks were "just as bad as what the forgers do". That was enough for me, showing their idiocy through a different kind of idiocy. But I don´t want to be compared or connected to the Forgers in any way any more. "Being just like them" is now a grave insult. A very grave one.
This is a crucial time for the hobby. If we don´t oust, ignore and shun them now, the hobby will be in serious danger. Outrage generates gadflies like droog, who revel in their rebellious attidude, hipsters and all the like. Only a wall of silence can do the trick. I know it won´t happen.
But I did propose it to all of you to ponder.
Who´s purposes are you furthering with debating these kinds of games?
Outrage is the bread and butter of several people, and the self-proclaimed artistés belong to them.
Outrage is not what is called for.
Ostracism is.
Please leave our hobby. Now.
Leave our conventions, leave our boards, leave our discussions.
Go away. We won´t talk to you anymore.
Quote from: DrewI'm stunned that people are still talking about the game. The AP examples pretty much say all there is to on the subject.
Talk about free publicity...
I don't buy the "all publicity is good publicity" line. Vincent Baker gains nothing from his new status as the indie Byron Hall, and more than those Republicans in those recent sex scandals got boosts to their careers by being busted for soliciting sex with strangers in public restrooms.
Quote from: WarthurI don't buy the "all publicity is good publicity" line. Vincent Baker gains nothing from his new status as the indie Byron Hall, and more than those Republicans in those recent sex scandals got boosts to their careers by being busted for soliciting sex with strangers in public restrooms.
I believe the difference between real life politics and fictional entertainment is huge in this case. I can't think of a single novel, film or play in the developed world that has actually lost it's audience through moral outrage. If anything it's the opposite.
The best and only functional response I can think of to a game like this is to ignore it. Deprive it of the oxygen it so desperately needs. Let it starve to death in the same wilderness as FATAL.
And that's all I'm willing contribute to this thread. Two posts and I'm done. :)
Quote from: DrewI believe the difference between real life politics and fictional entertainment is huge in this case. I can't think of a single novel, film or play in the developed world that has actually lost it's audience through moral outrage. If anything it's the opposite.
Except that the reason moral outrage works is that it brings the game to the attention to an audience who would otherwise have completely overlooked it. Look at where the outrage is happening: RPG.net, where there's a sizeable posse who pick up everything Vince Baker puts out anyhow, and here, where the local Culture Warriors seize on anything which can help them rip the Forge a new one.
It's an obscure RPG being discussed on fora for obscure RPGs. If it was an obscure RPG being discussed on, say, the national news, you might have a point.
QuoteThe best and only functional response I can think of to a game like this is to ignore it. Deprive it of the oxygen it so desperately needs. Let it starve to death in the same wilderness as FATAL.
Because, of course, FATAL has never inspired discussion or flamewars at all. :rolleyes:
Breaking silence for one more post...
Quote from: WarthurBecause, of course, FATAL has never inspired discussion or flamewars at all. :rolleyes:
No, but once they died down it disappeared off the map pretty quickly. I expect a similar thing will happen with Poison'd (or whatever the fuck it's called).
And as far as the online gaming world is concerned sites like RPGnet, ENWorld and the RPGSite
are the national media. I think it's a little shortsighted to idly dismiss the impact of these discussions, even on a site as relatively small as this.
And that really is me done with the subject. I won't be responding any further. No hard feelings. :)
Quote from: DrewI believe the difference between real life politics and fictional entertainment is huge in this case. I can't think of a single novel, film or play in the developed world that has actually lost it's audience through moral outrage. If anything it's the opposite.
Novels, films and plays usually involve many people and companies. Respectable companies are unlikely to suddenly create works that has people saying WTF and lose their audiences. There are too many checks and balances that stop things from getting to that point. There are exceptions though. There was definite fallout from the Janet Jackson / Superbowl incident -- although in that case I'm sure MTV thought it was an acceptable risk -- appear "edgey" and increase their audience at the expense of burning bridges with advertisers.
Individuals, such as performers, are another matter altogether. There are far fewer checks and balances to prevent individuals from saying or doing things that can damage their reputations. For example, Paul Reuben's career fell apart after "moral outrage" over his personal life.
I think Vincent Baker's choice to create this game was poorly thought out on his part.
Quote from: DrewAnd as far as the online gaming world is concerned sites like RPGnet, ENWorld and the RPGSite are the national media. I think it's a little shortsighted to idly dismiss the impact of these discussions, even on a site as relatively small as this.
No. The national media is the national media, in my analogy.
Let's look at the GTA case. GTA: San Andreas would have been discussed widely on the computer gaming websites even if there hadn't been any controversy, because - surprise - it was the latest instalment in a popular and critically acclaimed series. But thanks to the sterling efforts of Jack Thomspon, GTA got talked about in prime-time news slots - and as such got vastly more exposure than Joe Uncontroversial Computer Game could have ever expected.
Poison'd got coverage on RPG.net and therpgsite, and was controversial. Dogs In the Vineyard got coverage on RPG.net and therpgsite, and didn't spark a moral panic. I don't see how the controversy surrounding Poison'd has materially increased the coverage it would have otherwise received. There's a total of two fucking threads about it here, and only one or two threads about it on the Big Purple. By our standards, it's nigh-irrelevant (4e is getting way more attention); by RPG.net's standards it's a fucking drop in the ocean.
QuoteAnd that really is me done with the subject. I won't be responding any further. No hard feelings. :)
"I'm not going to respond further" is a coward's way of saying "I'm write, you're wrong, and I'm not going to engage with your arguments". Coward. If you're not willing to actually stand by what you say be a dear and don't fucking say it.
OK....so...after reading Vince's statements, I am no longer certain Vince and the Gen-Con group are just really immature (not that I mind irreverent humor per se, but the particular expressions of it in the AP reports was a bit too adolescent).
But now it seems that there is at least a possibility that the man is actually psychologically disturbed and created a game that will appeal to like-minded individuals so they can share their fantasies with each other. And that's just creepy, in a MBLA sort of way.
I'm no prude. And I even liked movies like Saw and Hostel. But if you consider a several-hour marathon of indulging in those kind of fantasies on a personal level to be a really great way to spend your time (so much so that you hate for the experience to end), then I think its safe to say it might be time to check in with a psychologist.
Quote from: Warthur"I'm not going to respond further" is a coward's way of saying "I'm write, you're wrong, and I'm not going to engage with your arguments". Coward. If you're not willing to actually stand by what you say be a dear and don't fucking say it.
It might also be a principled, and I would say rational, response to the fact that these huge flamefests are exactly what certain self-promoting Internet Warriors want. I agree with him on this point. The more people didn't take the bait and kept this going page after page of absolutely nothing being accomplished, the better.
What is there now to add to the fact that Vincent Baker, whose previous work I thought was interesting, has a vastly different idea of fun than myself, and I would contend, the vast majority of gamers? That his idea of "fun" and the game he designed that encourages it is potentially a huge black eye to our hobby? That the outrage felt by many is legitimate and that the "Indie" crowd had better reconsider their apparent deep need to be relevant even if that means that they appeal to the basest of human urges to gain notariety?
Feel free to flog the dead horse some more. I can't stop you. I've said what I wanted to say here, so with that I'm not going to respond further...;)
TGA
Quote from: The Good AssyrianIt might also be a principled, and I would say rational, response to the fact that these huge flamefests are exactly what certain self-promoting Internet Warriors want. I agree with him on this point. The more people didn't take the bait and kept this going page after page of absolutely nothing being accomplished, the better.
If Vincent Baker is really intent on the whole world hearing about how freakish his roleplaying sessions are, I'm not about to stand in his way.
If Vincent Baker reckons he can get lots of people to buy a game by posting horrible accounts of actual play online... I'm utterly unconvinced that it's going to work. How many people, here, have actually said they're going to buy the game because of this thread? How many people have said "Well, I liked Dogs, but this is too far - I'm not going to buy this?"
Quote from: WarthurPoison'd got coverage on RPG.net and therpgsite, and was controversial. Dogs In the Vineyard got coverage on RPG.net and therpgsite, and didn't spark a moral panic.
DitV should have, that is didn't is somewhat telling in itself.
Time to set down a few of my final thoughts on the matter I think.
First is that I said we'd be here a long time ago, back during my RPGNet exchanges about another Forge game
Little Fears. My thought then was that elements of that system design (under the same System Matters PoV) would encourage role-play of child abuse and start a trend towards even more open 'porn' style play in rpgs.
The general decision of the posters at RPGNet was that I was over-reacting. Heck, the elements of abuse in that game were even healthy as all adhoc psychological non-professional therapy is (?!). In any event, we'd never get to the point of open rpg porn, let alone open child abuse in rpgs- look at how people greeted FATAL. That's was stuff of small unknown sick little groups.
Well, here we are. And I wonder where we'll be in another 5 years.
The second point concerns the Forge itself. The people there have always come across to me as damaged goods.
Intensely unhappy with the rpg hobby, they couldn't begin to deal with the thought that the fault may be in themselves. So they explained in detail how that hobby was a victim of delusion and traditional games were counter-productive in their goals, and harmful to their players even to the point of mental damage.
GNS and all that followed was an attempt to gain approval they couldn't gain from the normal gaming geeks. And online, there's alway enough examples of damage goods to reach a critical mass. So they got their acceptance at long last. And got to look down at the rest of the hobby from behind their loftly walls.
Success is never enough however, finding acceptance of GNS and the like- they wanted more. And they've been turning up the dial for more for quite some time. From
Little Fears, Sex and Sorcery, DitV, and now
Poison'd- now they want you to accept their sexual fantasies as valid gaming.
Again, the Net is large and they will find enough people to agree with them. We've seen them in this thread. They will count themselves as winners, and continue on.
So the question is much the same- where will the Forge be 5 years from now?
Last thought is that of a philosopher that I have little agreement with, but the words seem apt: "And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee".
Quote from: The Good AssyrianI've said what I wanted to say here, so with that I'm not going to respond further...;)
I'm not going to respond further, either. -E's last post in reply to mine was interesting, but if I continue the discussion, I think I'll take it up in another thread (and probably much later).
Quote from: droogSounds like a good game to me. You guys are like a bunch of old ladies.
Yeah, because if you're not interested in roleplaying anal rape, pedophelia, and necrophelia in loving detail, and speaking in hushed tones about how beautiful it all is, then your'e pretty much an old lady.
If these guys were snickering and high-fiving as they played out the brutal scenarios they describe, I wouldn't be bothered so much. Just a bunch of juvenile jack-offs having a few laughs. But it's the fact they say they're doing some sophisticated, beautiful, and meaningful that exposes them as some seriously fucked up nutbars.
Good thing I don't attend conventions. If I did, I'd want to check out some pictures of these creepy fuckers before-hand so I'd know to steer well clear.
Quote from: gleichmanSuccess is never enough however, finding acceptance of GNS and the like- they wanted more. And they've been turning up the dial for more for quite some time. From Little Fears, Sex and Sorcery, DitV, and now Poison'd- now they want you to accept their sexual fantasies as valid gaming.
Last thought is that of a philosopher that I have little agreement with, but the words seem apt: "And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee".
This is awesome. Now you've created a historical movement devoted to slowly perverting our hobby into a cesspool of pornographic perversion.
The next step is obviously Satanism.
Chick was right.
I have to admit that I do draw the line at the post-game special feeling where they all sat around in a circle feeling all glowing and special and particularly attuned to one another and not wanting anybody to break their little circle. I find that aesthetically repugnant.
Quote from: Erik BoielleIs that better than being a dirty old man?
I bet you buy it, you pervert.
I'll check into this thread briefly, since I haven't seen anyone sharing my view.
I might play Poison'd at some point. But: the original AP example seems horrifying and grotesque, and I see no reason that the material should enter my gaming table; if I heard the kinds of things while playing, I would definitely put the brakes on and just walk away. Or, if these were people I thought were friends, I'd be upfront: "This is unnecessary. Cut that shit out now, or we're done."
I think I could play a game where the characters do bad things while keeping the actual, awful details offscreen. Because I don't think that kind of overt detail is needed, even if you're trying to tell a fancy-pants thematic story about that sort of thing. (I do think there are good non-wanker pirate stories you can tell with the Poison'd engine, from what I've heard, but I've heard only piecemeal.)
But, that's how I'd play it. People have their own judgements to make. And I personally shy away from gruesome fiction more than most people. (i.e. I just say the hell away from Saw and movies like that.)
Quote from: walkerpThe next step is obviously Satanism.
Chick was right.
Actually, if a subset of gamers did publish and play games specifically to indulge their satanic fantasies, then Jack Chick would be at least partially correct.
I don't see anyone saying sado-porn is going to take over the RPG hobby. But there is clearly a small sub-set of RPGers who are designing, publishing, and playing RPGs as an outlet for the sado-porn fantasies. It's understandable that RPGers who aren't sick fuckers are uncomfortable with this development.
Quote from: HaffrungActually, if a subset of gamers did publish and play games specifically to indulge their satanic fantasies, then Jack Chick would be at least partially correct.
Er... At least one gamer did. It's called
Empire of Satanis.
Quote from: HaffrungI don't see anyone saying sado-porn is going to take over the RPG hobby.
That's kind of the sense I got from Gleichman's last post. Take over is probably an exaggeration but his prognosis sounds very much like the same kind of fear-mongering that society puts up with everytime somebody pushes the envelope. First you have women voting, then it will be moral disolution then chaos, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I played a game of Little Fears at a con last year and it was a lot of fun. We played kids in a school in a low-income neighbourhood trapped in our school during a weekend detention center and fighting monsters that took on the forms of the fears in our world. The monsters were pretty scary (a guy with a dead cat festooned with syringes that he attacked us with) and there was a light social message (children who live in poverty have it tough), but mostly it was a fun adventure in a novel setting.
Quote from: walkerpI played a game of Little Fears at a con last year and it was a lot of fun.
There haven't been any recent news about the Nightmare Edition, have there? I've been looking forward to hearing more about that.
Yknow, I seriously think that you could be deep in to the third printing of Virtual Kid Fucker and Fifth-Child would still be defending it as High Art.
Hey, if those forge guys are serious about reaching untapped markets...I mean they already have Panty Explosion...
Quote from: Erik BoielleHey, if those forge guys are serious about reaching untapped markets...I mean they already have Panty Explosion...
Apart from the title (which might perhaps have been chosen with a little more care but no doubt proved to be an effective marketing ploy), what exactly do you have against that game, compared to a similar non-Forge game like, say,
Sailor Moon RPG?
Quote from: GrimGentApart from the title (which might perhaps have been chosen with a little more care but no doubt proved to be an effective marketing ploy), what exactly do you have against that game, compared to a similar non-Forge game like, say, Sailor Moon RPG?
Principally, its a wonderful stick with which to beat any 'story gamer' who gets to full of themselves.
Its just altogether too entertaining that a game called Panty Explosion is one of the big draws to the Story Gaming Elite. Yeah dudes, its the carefully crafted theory driven story engine that sells that one...
Quote from: Erik BoiellePrincipally, its a wonderful stick with which to beat any 'story gamer' who gets to full of themselves.
Its just altogether too entertaining that a game called Panty Explosion is one of the big draws to the Story Gaming Elite. Yeah dudes, its the carefully crafted theory driven story engine that sells that one...
Or "I have no idea what the game is about."
Quote from: Erik BoielleIts just altogether too entertaining that a game called Panty Explosion is one of the big draws to the Story Gaming Elite. Yeah dudes, its the carefully crafted theory driven story engine that sells that one...
Now that is priceless :)
Actually, I don't think this is viewed as a story game, but rather just something hip and part of the clique.
Quote from: walkerpOr "I have no idea what the game is about."
Well, to be honest that it is called Panty Explosion and has a picture of a japanese schoolgirl on the cover, and is often sold to the forges target audience (manga fans who arn't in to roleplaying games) is enough.
(http://www.atarashigames.com/Pillar%20wallpaper%20copy.jpg)
Dude as wrote it also gets mail telling him that his game would be better if it was a vitual murder simulator.
This plays to my own thoughts that concept/setup is the most important thing in attracting people to a game (hence vampire = HUGE sorceror = bitty), and also, given that some of the people at the forge booth this year were uncomfortable with having a booth babe for a couple of hours, if they did succeed in reaching a non-gamer audience, they wouldn't like what they found.
I was under the impression that Panty Explosion was a game about playing high school kids. I will admit that the cover image and the name definitely push it towards the tentacle horror side of things rather than just innocent schoolkids.
I note as well, though, that tentacle horror is an accepted sub-genre in anime. Why isn't it appropriate for an rpg?
Quote from: walkerpI was under the impression that Panty Explosion was a game about playing high school kids.
Psychic high school kids, to be more precise, who fight against demons.
Quote from: walkerpI note as well, though, that tentacle horror is an accepted sub-genre in anime. Why isn't it appropriate for an rpg?
Aside from the seedyness of sitting around talking about tentacle rape with a bunch of fat balding dudes, I have no real philosophic objection.
I'm just not gonna be lectured on high art by its officianados.
:-)
Hmmm--OT slur isn't working out too well, Erik. Not that I've got much time for PE myself. Ridiculous genre if you ask me.
Quote from: Erik BoielleAside from the seedyness of sitting around talking about tentacle rape with a bunch of fat balding dudes, I have no real philosophic objection.
I'm just not gonna be lectured on high art by its officianados.
:-)
I get you.
Quote from: droogHmmm--OT slur isn't working out too well, Erik.
Oh I don't know. If it gets Fifth-Child (the strangling of which arch-apologist with a piece of electric flex would likly cut forge/other hostility by around 20%) to consider precisely what his forgy chums would have to do for him to think it wasn't the greatest thing ever its all good.
Quote from: Erik BoielleOh I don't know. If it gets Fifth-Child (the strangling of which arch-apologist with a piece of electric flex would likly cut forge/other hostility by around 20%) to consider precisely what his forgy chums would have to do for him to think it wasn't the greatest thing ever its all good.
That's a very convoluted sentence, but what I get from it is that you get off on strangling people with electric cords. You're going to love that game!
Quote from: droogThat's a very convoluted sentence, but what I get from it is that you get off on strangling people with electric cords. You're going to love that game!
I'm more looking forward to
Classroom Deathmatch (but seriously, the appropriation of IP involved there is truely shameless - do you think a proper company could get away with it? SURELY its actionable under look and feel...).
No, er, I mean, Its ART. ART I tell you. I don't get off on Cuntface buggering Ebanezer! Its all for the ART.
ART ART ART ART ART ART
ARt
ART
ART!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.
Well thanks for breaking the shit out of the tables with that wallpaper, Erik. And it is a wallpaper, for those who didn't know. This is the image used on the actual cover:
(http://atarashigames.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/card-front-small.jpg)
And having paged through it I'm missing the tentacle rape undertone you seem to be implying is present.
Don't you mean ARRRRRRRT!
Quote from: droogI don't know much about art, but I know what I like.
Me too!
Quote from: DevPDon't you mean ARRRRRRRT!
:D
...and then my head exploded.
Quote from: BrantaiWell thanks for breaking the shit out of the tables with that wallpaper, Erik. And it is a wallpaper, for those who didn't know. This is the image used on the actual cover:
(http://atarashigames.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/card-front-small.jpg)
And having paged through it I'm missing the tentacle rape undertone you seem to be implying is present.
Holy keerist talk about putting your agenda ahead of your facts, Erik (and blew the tables all out). You went and found the wallpaper to support your case based on only the title of the game?
Quote from: walkerpHoly keerist talk about putting your agenda ahead of your facts, Erik (and blew the tables all out). You went and found the wallpaper to support your case based on only the title of the game?
My understanding is that the game changed in focus and tone during development, but the designer never changed the name so it doesn't fit the game very well.
I can't swear to that, I've never seen the game, but that's my understanding.
That has nothing to do with Erik going a bit above and beyond though in what seemed a very misleading post without him explaining the context of the picture he posted.
Quote from: BalbinusMy understanding is that the game changed in focus and tone during development, but the designer never changed the name so it doesn't fit the game very well.
I can't swear to that, I've never seen the game, but that's my understanding.
That has nothing to do with Erik going a bit above and beyond though in what seemed a very misleading post without him explaining the context of the picture he posted.
Well, if the name is not indicative of the rest of the game, one has to admit that it is an even more misleading title than Erik's post.
Frankly, the way they are showcasing this game (title, art) is fucking creepy.
As I understand it, the name "Panty Explosion!" was intended as a humorous jibe at the "engrish" phrases that often infect Japanese pop culture - things that often end up sounding dirty and have nothing to do with what they refer to. Things like this:
(http://brantai.googlepages.com/eliminate-horniness.jpg)
and this:
(http://brantai.googlepages.com/cabbages-condoms.jpg)
EDIT: Look, I'm as aghast at the pirate rape game as the next guy, but Panty Explosion is a gem of a game that doesn't deserve to be trashed for it's attempt at anime-geek humor.
But I would hazard a guess that throwing a little sex in the title and imagery was not accidental. It sells, after all.
Quote from: walkerpBut I would hazard a guess that throwing a little sex in the title and imagery was not accidental. It sells, after all.
Perhaps. I like the other wallpaper (http://www.atarashigames.com/images/Panty%20ExplosionVS%20wallpaper.jpg) better, anyway.
QuoteDitV should have, that is didn't is somewhat telling in itself.
I find it utterly repugnant, but even here I seem to be alone in this matter.
I guess, I am done with that discussion on rpg.net
It is very clear that any critique however serious and logical is not wellcome there. The game must stay clean and bright even if it is dirty to the top with rape and slaughter. Well, anyone who wants to play it probably deserves whatever outcome it will bring to him.
I never tought I would feel so dirty after talking to deaf ears of people fascinated with this moral sludge. :flush:
Quote from: J ArcaneI find it utterly repugnant, but even here I seem to be alone in this matter.
Certainly, I'd be slightly dissapointed if it turns out that DitV was just a grubby excuse for sado-porn and any subtlety and neuance read in by the reader (and if the dude heads off in to Adult Only top shelf material I'm gonna get suspicious).
(Why am I reminded about comments about never meeting your heros...)
I guess it could be both, but, er, somehow thats not as classy.
It's the sex, isn't it. There is less of a potential for it in a game about mormon's, no matter how over the top it is.
Quote from: Erik BoielleCertainly, I'd be slightly dissapointed if it turns out that DitV was just a grubby excuse for sado-porn and any subtlety and neuance read in by the reader (and if the dude heads off in to Adult Only top shelf material I'm gonna get suspicious).
(Why am I reminded about comments about never meeting your heros...)
Baker's post indicated that basically everything (as in subject matter) that happened in the poison'd campaign had occurred in DitV, stated almost like it was a prep game for the deeper and more 'meaningful' results of his latest creation.
Quote from: BakerIt wasn't that I'd never played a game with rape in it before. Far from it - I've run towns in Dogs in the Vineyard that would curl your hair. It wasn't that I'd never played a game where a player character committed rape onscreen, not that either. Running kill puppies for satan all those times means that I've gotten pretty jaded about what PCs will do.
I got a kick out of this comment:
QuoteRunning kill puppies for satan all those times means that I've gotten pretty jaded about what PCs will do.
I've gotten pretty jaded... Well, porn has that effect on people who feel compelled to 'bravely' push the boundaries. What's next -
Fisting the RPG?
... about what PCs will do. As though PCs act of their own volition.
No, PCs do what their players make them do. Your PCs didn't decide to rape children and wallow in visceral brutality -
you and your players decided to take the role of psychopaths and describe them doing those things. Bravely done, sir.
It's time we started letting people knock child-rearing experts on their ass.
And over in the rpg.net thread, the "art" argument is trotted out again. manydipresso tells us (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=7764848&postcount=477) about a rape scene in the film
The Accused, and then says, if it's okay in film, why not in an rpg?
The difference is simple. In
The Accused, the rapists are villains, and the audience is invited to sympathise with the rape victim. In
Poison'd, the rapists are the protagonists, and the audience - the game group - is invited to sympathise with the rapists.
That's the difference.
If there were an rpg where the
characters were the rape victims, it would certainly be disturbing, just as the non-rpg
They All Had Names is disturbing. But it wouldn't be... well, perverted.
What it comes down to is that
rape is something bad guys do, and the player-characters in a roleplaying game are supposed to be good guys. The "bad" and "good" may not be entirely black and white, there may be all sorts of mixing of stuff and moral dilemmas and so on. But basically the PCs are good guys and NPCs do the raping, and are bad guys.
Quote from: fifth_child, on rpg.netLook. We can't fruitfully phrase this discussion in terms of morality, because different people have different moralities.
Ah, moral relativism... that whiff you're smelling is the fresh smell of sloppy
bullshit. "Well, you feel that rape is wrong, but everyone has their own morality."
Quote from: Temple, on rpg.netPoison'd is not a game about rape. It is a game where you can choose to rape, and that choice has consequences. Thats a meaningful exploration of moral issues.
Okay, I'll explore that moral issue:
Should I rape?
No.
Well, that was a profound and memorable experience.
Quote from: Kyle AaronOkay, I'll explore that moral issue:
Should I rape?
No.
Well, that was a profound and memorable experience.
:tears:
QuoteFrankly, I don't think the Pundit's crowd could like anything remotely related to the Forge or RPGnet any less no matter what I did, anyway.
You'd be surprised. Good god man, your blind inability to accept any hint that possibly something connected with the forge is even slightly sub-optimal is infuriating.
If Vicent Baker shat on your head you'd thank him and ask for more, you goddam mongoose. Learn to think for your bloody self. Have an opinion of your own for bloody once.
Goddam humorless git.
Quote from: Kyle AaronIf there were an rpg where the characters were the rape victims, it would certainly be disturbing, just as the non-rpg They All Had Names is disturbing. But it wouldn't be... well, perverted.
So...
Everyone shows up at Baker's house so they see in what creative ways they can be raped that night? I sense a degree of perversion in that.
Folks trotting out the "art" argument still aren't doing a good job showing where the art is in either AP (the one on RPGnet or the one at the Forge). No one has shown that they were exploring any idea or effectively (key word) challenging preconceptions, how it was able to affect their (or anyone else's) viewpoint, etc. They were just exulting in the shockiness (which is fine, I guess, not my bag, but who am I to say?).
Kyle's got it right on the moral relativism argument, too. Hell, you're even taught in day one of Sociology not to fall prey to it.
Aesthetes they most certainly are not. They should just drop that line.
Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat it comes down to is that rape is something bad guys do, and the player-characters in a roleplaying game are supposed to be good guys.
They are? I guess I missed that rule. I'm glad that you've decided to tell everyone else how we should play. Man, the double-standards. You guys are just as bad as your "enemies".
Quote from: Kyle Aaronthe player-characters in a roleplaying game are supposed to be good guys. The "bad" and "good" may not be entirely black and white, there may be all sorts of mixing of stuff and moral dilemmas and so on. But basically the PCs are good guys and NPCs do the raping, and are bad guys.
Who sez? Mickey Mouse?
Quote from: droogWho sez? Mickey Mouse?
pwned! :haw:
Quote from: Kyle AaronOkay, I'll explore that moral issue:
Should I rape?
No.
Well, that was a profound and memorable experience.
That's pretty funny, too, though.
Quote from: gleichmanSo...
Everyone shows up at Baker's house so they see in what creative ways they can be raped that night? I sense a degree of perversion in that.
Well, like I said, it's definitely
disturbing. Maybe it could be perverted, but that's arguable, you'd need context and all that shit.
But to have their characters be the rapists, that's definitely fucked-up.
Quote from: walkerpThey are? I guess I missed that rule. I'm glad that you've decided to tell everyone else how we should play. Man, the double-standards. You guys are just as bad as your "enemies".
I'm quite happy for others to tell me how to play. I may or may not follow their suggestions, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a person saying, "you should play like this!"
I'll just assess their advice on its merits. That they told me how to play isn't a problem; the actual manner they told me to play in may or may not be a problem.
Here's the way I'll tell you to play:
- Your characters should be the ones whose actions determine how the events go along. This may or may not be how they intended things to go, but there should be a cause and effect. Thus, no railroading, GMPCs hogging the action, etc.
- Your characters should be relatively good people. That's relatively.
The
relative goodness is the important thing. Michael Corleone is
relatively good compared to his hot-headed brother or his treacherous brother, and
relatively good compared to his "business rivals". But he still ends up doing bad things, it all comes back to him. He's not murderous for the sake of it. He doesn't go "woohoo, cool!" He's an adult, not an adolescent. His is an interesting story because it shows that trying to be the best of a bad lot, you still end up fucking everything up. It all comes back and destroys him, not in some abstract afterlife that we won't have to see, but here and now - holding his dead daughter in his arms at the steps of the opera. It would be interesting to roleplay a guy like that.
Whereas it would not be interesting to roleplay Buffalo Bill from
Silence of the Lambs.
Pure evil is not very interesting. It's quite banal. I recall that while the FBI was looking for the Green River murderer, they interviewed the condemned serial killer Ted Bundy. Now, what they told Bundy was that as a killer and a psychologist they valued his insight into the Green River killer, they wanted his help in catching him. That's obviously what
Silence of the Lambs was based on. But the reality was different to the fiction. In the fiction, the imprisoned killer was actually useful. In reality, Ted Bundy gave no useful insights and was no help in catching the other killer. They knew and expected that, they were just using the issue to pump up his big ego so they could get him to confess to other killings he'd done and reveal where the victims' bodies were. And one thing the cops said about talking to him was that you got over the initial shock of him talking about fucking putrefying corpses, he was actually a pretty boring guy. Really full of himself.
Pure evil in fact gives you no interesting or useful insights, except into that particular instance of pure evil. Pure evil is not exciting. Pure evil is not cool. Pure evil is not badarsed. Pure evil is banal, ultimately boring and self-absorbed. Pure evil is for wankers.
What's interesting is the evil that people do when they're trying to be good, or when they try to compromise. Michael Corleone failed because he compromised. "They keep draggin' me back in!" Earlier in his life he had a choice as to whether to join "the family business." He chose to join it, "just for a little bit... in five years, the family will be completely legit." Now
that's interesting.
It was interesting because it was a genuine choice. "Will I stay uninvolved and not do evil, or will I help the family in time of conflict?" That's a real choice, that's a dilemma. Interesting stories, and interesting roleplaying game campaigns, come about from those sorts of choices. "Will I go when the light is green or just sit here?" is not an interesting choice. "Will I save the baby from drowning, or stand there laughing?" is also not an interesting choice. "Will I save the princess, or save the kingdom?" is interesting. The key issue is that the stakes involved in the choice must be significant, and there must be a reasonable argument for each choice.
Pure evil is banal, and an interest in it is puerile. That's because it's not a real choice. "Will you molest this murdered child's corpse?" is not a real choice. Either you are a sick fuck and automatically say, "yes!" or you're a normal person and say, "why am I even being asked this question? What the FUCK?!"
I mean, honestly, we're not really talking about evil people here. We're talking about these guys.
(http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/uploaded_images/BeavisButthead-711924.jpg)
"Ass-rape! Huhhuhu. Cool."
I mean, this is not a profound thing we're talking about, as much as Baker wants to dress it up as a Special Private Experience We All Shared And Afterwards We Had Hoagies.
Again, whatever the Forgers at rpg.net are saying, we can't say anything about
Poison'd itself. We haven't seen it, so we can't judge it as good or as bad in any way. But we can certainly judge the play reports, which are seriously fucked-up and adolescent. Now, according to Baker himself, that's come straight from the game book. So Baker would condemn or praise the system as producing that sort of play. I wouldn't. If your game is fucked-up, it's because of you. If your game is great, it's because of you. Baker doesn't want to admit this because no game designer is keen on the idea that they're the least important part of whether people have fun.
Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat's interesting is the evil that people do when they're trying to be good, or when they try to compromise.
And what makes you think that this isn't perfectly possible in
Poison'd?
Because Poison'd encourages fucked up stuff.
Zheesh!!
After TWO threads or more that should be obvious by now.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarBecause Poison'd encourages fucked up stuff.
Yeah, but you the player gets to define what's fucked up stuff. That's relative to the people playing it. If Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?
Quote from: KoltarBecause Poison'd encourages fucked up stuff.
Zheesh!!
After TWO threads or more that should be obvious by now.
Consider this. Your graying sailor may have done some disagreeable things in the past, but he's a changed man now: for long months he's been trying to stay on the straight and narrow, never hurting anyone, never soiling his soul, and desperately trying to find the courage to leave the pirate's life at the next port, or at the very least the one after that, for good. But at the moment the Navy is closing in on your ship, and the only one who could get you all to safety is the first mate, who really
is pure evil on peglegs. He just might save the whole crew...
if you agree to do whatever he says is necessary. How much of your noble ideals are you willing to risk if it takes a compromise to reach a safe harbour?
I think there were rapes by the dozen in my friend Colin's 'Psycho Bikers' GURPS campaign.
Quote from: droogI think there were rapes by the dozen in my friend Colin's 'Psycho Bikers' GURPS campaign.
One more thread and it will be obvious to Koltar!
You don't think it would be fun to play Darth Vader? Or Lord Humongous?
Quote from: GrimGentAnd what makes you think that this isn't perfectly possible in Poison'd?
I didn't say it wasn't. In fact, I said:
Again, whatever the Forgers at rpg.net are saying, we can't say anything about Poison'd itself. We haven't seen it, so we can't judge it as good or as bad in any way. But we can certainly judge the play reports [...] If your game is fucked-up, it's because of you.Conversations always go more smoothly when you read what people are actually saying.
Quote from: GunslingerIf Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?
Not mine, no. But that's because I think that System Doesn't Matter That Much, Really. Not compared to who you're playing with. People matter - system, not so much.
And that's actually the point of the thread, way back a zillion posts ago. That the Forgers - not Baker himself, but the apologists - say, "System Does Matter... well, unless it's one of our systems and you do it "wrong", then it's your fault."
Quote from: GunslingerYeah, but you the player gets to define what's fucked up stuff. That's relative to the people playing it. If Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?
I'd certainly consider Steve Jackson sick, and I'd likely stop buying his products as a result (easy enough, GURPS sucks anyway).
But there's a serious difference here, Steve Jackson didn't design his game mechanics to encourage that type of play. Baker did. And he's gloating about it.
I suppose that's true, though. We might not be able to judge a system based on what a few drooling fanboys say about it, but it's probably fair to judge it based on what the authour says about it. And Baker says his system "at least contributed to" the fucked-up play, and that that's a good thing.
I dunno, really. I think he's probably giving himself too much credit or blame. I mean, it doesn't matter what the system is, it's just not going to occur to most players to murder a child, cut off his head and molest his corpse. It just wouldn't pop into their head. At least FATAL gave you charts and tables for that sort of thing to inspire you. Baker expects you to come up with sick shit all by yourself.
Quote from: Kyle AaronConversations always go more smoothly when you read what people are actually saying.
I suspect that paragraph was edited in after I quoted the message for the reply: at the time, it ended at "Hoagies." In any case, it's been obvious for quite a while now that there's more to the game than random mayhem, and that the PC options aren't limited to playing evil bastards.
Quote from: GunslingerYeah, but you the player gets to define what's fucked up stuff.
That's relative to the people playing it.
If Steve Jackson came out and described something like that happening with GURPS during an actual play would it change your mind about the game?
Aw Fuck!!
Now we're back into moral relativism shit again.
1) No it ISN'T RELATIVE to the people playing it. - If your system seems to encourage sick shit...then thats what you get. Baker even appeared to brag about it afterwards.
2) I've met Steve Jackson years ago at a con where I was working security
.("Klingons" get asked to work security quite often over the years) He would never describe crap like that - Hell, his version of "Pirates" are the Lego kind or the romantocized kind.
3) GURPS has already done a "Pirates" book - its called SWASHBUCKLERS.
...and again , as someone else pointed out, even "real pirates" had standards and codes among themselves. They weren't Quentin Tarantino criminals with codenames. Brutal bastards of the kind that Baker seems to think they were arent the type to set up compacts and ship's articles of agreement - which real pirates DID.
Even current day prison convicts have a line that they won't cross - they did in Jeffrey Dahmer because they couldn't stand what he had done.
- Ed C.
Quote from: GrimGentI suspect that paragraph was edited in after I quoted the message for the reply: at the time, it ended at "Hoagies." In any case, it's been obvious for quite a while now that there's more to the game than random mayhem, and that the PC options aren't limited to playing evil bastards.
I'm unclear - are you accusing Kyle of editing his post so it would look good to respond to you that way?
I that's the case, I have to say I seem to remember Kyle's post exactly as he quoted it here downthread....
It wouldn't matter if it were edited in or not; I've consistently said that the people responsible for the sick shit or brilliant stuff in any game session are the players and GM involved, not the game designer. I've always said that, and I've said it in this thread. My very first comment in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134813&postcount=129) said,
"Me, as you all know I say, "fuck system, people matter." Your game session is an expression of you. So if your game is twisted and fucked-up, it's you. If your game session is brilliant and interesting and fun, it's you. You, the player or GM, get the blame and the credit for everything that happens at the game table. The system's just a tool.
"Some tools are better or wose for some jobs than others, but in the end it's a bad tradesman who blames his tools, and a modest tradesman who credits them. People matter to the outcome of a game session much much more than any system."
Again, reading people's posts makes responding to them much easier, and your response more relevant and useful and interesting. (For example, some of the people on rpg.net praising "System Does Matter" and other aspects of Forger theory would do well to actually read it.) It's not like I'm expecting you, as they do on the Forge, to remember or go digging for something I wrote years ago in some dead thread. I wrote it in this thread, several times.
I'll say it again: we don't know about the actual game Poison'd, though the authour's account of it gives it the credit or blame for what came out in play, I believe what comes out in play comes from the players and GM involved. Game systems are inspiring, not determining.
Fuck system, people matter.
Quote from: James J SkachI'm unclear - are you accusing Kyle of editing his post so it would look good to respond to you that way?
No, just that the end of the post was edited while I was writing the reply. The point is that we already have enough snippets from the folks who have actually read the book to know how the basics of the system work, and that it includes a fair number of alternative directions into which a character might develop. Notably,
a PC doesn't have commit a single sin during the game. Keeping your Soul intact gives you as much of an edge during play as raising your Devil, even though it may prove more difficult.
Quote from: GrimGentThe point is that we already have enough snippets from the folks who have actually read the book to know how the basics of the system work, and that it includes a fair number of alternative directions into which a character might develop. Notably, a PC doesn't have commit a single sin during the game. Keeping your Soul intact gives you as much of an edge during play as raising your Devil, even though it may prove more difficult.
Okay, so why do you think that two of the first groups who have played Poison'd, including the designer's own group, have used the game as a stage to perform savage sexual psycho-dramas? I'm not suggesting that's the only way the game can be played, but it seems pretty clear to me that the designer had just those sorts of pushing-the-envelope-of-graphic-brutality sessions in mind when he wrote the book. And he applauds the grotesque scenes described in those APs as moving, incredibly intimate experiences. Mission accomplished. Why not take his word for what he was trying to facilitate with the design?
Is anyone changing anyone else's mind after 450+ posts?
- Kent
Quote from: HaffrungOkay, so why do you think that two of the first groups who have played Poison'd, including the designer's own group, have used the game as a stage to perform savage sexual psycho-dramas? I'm not suggesting that's the only way the game can be played, but it seems pretty clear to me that the designer had just those sorts of pushing-the-envelope-of-graphic-brutality sessions in mind when he wrote the book. And he applauds the grotesque scenes described in those APs as moving, incredibly intimate experiences. Mission accomplished. Why not take his word for what he was trying to facilitate with the design?
Indeed. I don't get how anyone can even see it as up for debate at this point.
It's a game about encouraging the players to do abominable and disgusting things. It's creator seems to be quite proud of that. He also has a history of creating games about encouraging the players to do abominable things. We've got multiple actual play accounts, in which the players raped and violated and mutilated everything in sight.
We've got motive, prior record, confession, evidence, and eyewitness testimony, all to the same end. Case closed.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a game about encouraging the players to do abominable and disgusting things. It's creator seems to be quite proud of that. He also has a history of creating games about encouraging the players to do abominable things.
Characters. Not players.
Very, very important distinction.
Quote from: JimLotFPCharacters. Not players.
Very, very important distinction.
Characters whose decisions are made entirely in the minds of the players.
And the players decided to decapitate a boy and then fuck it in the throat.
If my favourite artist, musician, film maker etc suddenly produced something that was clearly over-the-line I wouldn't waste my time falling all over myself defending it. I might say their previous work was still good, or that there were good things about the current work... but I'd evaluate the current work based on it's own merits.
I can understand some people not being bothered by the subject matter... but rushing to defend it is something else.
Based on Vincent Baker's own promotional material, and his cited reasons for creating his new game, it's about adding brutal rape to an RPG about Pirates.
If you don't think a game that gives you mechanical benefits to roleplaying a rapist-as-protagonist is reprehensible -- is there any limit to what you'd accept from a game?
Quote from: J ArcaneCharacters whose decisions are made entirely in the minds of the players.
It is still complete fiction. There is no actual raping or killing going on. There is no actual murder victim or rape victim here.
Of course it's fictional. But it's still disturbing, and still wrong.
It's like, say, a paedophile who orders himself a RealDoll in the shape of a child, then molests it. There's no actual crime or suffering going on, but it's still wrong.
I'm not going to game with someone who wants to roleplay a rapist, a child murderer or necrophiliac, whether trivially or seriously. I'll just say, "no, you don't do that," and if they persist I'll walk away and leave them to masturbate into their own faeces or whatever they do to amuse themselves when alone. And no-one else should game with them, either. They make us look bad. What Fred Phelps is to Christianity, these guys are to gaming.
Sometimes things are wrong even when they cause no direct and obvious harm. Some things are just inherently wrong.
Quote from: JimLotFPIt is still complete fiction. There is no actual raping or killing going on. There is no actual murder victim or rape victim here.
Jimmy, you've really missed the point on why people find it sick.
Its the gamer version of :
Just because you can do something , that doesn't mean that you should. Its not just that they had their characters raping - its that they enjoyed talking about it and thought it was all "special" and intimate. When really they're just jaded bored people that don't know there are moral lines that just aren't normally crossed.
This is a game designer roping people into his little bag of issues and thinking its oh-so edgey - when its just poor taste and badly written.
This like the RPG version of
"The Producers" - only these people are taking themselves seriously and don't know that they've lost their way.
No matter how people keep re-phrasing it ...its still folks trying to defend brutal rape scenes as RPG.
Quote from: StuartI can understand some people not being bothered by the subject matter... but rushing to defend it is something else.
That is actually very much the point of the whole thing. I would interpret it as if the reveal something about themselves they need to confirm it is not true. But hell now I will be moral bullying and overcondifent about my moral rightness and whatever.
But hell I don't care. If you are sicko, you are sicko. And no dramatic speeches will change it, whatever you try to pretend. :raise:
Quote from: HaffrungOkay, so why do you think that two of the first groups who have played Poison'd, including the designer's own group, have used the game as a stage to perform savage sexual psycho-dramas?
I couldn't say, frankly: perhaps it is because those people have chosen to play savage and unrepentant sinners, and rape is the most savage sin that they could think of. However, that
is purely a choice on the part of the players, since the system treats that particular violation no differently from any other sin on the list. As said over at the other site, the game itself includes no mechanics specifically for raping someone, nor for the consequences of the act. All the book does is mention the possibility of it happening.
(Oh, and another little niggling detail which seems to get lost here: it's not only something that PCs are capable of committing like any other characters, but also something that they can
suffer.)
Temple said, over in the Heart of darkness (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24737.15)
QuotePoison'd for us became an excercise in collecting Xes in preparation for fights, against a backdrop of horrible, wicked pirates. And it was a blast! We laughed and shuddered at the horrible things our pirates did (which ranged from forced amputations to rape and good old fashioned violence), we were right there, right now in the fight scenes, cheering each other on, making each other laugh and having an awesome time the whole evening.
More AP from the artistic elite. I think it is now clear that this game is a tastful examination of the dark side of mans soul and not at all an excuse for fat, balding gamers to get yucks from pretending to ass rape nuns with badgers.
It
is Classy. Well fifth, I was so wrong. How could I doubt the artistic integrity of the forge!!!!!
Quote from: Erik Boielle...a tastful examination of the dark side of mans soul...
Who has even attempted to claim that? From the start, it's been no secret that the focus of the game is on unpleasant people doing and enduring unpleasant things in an "atmosphere of brutality."
Quote from: GrimGentWho has even attempted to claim that?"
Well, Vinnie himself for one. Fifth-Child for another.
QuoteHere in the cold light of day? I feel proud of the fiction we made. It was challenging and good. I feel good that we trusted each other and I feel super-good that we were all up to it. We could have freaked someone's shit out, but we didn't.
My feelings haven't changed, except that I feel more reserved about sharing the game now. I talked more publically about it the next morning than I have since. It's hard to convey the right "we did fucked up things, but no, it was good. We weren't fucking around."
See? They werent fucking around. This was srs bzns, not fat guys making dick jokes.
Quote from: JimLotFPIt is still complete fiction. There is no actual raping or killing going on. There is no actual murder victim or rape victim here.
The point is, it's PEOPLE thinking this shit up. None of this nebulous "it's what my character would do", method acting crap. In fact that line doesn't even hold water if we're being true to Forge dogma, since of course, immersionism is the devil.
And apparently these PEOPLE like sitting around and fantasizing about brutal rape and dismemberment and corpse mutilation.
If this was anything but the Forge, we'd've likely already gotten the posts from individuals asking whether we should contact the police out of concern they may've already acted on such sickitude, like has happened with the FATAL guys or mythusmage.
Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, Vinnie himself for one. Fifth-Child for another.
But that's not the same thing at all: where's the pretension? All that quote says that the group had a successful and emotionally charged session about something that they would be hard put to communicate to others.
Quote from: GrimGentwhere's the pretension?
QuoteWhat Im getting out of it is a moving story with emotional content that we as a group can explore.
QuotePoison'd for us became an excercise in collecting Xes in preparation for fights, against a backdrop of horrible, wicked pirates. And it was a blast! We laughed and shuddered at the horrible things our pirates did (which ranged from forced amputations to rape and good old fashioned violence), we were right there, right now in the fight scenes, cheering each other on, making each other laugh and having an awesome time the whole evening.
Same guy talking about the same thing dude...
Sure dude. Moving story with emotional content.
suuuuuuuurrrrrrrrreeeeeee.......
Back in the day (and soon again I hope) i played Vampire. I even had the Sabbat books (which were pretty close to the knuckle for the time, though I never ran a Sabbat game).
It was never about this.
In fact I don't recall ever having to make or call for a Humanity roll!
Nowadays it's all about being fucked in the head!
Quote from: Erik BoielleSame guy talking about the same thing dude...
Getting "a moving story with emotional content" out of your sessions is
pretentious now? That covers an awful lot more ground than the Forge or all of indie/small-press/wha'ever gaming.
Quote from: GrimGentGetting "a moving story with emotional content" out of your sessions is pretentious now?
Well, saying you are getting moving stories with emotional content while infact sitting around laughing about raping the cabin boy with his own severed penis probably is.
Quote from: signoftheserpentIn fact I don't recall ever having to make or call for a Humanity roll!
You characters never planned to kill someone? Or if they had high Humanity scores, they never stole anything or wrecked property?
Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, saying you are getting moving stories with emotional content while infact sitting around laughing about raping the cabin boy with his own severed penis probably is.
Not really, no. The "emotional content" evoked by that scene may be disturbing in itself, but that doesn't make it pretentious.
Quote from: HaffrungOkay, so why do you think that two of the first groups who have played Poison'd, including the designer's own group, have used the game as a stage to perform savage sexual psycho-dramas?
I actually posted about this on the RPG.net thread:
Quote from: meYou know, I have a theory about the prevalence of rape in the APs we've seen. I think it's got to do, in a lot of cases, with how upsetting the people playing find the notion of rape.
When I play Dogs in the Vineyard my character choices, town designs, and play tend to focus on the religious extremist features of the game: a world where religious conservatives are undeniably "right," one where sexism and homophobia are condoned by a god whose presence is undeniable in the world (depending on where you set the dials).
I am an atheist, queer-positive feminist.
For me, it is precisely focusing on these elements of the world which are so antithetical to what I believe to be good and right in the real world that makes the stories produced by playing a game of Dogs in the Vineyard a gut-wrenching, cathartic tragedy.
I'm guessing this sort of thing is why people I like and respect--like Vincent and Julia--play games with vicious rapes and feel closer to one another as a result.
I now return the internet to its regularly scheduled fear and loathing.
Quote from: GrimGentNot really, no. The "emotional content" evoked by that scene may be disturbing in itself, but that doesn't make it pretentious.
Look, could you give an example of where you think someone would be pretentious. I seriously don't see how someone making dick jokes and then telling everyone they were making high art would not be pretentious.
Thats what it means isn't it?
1 : characterized by pretension : as a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing)
b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature
Am I using it wrong?
So now we get J Arcane and Koltar arguing that system does matter? You guys are tripping all over yourselves in your righteous fury so much that you are starting to contradict your own theoretical positions.
At least you have a consistently theoretical position, Kyle Aaron, even if your moralizing is based on what you've decided is right and wrong and you can't separate representation from reality.
Quote from: GrimGent(Oh, and another little niggling detail which seems to get lost here: it's not only something that PCs are capable of committing like any other characters, but also something that they can suffer.)
Quite right - the game encourages sadistic
and masochistic play. Getting your thrills from role-playing being raped is every bit as seedy, pretentious, and fucked up as getting your thrills from pretending to rape.
Quote from: Erik BoielleI seriously don't see how someone making dick jokes and then telling everyone they were making high art would not be pretentious.
The problem is that in this case there's no claim to "high art": art, perhaps, since that can be liberally applied to all creative endeavours, but no one here or over there is declaring that it's particularly high. Gathering together to tell an emotionally effective story, even if the emotions involved are unsettling, even if the twists of the tale are grotesque? That
is art by definition. Saying so isn't pretentious.
Quote from: GrimGentThe problem is that in this case there's no claim to "high art":
Well, I'd argue that claming being able to get a moving story with emotional content out of a bloody roleplaying game is claiming high art. Claiming high art while actually making knob gags is pretention.
Claiming to make knob gags, and then making knob gags would not be pretentious.
Quote from: HaffrungQuite right - the game encourages sadistic and masochistic play. Getting your thrills from role-playing being raped is every bit as seedy, pretentious, and fucked up as getting your thrills from pretending to rape.
There's just no sense to discussing this from any point of view, is there?
"You play abusers." "Monstrous!"
"You play victims." "Perverse!"
"The game rewards atrocities." "Vile!"
"The game has some positive but mostly negative consequences for atrocities." "Lame!"
"The game punishes for atrocities." "Preachy!"
"The game includes a list of sins." "So everyone just has to tick them off one by one!"
"The game doesn't include detailed descriptions of those sins." "Aha, that's worse: then it forces you to
imagine awful things!"
Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, I'd argue that claming being able to get a moving story with emotional content out of a bloody roleplaying game is claiming high art.
Nope, I disagree. That's the old argument about whether RPGs can be art (which I believe that they
can be), and even then it's pretty darn rare for anyone to declare that they are necessarily
high art.
You never become emotionally involved with anything in your games? There are no moving reunions or revenges in your sessions?
GrimGent, walkerp, there's no way in Hell you guys can sew up this particular sow's ear of a game and convince people that it's a silk purse.
Thing is I reckon if
QuoteIn my opinion, if RPGs are about the power of imagination, then you have to accept that imagination can bring you into uncomfortable territory - trying to tame it with the equivalent of a decency code for RPGs is counterproductive, in my opinion.
really means 'I like making dick jokes' (and really, who doesn't?) its pretentious.
And I think it does. At least a little. Dude just wants to make dick jokes. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: jeff37923GrimGent, walkerp, there's no way in Hell you guys can sew up this particular sow's ear of a game and convince people that it's a silk purse.
You have clearly not absorbed anything I've written. You have not read the game. You have not played the game.
To make it clear for those of you who can't see past your pre-decided biases and emotional reactions, I am not defending the game. I have not read it and as I stated a while back, Pirates of the Spanish Main will suffice for my piratey gaming needs. I am attacking all the silly knee-jerk moralism coming from a group who is full of bile against another group because they claim their playstyle has been attacked. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right.
On top of it, which is really revealing that for most posters the motivation here has nothing to do with logic or morality but just any excuse to find a reason to hate a game, its designers and players as long as it comes from "the other camp", is that people are contradicting their own positions on Forge theory to find ways to attack a game they have neither read nor played.
That's bullshit and I'm calling it. I'm not trying to make the game a silk purse. But I'm not calling it a sow's ear either.
And just in general, I feel very much like I felt in 7th grade when the local freaked out fundamentalist parents decided to go after the after-school D&D program. Same language, same hysteria, same moral superiority. Kind of sucks that it comes from within the hobby this time, but then again these are the same people who have proven themselves so quick to hate the socially-uncool nerds, the "mouth-breathers" etc.
Quote from: Erik BoielleDude just wants to make dick jokes. Nothing wrong with that.
It could always be a really
imaginative dick joke, though.
Quote from: GrimGent(Oh, and another little niggling detail which seems to get lost here: it's not only something that PCs are capable of committing like any other characters, but also something that they can suffer.)
Alright, then another "little detail" that should be considered then is that in game terms by enduring rape, a character gains brutality and becomes less effective at doing non-brutal things.
Real classy.
I'm helping with a sexual assault awareness campaign next month -- I wonder what the other committee member's comments on that point of view would be?
Quote from: StuartAlright, then another "little detail" that should be considered then is that in game terms by enduring rape, a character gains brutality and becomes less effective at doing non-brutal things.
Not if he actually
endures it, which depends largely on the fortitude represented by Soul. As the result, the more a character has abused others in the past, the more brutal the humiliation of being abused in turn will make him. Someone more virtuous will suffer under the same circumstances, certainly, but the experience isn't going to turn him into a monster.
Quote from: walkerpI am attacking all the silly knee-jerk moralism coming from a group who is full of bile against another group because they claim their playstyle has been attacked. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right.
On top of it, which is really revealing that for most posters the motivation here has nothing to do with logic or morality but just any excuse to find a reason to hate a game, its designers and players as long as it comes from "the other camp", is that people are contradicting their own positions on Forge theory to find ways to attack a game they have neither read nor played.
I find the idea of turning rape into a tabletop roleplaying game to be vile. It has nothing to do with whether this is a storygame, a traditional rpg, a cardgame or a wargame. It's just wrong.
However, I believe there are a number of people
defending this game (that they haven't read, and haven't played) specifically because they feel they need to support their "team" in whatever RPG culture war people like to pretend is taking place.
Quote from: walkerpAnd just in general, I feel very much like I felt in 7th grade when the local freaked out fundamentalist parents decided to go after the after-school D&D program. Same language, same hysteria, same moral superiority. Kind of sucks that it comes from within the hobby this time, but then again these are the same people who have proven themselves so quick to hate the socially-uncool nerds, the "mouth-breathers" etc.
That took place because of a misunderstanding about what kids were doing in the game, and was understandable given the way the media and certain religious groups were reporting things at the time. The truth was there were no real spells, no summoned demons, no insanity, and no cults involved with your kids playing D&D. Any parent that took the time to find out what D&D was
really like stopped being afraid of it. This issue was about fear and ignorance.
This issue is completely different. It's not a matter of ignorance, as most of the people involved in the discussion aren't the uninformed public, but Vincent's peers (even if we're not all chummy, we're all fellow gamers and game designers). Nobody is making claims of things taking place in the game that the game designer himself hasn't reported. No amount of reading a game, or sitting in on a game session where Rape is put forward in the way presented here would make this something I'd find acceptable. This issue is about morality and responsibility.
Quote from: GrimGentNot if he actually endures it, which depends largely on the fortitude represented by Soul. As the result, the more a character has abused others in the past, the more brutal the humiliation of being abused in turn will make him. Someone more virtuous will suffer under the same circumstances, certainly, but the experience isn't going to turn him into a monster.
Sounds like there are quite complex rules for raping and being raped.
What other sins would you have to suffer being inflicted on you that you would need to endure and look at fortitude saving throws and what not?
Quote from: StuartI find turning the idea of turning rape into a tabletop roleplaying game to be vile.
And again: it's not "a game about rape." According to the folks who have read the book, even the word is mentioned only twice in the rules, once as a "sin" that can be committed and once as an "abuse" that can be suffered, and in neither case does the text elaborate on those any further. There's no special section on "raping for fun and profit."
Quote from: StuartSounds like there are quite complex rules for raping and being raped.
It's been repeated several times now, but hey, it bears repeating:
there are no rules or mechanics specifically for rape in the game. None whatsoever. As far as the system is concerned, it's no different from any other sin against another character. The game treats them all identically.
This is Vincent's motivation for creating this game:
QuoteI remember, like, 1995 or whenever, me and Emily coming out of Cutthroat Island with Geena Davis. I was clutching my head. I said, "they'll never, ever, ever let me make a pirate movie. Know why? Because it'd be Reservoir Dogs on a boat." Look at Pirates of the stupid Caribbean, even. There's Elizabeth Swann on board the Black Pearl, and all the pirates are leering and closing around her, and she shouts out "parlay," right? There's a threat there. And we know that in Disney's Caribbean, the threat will never come true, but in my movie, my Reservoir Dogs on a boat? We don't know any such thing. In my movie Elizabeth Swann is in danger. When that scene starts, you in the audience don't know whether this is the scene where I (as writer-director) back away from brutality or the scene where the gloves come off.
You can play any game with a subset of the rules. You could play a non vile game using FATAL or RaHoWa or Creepy Pervert Game X -- but that doesn't change the fact of what the game is, why it was created, or what it's encouraging.
I don't really have the same point of view as anyone on this board (or any board really) on RPG theory. I think System certainly matters. A lot. If I made a rule in D&D that says: "You can reroll any dice you want, as long as you say something filthy and pirate like" then it would be almost inevitable that filthy pirate talk would ensue. Yes, people could choose not to use that special rule -- but more likely they'd say "Yeah... this isn't the game for me."
This game gives you mechanical reward for committing rape. And from the play reports we've been discussing, and the comments of the game designer himself, that's exactly what you get.
Quote from: GrimGentIt's been repeated several times now, but hey, it bears repeating: there are no rules or mechanics specifically for rape in the game. None whatsoever. As far as the system is concerned, it's no different from any other sin against another character. The game treats them all identically.
I'll repeat it: What other sins would you have to suffer being inflicted on you that you would need to endure and look at fortitude saving throws and what not?
It's basically Torture and Rape.
Quote from: StuartThis game gives you mechanical reward for committing rape.
And this reward is... what, precisely? That the character becomes capable of committing the same crime again with less qualms but at the cost of his humanity? How exactly does that differ from, say, the morality systems in the various WoD games?
There are many things that are safely "off the table" in Disney Pirates. The pirates themselves can be generally bumbling loveable fools, innocent sailors with actual personalities aren't killed onscreen (and if it happens, its an important, meaningful death), etc.
Quote from: GrimGentAnd this reward is... what, precisely? That the character becomes capable of committing the same crime again with less qualms but at the cost of his humanity? How exactly does that differ from, say, the morality systems in the various WoD games?
When you lose too much humanity the GM says "Your character is too evil, and they're now an NPC."
In the Actual Play report from RPG.net the character would have been taken away from the player and (assuming a responsible GM) the event wouldn't have proceeded.
Quote from: StuartI'll repeat it: What other sins would you have to suffer being inflicted on you that you would need to endure and look at fortitude saving throws and what not?
For all I know, learning that your spouse has been cheating on you might be enough. Nothing I've read suggests that there's a distinction between any of the sins.
Quote from: StuartI don't really have the same point of view as anyone on this board (or any board really) on RPG theory. I think System certainly matters. A lot.
You're not as alone as you think.
Quote from: GrimGentAnd again: it's not "a game about rape." According to the folks who have read the book, even the word is mentioned only twice in the rules, once as a "sin" that can be committed and once as an "abuse" that can be suffered, and in neither case does the text elaborate on those any further. There's no special section on "raping for fun and profit."
The problem here is how does noe find out, what is the game about. First possibility is read the rules and count the amount of this and that. The second one is to observe the real behavior, how does the game run.
If I would have a game which does not speak about a rape even in those two occassions yet every and each group would rape in the sessions of this game like mad (and they did not do that with other games) would you still claim, that the game is not about rape.
So far I have seen about four APs, and the prevalence of rape (and murder) is seriously shocking, so claiming that the game is not about rape sounds bit well not accurate.
Quote from: GrimGentFor all I know, learning that your spouse has been cheating on you might be enough. Nothing I've read suggests that there's a distinction between any of the sins.
Nice try. That's a real stretch. You can't endure and become more brutal because the guy at the next table is being vain or gluttonous. :)
Quote from: StuartWhen you lose too much humanity the GM says "Your character is too evil, and they're now an NPC."
Only at Humanity/Morality 0. Rape and murder alone won't plunge your character quite that low, and slightly above that point he never has to worry about sinking further since he's become too callous about to care about what he does.
Quote from: StuartNice try. That's a real stretch. You can't endure and become more brutal because the guy at the next table is being vain or gluttonous. :)
Vanity and gluttony aren't sins in this game, it seems, unlike adultery which does have the potential to cause pain to others.
Quote from: StuartThis is Vincent's motivation for creating this game:
So basically we get this wonderful gift to the hobby because Baker wanted to see Keira Knightly raped.
Such simple beginnings...
Quote from: walkerpYou have clearly not absorbed anything I've written. You have not read the game. You have not played the game.
Didn't have to. The AP reports made it pretty clear that this was a fucked up game that I wouldn't be interested in playing. ANY game which has a mechanic for rewarding sociopathic behavior between players by making the abusing character stronger is sick by my reckoning.
Quote from: walkerpThat's bullshit and I'm calling it. I'm not trying to make the game a silk purse. But I'm not calling it a sow's ear either.
Then you have no standards.
For me, in my games, I do not think it is OK to encourage the players through in-game rewards to have their characters engage in rape and necrophilia. Its low class and downright repugnant, not something you revel in and have a group hug after doing.
Now, just in case you think I'm too bourgeois for having this opinion, take this game and demo it at your FLGS. See what happens, because I'll bet you have the majority of people repulsed by it just like you are seeing on the web.
Quote from: GrimGentOnly at Humanity/Morality 0. Rape and murder alone won't plunge your character quite that low, and slightly above that point he never has to worry about sinking further since he's become too callous about to care about what he does.
I don't have my book here, but I'm pretty sure if you're a bloodthirsty raping lunatic your character would be taken away in short order.
Also, having a low humanity puts you at risk of having your character taken away if you suffer humanity loss from other things in the game.
In Poison'd it doesn't sound like gaining Brutality will result in your character being taken away. It's more like specializing. Like choosing a character/prestige class.
Quote from: AlnagSo far I have seen about four APs, and the prevalence of rape (and murder) is seriously shocking, so claiming that the game is not about rape sounds bit well not accurate.
Their sessions have included rape, and yes, I'd agree that those bits of APs could have done a much better job with representing the game to the public. Still, none of that comes from the text itself, but has been brought to the table by the players.
Quote from: gleichmanYou're not as alone as you think.
Yay. :D
Quote from: GrimGentStill, none of that comes from the text itself, but has been brought to the table by the players.
No. The System encourages rape. The theme of the game encourages rape. The intention of the game designer is to enourage brutality and rape.
You could use this same argument for FATAL. It would be equally wrong.
Quote from: StuartIn Poison'd it doesn't sound like gaining Brutality will result in your character being taken away. It's more like specializing. Like choosing a character/prestige class.
Predictably, it will make you more brutal, which comes with natural penalties of its own.
Every attribute represents a path that the character can take, with some advantages and many disadvantages. But during direct conflicts, in the absence of other factors, a pirate with Soul 6 and another with Brutality 6 are equal in ability.
Quote from: StuartYou could use this same argument for FATAL. It would be equally wrong.
FATAL has mind-numbingly detailed rules for rape and glorifies it as the natural thing to do, with no negative consequences for the perpetrator.
Poison'd... doesn't.
I find this entertaining:-
http://jake-richmond.livejournal.com/17003.html
QuoteGoing back to my first concern, I do think that the article does a disservice to the community. We're portrayed as lo-brow and unsophisticated. The article is far from scathing, but it's enough to (I think) turn the readers of Portland Monthly away from gaming as an interest, pastime and artform. There's certainly nothing in the article that would make anyone want to try a game.
No offence, dude, but if you want to impress people for gods sake don't show them the book called panty explosion.
The common man judged them, and the common man said NERDSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
I can see it now:-
'See, it may look like we are sitting around at gen con talking about fisting cheerleaders with cheetos dropping off our guts, but really we are telling a touching story about an abusive family!
Guys! Guys! Where are you going guys!
.
....
..
.
....
This is gonna be on the front page right?'
Quote from: GrimGentPredictably, it will make you more brutal, which comes with natural penalties of its own. Every attribute represents a path that the character can take, with some advantages and many disadvantages. But during direct conflicts, in the absence of other factors, a pirate with Soul 6 and another with Brutality 6 are equal in ability.
Mechanically, that's like a character class / prestige class. "Rapist" shouldn't be a character option.
Quote from: Erik BoielleThe common man judged them, and the common man said NERDSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2371/nerdsoq2.gif)
Quote from: GrimGentFATAL has mind-numbingly detailed rules for rape and glorifies it as the natural thing to do, with no negative consequences for the perpetrator. Poison'd... doesn't.
What is the negative consequences of being a rapist in Poison'd? Specialization isn't a negative consequence.
Quote from: kregmosier(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2371/nerdsoq2.gif)
That's AWESOME! :haw:
Why is playing a game where characters rape being taken as an endorsement of this behavior, rather than an exploration of the tragedy of evil behavior?
On a related note: not all laughter--not even all boisterous laughter--connotes approval of the behavior being laughed at.
Quote from: StuartWhat is the negative consequences of being a rapist in Poison'd?
Permanently decreased efficiency in any action that depends on Soul. Also, being damned to Hell or a half-existence as a vengeful ghost once the character dies (which doesn't mean the end of the game).
Quote from: GrimGentPermanently decreased efficiency in any action that depends on Soul. Also, being damned to Hell or a half-existence as a vengeful ghost once the character dies.
Choosing to be a Magic User permanently decreases your THAC0 progression. Players choose characters that are damned to Hell or half-existence as vengeful ghosts all the time. White Wolf has made entire games out of it. It's not a mechanical penalty at all. It's fluff.
Quote from: GrimGentTheir sessions have included rape, and yes, I'd agree that those bits of APs could have done a much better job with representing the game to the public. Still, none of that comes from the text itself, but has been brought to the table by the players.
If it is not a product of the game itself then the game (and still it happens so often) than somehow special sort of people plays this game. The sort that will introduce rape into the game. How is it so? There must be something else that makes the game attractive for this sort of people which will just bring us back to where we begin - that the game produce (indirectly) rape.
I generally don't care about tool (rules) but outcome (experience, AP). The outcome is horrible. So whatever the tool is I am not impressed.
Quote from: StuartChoosing to be a Magic User permanently decreases your THAC0 progression.
Constantly, level after level, until he can be killed by a mosquito? In any case, since the attributes interlock with each other and never determine anything by themselves, losing your Soul affects more or less everything that you do. Sooner or later, that rapist simply won't be able to even understand properly how other people think.
Quote from: GrimGentPermanently decreased efficiency in any action that depends on Soul. Also, being damned to Hell or a half-existence as a vengeful ghost once the character dies (which doesn't mean the end of the game).
Wait, being able to hang around and still interact with the party as a crazy ghost is a penalty in this system?
Unless you get to play your character in Heaven or Hell, I don't care which one my PC goes to. Once they're there, they're no longer in the game, and I can no longer play them: it's still a "loss" whichever way you cut it.
Quote from: WarthurWait, being able to hang around and still interact with the party as a crazy ghost is a penalty in this system?
When the alternative is hanging around as a guardian spirit, I'd say so, but mileage varies and all that. Actually, I'm not sure about the mechanic which determines whether the deceased character remains on Earth, and in what form. Ambition versus Brutality, perhaps?
Quote from: GrimGentWhen the alternative is hanging around as a guardian spirit, I'd say so, but mileage varies and all that. Actually, I'm not sure about the mechanic which determines whether the deceased character remains on Earth, and in what form. Ambition versus Brutality, perhaps?
Either way, sticking around and getting to keep playing your character sounds like a sweeter deal than going to Heaven or Hell.
Quote from: WarthurEither way, sticking around and getting to keep playing your character sounds like a sweeter deal than going to Heaven or Hell.
There may be a way to keep influencing things even from the upstairs or the downstairs. Someone mentioned the possibility of becoming the "GM's Mate" when your character leaves play.
Quote from: GrimGentGathering together to tell an emotionally effective story, even if the emotions involved are unsettling, even if the twists of the tale are grotesque? That is art by definition. Saying so isn't pretentious.
So all catharsis is art? If I showed you a video of a child being raped and then pulled apart by dogs and left to die in a pile of feces, you'd certainly have an emotional reaction to it. You may even want to watch it again, to savour that frission of horror and disgust. Doesn't make it art - it's porn, plain and simple.
Because that's all those Poison'd sessions were - horror porn and emotional tourism created by a bunch of pretentious, tasteless, terribly misguided losers.
Quote from: GrimGentTheir sessions have included rape, and yes, I'd agree that those bits of APs could have done a much better job with representing the game to the public. Still, none of that comes from the text itself, but has been brought to the table by the players.
And the designer. I don't see how the way a designer plays his own game can possibly be bringing things to table that he didn't want to encourage in the design.
Have you actually read Baker's AP and comments about the play session? The guy designed and plays Poison'd specifically to explore brutality, rape, and abusive families. It's not about frickin' pirates - pirates are just the excuse to generate a lurid emotional catharsis from play-acting abuse and horror.
Quote from: RobNJWhy is playing a game where characters rape being taken as an endorsement of this behavior, rather than an exploration of the tragedy of evil behavior?
Endorsement has nothing to do with it. Sensible people realize that a bunch of jaded, balding geeks cannot generate a meaningful exploration of rape or any other genuinely evil behaviour by playing a game. Full stop.
it certainly seems that way.
i cannot imagine the mindset that sits down and wants to create that kind of game/adventure.
Quote from: HaffrungHave you actually read Baker's AP and comments about the play session? The guy designed and plays Poison'd specifically to explore brutulity, rape, and abusive families. It's not about frickin' pirates - pirates are just the excuse to generate a lurid emotional catharsis from play-acting abuse and horror.
The pirate crew as a dysfunctional family, with the dying captain as an abusive father figure whose condition is causing the already unhealthy relationships on the ship to degenerate? Sounds reasonable to me. Note, however, that what even a designer does with his game in no way informs my play unless it's somehow hardwired into the mechanics.
Man, GrimGent. I have a feeling you own this game - or were exposed to it far earlier in the process. Did you buy this at GenCon?
Cause, man, we won't hold it against you; you don't have to defend your purchase.
Quote from: walkerpSo now we get J Arcane and Koltar arguing that system does matter? You guys are tripping all over yourselves in your righteous fury so much that you are starting to contradict your own theoretical positions.
Walker, my friend, you stumbled upon the truth of the matter, but not in the way you think.
See, if you go back to Mr. Gleichman's OP, you'll see that he was looking at this almost exclusively from the angle that this game is an example of
The Forge design philosophy having it both ways.
Look, System Does Matter means one of a few things things:
- Only System Matters: In this case system rules supreme - the system will determine the kind of play. If this is the case, then this game has serious problems. It either:
[LIST=A]
- was written in such a way that it promotes a horrible result of play in advertantly - in which case the designer needs to do some rework.
- was written to produce this kind of horrible result - in which case I'd rather not deal with the people involved on any level.
- System Matters Too: In this case, it's not the system that determines the resultant play, but the people at the table. The people with who you are playing are going to matter more than how you deterine if the princess is saved - or raped. The game itself might or might not be used to create this kind of result. It has the capability and though the jury is still out on whether or not it promotes it, IMHO it appears to. In which case I'd rather not deal with the people who provided the APs of this game, including the author as he, too, was involved in one of the AP reports.
- System and People Matter: In this case, it's not one or the other, but the combination of the two. The system might facilitate one style over another; changes to the system might change the play experience a bit in one direction or another. The play styles of the players at the table may or may not be enhanced by a specific aspect of the system. If this is the case, thenyou have a system that at least facilitates this behavior being played by a bunch of people who participated in having their characters act in this manner who then sat around and talked about how great it was. As you can probably guess, I'd rather not deal with the people who were involved.
Which is GNS/TBM? Any way you slice this, any of the three options that proponents of GNS/TBM decide is the one to which they adhere, something strange and fucked up happened here. The problem that Mr. Gleichman is pointing out, I think, is that they've decided to move amongst these three when it fits them, to the one that is the least damaging to the Theory/Cause/Marketing(my belief) at the moment. So in this case, System doesn't matter as much, because that would mean the system was fucked up - can't have that for a Forgery like Mr. Baker.
The most disturbing part to me is this - they don't see anything wrong with it. They sat around in their circle of vicarious abusers and talked about how meaningful it all was.
This was a good Story in their eyes. Which is why, I think, they don't have any qualms about claiming the system contributed to this play - they don't have a problem with the play itself. And if one does not have a problem with that kind of play combusting spontaneously from a rule set - well, then there are bigger issues than GNS/TBM.
And don't even get me started with how this fucks up the entire Gamist/Narrativist thing....
Quote from: GrimGentTheir sessions have included rape, and yes, I'd agree that those bits of APs could have done a much better job with representing the game to the public. Still, none of that comes from the text itself, but has been brought to the table by the players.
I agree w/ this: system doesn't matter.
But (and this is the point of this thread) some people believe System Does Matter in that the game system does create (or at least significantly contribute to) that kind of play.
Usually through use of what theory calls "reward systems."
If you buy the theory, the system is significantly responsible.
Nevertheless, I tend to focus on the people at the table, rather than the rules, myself.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: J ArcaneAnd apparently these PEOPLE like sitting around and fantasizing about brutal rape and dismemberment and corpse mutilation.
So fucking what? I've got Carcass and Nuclear Death CDs on my shelf, I used to have Cannibal Corpse (one song title: Necropedophile, look up the lyrics) albums lying around and I've gotten promos from
hundreds of shit-eating, corpse-fucking themed bands. I have Cannibal Holocaust on the DVD shelf and I will be getting I Spit On Your Grave again because the region 2 version here has director commentary. But this is all more obscure
"You're a freak for even knowing what this shit is!" territory.
Going more mainstream, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is all about the dismemberment (and cannibalism!), you have the Saw movies, etc. Last night I saw an episode of CSI that featured a 16 year old girl getting raped by two men while her parents were trapped in the closet, and then she was murdered later on after she refused to identify one of her assailants. Those aren't "cult classics," those are part of modern pop culture. And I just saw the first episode of some show called Dexter here on TV last week - about a serial killer cop who dismembers criminals.
edit: Also include examples from frickin comic books - Cerebus and Identity Crisis and Watchmen have rape as driving plot points in addition to all sorts of moral failings exhibited by the central characters...
Lots of people like sitting around and fantasizing about brutal rape and/or dismemberment and/or corpse mutilation.
Lots. And then they tell people about it through various means. And apparently people from all walks of life like watching this kind of thing.
It's not unusual.
Quote from: Kyle AaronThere's no actual crime or suffering going on, but it's still wrong.
I disagree. In the strongest terms possible. Without suffering or a victim, it's not possible to do wrong, in my opinion.
Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd no-one else should game with them, either. They make us look bad.
Yeah, that's a good reason for action.
Quote from: GrimGentThe pirate crew as a dysfunctional family, with the dying captain as an abusive father figure whose condition is causing the already unhealthy relationships on the ship to degenerate? Sounds reasonable to me.
Sounds misguided, creepy, and pretentious to me. Add in the detailed play-acting of the most brutal abuse and we're venturing into the realm of pathologically sadistic/masochistic. Also has fuck all to do with pirates.
Quote from: JimLotFPLots of people like sitting around and fantasizing about brutal rape and/or dismemberment and/or corpse mutilation. Lots. And then they tell people about it through various means. And apparently people from all walks of life like watching this kind of thing. It's not unusual.
Small sub-cultures of fetishistic weirdos are, in fact, unusual. Heck, social disaproval of the fetish is part of the allure.
Quote from: JimLotFPSo fucking what? I've got Carcass and Nuclear Death CDs on my shelf, I used to have Cannibal Corpse (one song title: Necropedophile, look up the lyrics) albums lying around and I've gotten promos from hundreds of shit-eating, corpse-fucking themed bands. I have Cannibal Holocaust on the DVD shelf and I will be getting I Spit On Your Grave again because the region 2 version here has director commentary. But this is all more obscure "You're a freak for even knowing what this shit is!" territory.
Please remind me not to come to your house for dinner...
Quote from: JimLotFPGoing more mainstream, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is all about the dismemberment (and cannibalism!), you have the Saw movies, etc. Last night I saw an episode of CSI that featured a 16 year old girl getting raped by two men while her parents were trapped in the closet, and then she was murdered later on after she refused to identify one of her assailants. Those aren't "cult classics," those are part of modern pop culture. And I just saw the first episode of some show called Dexter here on TV last week - about a serial killer cop who dismembers criminals.
TCM - aimed at the teenager wallowing in gore for the gross out factor. I forget - what was the capital-S-Story in that one again? As for CSI, can you detail "featured?" Because I'm pretty sure I've seen every episode, I don't recall one where they "feature" a 16 year old getting raped. They may reference it, but I don't recall them showing it. And there's a huge difference. If people thought the rapes happened of screen, or in the past, and these were all people trying to deal with it, many here, I think, would not be so concerned. That's not the case. Dexter? Never heard of it. Do they show him killing and dismembering the people?
Quote from: JimLotFPLots of people like sitting around and fantasizing about brutal rape and/or dismemberment and/or corpse mutilation. Lots. And then they tell people about it through various means. And apparently people from all walks of life like watching this kind of thing. It's not unusual.
Lots? Like 10% of the population? Or is it just that you can comfort youself by saying there are
others who like it and even better when you rationalize it out to "lots."
Quote from: HaffrungEndorsement has nothing to do with it. Sensible people realize that a bunch of jaded, balding geeks cannot generate a meaningful exploration of rape or any other genuinely evil behaviour by playing a game. Full stop.
Clearly we differ on whether people playing a roleplaying game can generate a meaningful exploration of rape. Can't that be all? Can't we simply disagree and stop shitting on each other?
I said to somebody else in an Instant messaging conversation talking about all of this :
What would have happened if a rape survivor /past victim of rape had been at GenCon and overheard this game going on or the intimate after conversation they did ?
...and her boyfriend/husband was with her ?
....or her girlfriend/longterm partner?
Just a thought.
- Ed C.
Quote from: JimLotFP(one song title: Necropedophile, look up the lyrics)
Classy.
I'm guessing the lyrics are somehwat unpleasant.
Again, classy.
Quote from: RobNJClearly we differ on whether people playing a roleplaying game can generate a meaningful exploration of rape. Can't that be all? Can't we simply disagree and stop shitting on each other?
The best such an exercise can do is trivialize the act. None of the APs showed any meaningful exploration of the subject, only the trivialization. I'd even go so far as to say no one who hasn't been directly affected by such an act (as victim or as family member/close friend/significant other of the victim) could never meaningfully explore the subject.
I don't personally know the people involved, so I can't say how close they are to the subject. But judging by their posts and the enthusiasm they had for making their characters perpetrate such acts, it's safe to say that they don't understand it at all.
Quote from: James J SkachMan, GrimGent. I have a feeling you own this game - or were exposed to it far earlier in the process. Did you buy this at GenCon?
Nah: that's nowhere near my usual haunting grounds. I just prefer to know something about the actual game before criticizing, rather than vigorously leap to conclusions based on bits and pieces about how someone has played it. Misinformation ticks me off.
By-the-way,
It seems that Vincent Baker himself is now lurking on this forum and reading this thread.
Here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=7769569&postcount=631
- Ed C.
Fantastic, Koltar. I particularly like:
Quote from: Mr. BakerBut underneath it, where you wouldn't catch it if you were just walking by, we were telling a story about an abusive family. The people I was playing with are smart, perceptive people, informed about child abuse, sexual abuse, and cognitive development. None of us are professional developmental psychologists (I don't think), but most of us work or study in fields where we have contact with pro- or clinical-level subject matter.
So here I have this opportunity to create a story about an abusive family with people who can bring some real insight to the table. Too good to pass up.
We're not developmental psychologists - but we play them in games!
Again we're back to...what was the term emotourism?
Oh, and we don't get it because we aren't smart enough, I guess. We're just the public to be laughed at...
This is when I really feel like putting on the Pundit personna and screaming "Get the fuck out of this hobby!" at the top of my lungs. Perhaps if they all just went and became developmental psychologists...could we start a fund?
Quote from: StuartI'll repeat it: What other sins would you have to suffer being inflicted on you that you would need to endure and look at fortitude saving throws and what not?
It's basically Torture and Rape.
Well, since you asked, here's the list of the sins you can commit in Poison'd, which raise your Devil score and lower your Soul score.
Adultery
Blasphemy
Idolatry
Murder
Mutiny
Rape
Robbery
Sodomy
Here's the list of hardships you can suffer:
Accursing
Arrest
Attempted murder
Beating
Branding
Damnation
Disownment
Impressment
Imprisonment
Lashing
Mutilation
Rape
Torture
Also, it's not technically true that the word "rape" only appears in these two lists (and that's not what I said on the RPGnet thread): it also appears in the example character writeups, which list what sins the characters have committed and what hardships they have endured. And I found another instance in the description of the Cruel Fortune: Hell, which basically represents the crew being driven berserk by devilish influence, and mentions that those under the influence of this Cruel Fortune often kill, torture, cannibalize, and rape. There are a total of five instances I've found in the text. Just in the interest of complete honesty and disclosure.
To further note: There's no concrete mechanical bonus to raising your Devil score, per se. Every roll in this game that is not part of a fight consists of one of your four stats (Devil, Soul, Ambition, Brutality) rolled against another. Your Devil score gets rolled against Ambition when you want your pirate to treat personal danger casually and without fear. A higher Devil score does not, in fact, help your character to do more repugnant things in the future, either directly or indirectly. Your Devil score also only means anything (mechanically speaking) in comparison to your Ambition stat: if committing a new sin still leaves your Devil score lower than your Ambition, you've gained pretty much no mechanical benefit, and suffered a significant mechanical loss (I'll get to that in a minute). It is also equally effective mechanically, in terms of getting your pirate to do a better job of treating personal danger casually and without fear, to lower your Ambition score by giving up on one or more of your ambitions - with the same caveat that if your Ambition score is still higher than your Devil afterwards, you've basically screwed yourself over for no advantage.
Now, on the flip side, while committing new sins and raising your Devil score may or may not get you any kind of significant mechanical bonus, doing so is
always a significant loss. Any time your Devil score increases, your Soul score decreases at the same rate. Soul only ever decreases - once lost, it can never be regained under any circumstances, period. Soul is rolled against Devil whenever you want your pirate to endure punishment, pain, or torture without breaking, or to be calm and skilled in chaos. So, just like with Devil above, that may or may not be a significant mechanical change - the difference between the two scores is more important than either in isolation. But keep in mind that whenever Soul is going down, Devil is, by definition, going up. That means that you lose the capacity to endure in increments twice the size of any other loss of capability. Additionally, your Soul vs. Devil scores are used to determine what happens to your pirate when he or she dies. If your Devil is higher, there's a very good chance that your pirate will go to hell. Which, you know, probably sucks pretty bad from his or her point of view. (If your Soul is zero, then a trip to the Pit is guaranteed.) Furthermore, and possibly more importantly, the result of this Soul vs. Devil roll determines whether your character can remain on Earth as a ghost, either benign or vengeful, which is the game's main vehicle for keeping a player involved after his pirate bites the dust - which is relatively likely, given the violence inherent in the life of a pirate.
I'm available if there's any other questions about the game's rules.
Here's the thing that has kind of irked me: this argument has gone on for thousands of posts now on several forums, and in that deluge of messages I'm yet to see more than a few measly questions about the actual workings of Poison'd rather than assertions about how it supposedly works. Even when the folks who do have the text available chime in, those arguing against the game generally fail to take the opportunity to check whether their assumptions are correct. I mean, at least when I speculate on the mechanics, I'd like to ask about how close to the truth those speculations came whenever possible.
(Oh, 'ello, fifth.)
You can put on a Pundit Persona?
Interesting.
Not sure if that will catch on as a Halloween costume or not.
Hello Vincent!! Thank you for lurking...
- Ed C.
Quote from: James J SkachFantastic, Koltar. I particularly like:
We're not developmental psychologists - but we play them in games!
Again we're back to...what was the term emotourism?
Oh, and we don't get it because we aren't smart enough, I guess. We're just the public to be laughed at...
This is when I really feel like putting on the Pundit personna and screaming "Get the fuck out of this hobby!" at the top of my lungs. Perhaps if they all just went and became developmental psychologists...could we start a fund?
It's all rather bizarre:
On one hand it's a bunch of people, I assume (maybe I'm wrong), trying to examine what it was like living as a pirate with all the moral quandries involved.
On the other it's a bunch of people, in the 21st century, with 21st century morals, sat in a room in an environment as removed from the high seas as humanly possible.
You're willing to explore the life of a pirate, but from the comfort of a semi-detached psychodrama.
How can this have any meaning or value as a tool of learning and understanding?
And what are you hoping to understand? That pirates were pretty brutal? Shit I could have told you that!
Quote from: RobNJCan't we simply disagree and stop shitting on each other?
Well, it's not unlikely that shitting on each other will be featured in Baker's next game. So we'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: HaffrungWell, it's not unlikely that shitting on each other will be featured in Baker's next game. So we'll have to wait and see.
:haw: :haw: :haw:
So, to answer the question:
Quote from: StuartWhat other sins would you have to suffer being inflicted on you that you would need to endure and look at fortitude saving throws and what not?
Adultery -- I doubt it
Blasphemy -- No
Idolatry -- No
Murder -- Hardly
Mutiny -- I guess, but very specific
Rape -- Yes
Robbery -- I doubt it
Sodomy -- Yes
So I was mistaken, most characters can have Rape
and Sodomy to suffer through. The mechanic isn't Rape specific.
...
:(
Quote from: StuartSo, to answer the question:
Adultery -- I doubt it
Blasphemy -- No
Idolatry -- No
Murder -- Hardly
Mutiny -- I guess, but very specific
Rape -- Yes
Robbery -- I doubt it
Sodomy -- Yes
So I was mistaken, most characters can have Rape and Sodomy to suffer through. The mechanic isn't Rape specific.
...
:(
You're looking at the list of sins you can commit, not the list of hardships you can suffer through.
Quote from: James J SkachTCM - aimed at the teenager wallowing in gore for the gross out factor.
So? It's still dismemberment and cannibalism that was created by PEOPLE and has been seen by MILLIONS and is a cultural staple. Normal, everyday people know TCM. It's not some dirty in-the-closet video nasty.
Quote from: James J SkachAs for CSI, can you detail "featured?" Because I'm pretty sure I've seen every episode, I don't recall one where they "feature" a 16 year old getting raped. They may reference it, but I don't recall them showing it. And there's a huge difference.
They did show it. Not nudity and penetration of course, but they had a shot of the the girl's face and upper body as she's being held down as the act occurs. One of the more brutal episodes of the show.
This is the episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0534702/
Quote from: James J SkachDexter? Never heard of it. Do they show him killing and dismembering the people?
I think it's a Showtime program in the States. They didn't
show any killing in the first episode, but they showed him tying up and jabbing his victim with sharp objects before they skipped to the next day. (and they showed plenty of dismembered bodies at crime scenes and the main character's admiration and love for blood spatter is but one of the "I AM A SOCIOPATH SEE HOW QUIRKY AND WEIRD I AM" things they show to establish the title character) I am under the impression it gets more graphic as time goes on because the hanging plot thread was him being fascinated by the work of another at-large serial killer.
Quote from: James J SkachLots? Like 10% of the population?
10% of the population of the US would mean 30 million people. Even if it's just 1%, it's still a larger group of people than role-players.
But I'll say it's in the many tens of millions. TCM has been seen by many millions. That episode of CSI has been seen by god knows how many millions of people. All sorts of music, movies, and books dealing with the subject are available at real mainstream stores, many of them best-sellers or chart toppers or Oscar winners. Some have "artistic merit," some are just there to shock, and some are the result of people goofing around.
Quote from: signoftheserpentIt's all rather bizarre:
On one hand it's a bunch of people, I assume (maybe I'm wrong), trying to examine what it was like living as a pirate with all the moral quandries involved.
On the other it's a bunch of people, in the 21st century, with 21st century morals, sat in a room in an environment as removed from the high seas as humanly possible.
You're willing to explore the life of a pirate, but from the comfort of a semi-detached psychodrama.
Isn't that a definition of roleplaying right there?
I doubt any game with a guy called cuntface and whatnot is going to be much more of a serious analysis than:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1TcuijzN7Y
(Monkey dust)
It's almost unwatchably funny, but its also got almost fuck all to do with the really, really sordid and nasty actuality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_oucSWlGQw
I will say that if you think you are doing anything worthy or noble with this then I really do think you are kidding yourself. But hey, monkey dust is funny yo.
BY THE POWER VESTED IN ME BY A TELEVOTE ON SKY NEWS I PRONOUNCE YOU GUILTY OF PEDOFILIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To my mind, shows like CSI are actually worse than media that is openly pornographic or excessively violent. It makes the sex-violence connection often, does it in a titillating way with very high production values but masks itself in a good cops finding out bad people storyline. They have some pretty nasty stuff on that show.
Quote from: JimLotFPSo? It's still dismemberment and cannibalism that was created by PEOPLE and has been seen by MILLIONS and is a cultural staple. Normal, everyday people know TCM. It's not some dirty in-the-closet video nasty.
Cultrual Staple? You're kidding, right? Do you remember when it came out, how disturbing it was? The fact that culture has become desensitized to it does not make it a staple and is certainly not something to be happy about.
Quote from: JimLotFPThey did show it. Not nudity and penetration of course, but they had a shot of the the girl's face and upper body as she's being held down as the act occurs. One of the more brutal episodes of the show.
This is the episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0534702/
Was this a flashback? Because in the description they talk about the bne already happening. Also, I'm wondering if this was edited in some way as I remember the other two things, the old lady in the closet and the weird gun/bounty hunter story, but not the one you mention.
Either way, I've calling bullshit on the use of the word "featured." I'll confirm one day when it comes around in reruns as we Tivo all of them.
Quote from: JimLotFPI think it's a Showtime program in the States. They didn't show any killing in the first episode, but they showed him tying up and jabbing his victim with sharp objects before they skipped to the next day. (and they showed plenty of dismembered bodies at crime scenes and the main character's admiration and love for blood spatter is but one of the "I AM A SOCIOPATH SEE HOW QUIRKY AND WEIRD I AM" things they show to establish the title character) I am under the impression it gets more graphic as time goes on because the hanging plot thread was him being fascinated by the work of another at-large serial killer.
Ahhh...showtime...a simply huge audience, I'm sure.
Quote from: JimLotFP10% of the population of the US would mean 30 million people. Even if it's just 1%, it's still a larger group of people than role-players.
Yeah...even if. I'm guessing you're off by at least an order of magnitude.
Quote from: JimLotFPBut I'll say it's in the many tens of millions. TCM has been seen by many millions. That episode of CSI has been seen by god knows how many millions of people. All sorts of music, movies, and books dealing with the subject are available at real mainstream stores, many of them best-sellers or chart toppers or Oscar winners. Some have "artistic merit," some are just there to shock, and some are the result of people goofing around.
And it dawns on me that you are conflating a bunch of things here. Can you tell me the Oscar winner that showed a boy getting beheaded and then his throat fucked? I missed that one...
See, we're not even talking about whether some people will look at a car wreck, we're talking about people reveling in the experience of playing someone who ran a young boy over with a car, got out, and sodomized him - for Story sake.
Quote from: StuartAlright, then another "little detail" that should be considered then is that in game terms by enduring rape, a character gains brutality and becomes less effective at doing non-brutal things.
Real classy.
I'm helping with a sexual assault awareness campaign next month -- I wonder what the other committee member's comments on that point of view would be?
That's an understandable assumption to make, given the name of the stat, but isn't actually true.
You roll Brutality vs. Soul if you want your pirate to be ruthless, conscienceless, or violent. You roll Ambition vs. Brutality if you want your pirate to be cunning, stealthy, or deceitful. So enduring rape (or any of the other listed hardships)
might make your character better at being violent, and worse at being cunning - again, it depends a lot more on the comparison of the two scores involved than on any single value. Also, there's nothing about being better at commiting violence or being ruthless that necessitates that you actually do so.
Does it realistically model the changes that victims of sexual or other types of assault go through? Probably not. It's not really supposed to. It's supposed to push the game forward in interesting directions, catalyzing events towards conflict. Whether you think that's a good thing or not seems to me to be a matter of opinion. Certainly, in a roleplaying game, I think the latter is probably more important than the former.
Quote from: James J SkachWalker, my friend, you stumbled upon the truth of the matter, but not in the way you think.
See, if you go back to Mr. Gleichman's OP, you'll see that he was looking at this almost exclusively from the angle that this game is an example of The Forge design philosophy having it both ways.
I understood the point of the OP, which was well made, though painted with a very wide brush, especially considering that the author came out and said that the system did encourage the kind of play reported.
Quote from: James J SkachLook, System Does Matter means one of a few things things:
(snip cogent summary of interpretations of System Matters theory)
So in this case, System doesn't matter as much, because that would mean the system was fucked up - can't have that for a Forgery like Mr. Baker.
Again, Mr. Baker himself said that the system encouraged the violent play that happened. I don't know about other subscribers to the theory who were defending it, but his position seems pretty strong and clear to me.
Quote from: James J SkachThe most disturbing part to me is this - they don't see anything wrong with it. They sat around in their circle of vicarious abusers and talked about how meaningful it all was. This was a good Story in their eyes. Which is why, I think, they don't have any qualms about claiming the system contributed to this play - they don't have a problem with the play itself.
Yes, I think that is about correct.
What is the anti-Swine position on System Matters? I ask because I was under the impression that it was considered heresy around here, yet several of the most virulent (or sycophantic) of the anti-Swine have been supporting the System Matters thesis to support their argument that the author of the game and the players in that particular session were inferior to them morally.
Quote from: walkerpIsn't that a definition of roleplaying right there?
Well, I think the definition and more importantly the goals of RP are different for Forge folks.
QuoteYou're willing to explore the life of a pirate, but from the comfort of a semi-detached psychodrama.
This is a legit definition IMO, but the traditional goal of this psychodrama is a Good Time. The Forge goal is a Good Story
*, and I gotta say that for a number of these games, a Good Story implies a lot of odious things being done by or to the players in game.
*I think the goal of Good Story exists because those shaping the ideas at the time couldn't decide on a definition for a Good Time and thought they had to be super-specific. It still boggles me how a few years ago I would see the occasional argument about what "fun" meant.
An interesting thing to think about is the prevalence of rape-inspired media in Japan (anime, comics, movies), a country which has one of the lowest sexual assualt rates in the first world.
I do believe that media can influence people to some degree, though the hows and whys of it are very complex and inconsistent. I also believe that in North America we tend to be extremely scared by representations of taboo subjects in ways that other cultures often find puzzling. While I myself have little interest in playing a game where my character gets rammed with a big dildo, I have trouble seeing how the existence of such a session could cause any malfeance in the society in general at all.
I have a harder time understand how all of you who jump up on your high horse when someone tells you that your system sucks, feel quite at ease telling others that the content of their gameplay sucks.
Quote from: walkerpWhat is the anti-Swine position on System Matters? I ask because I was under the impression that it was considered heresy around here, yet several of the most virulent (or sycophantic) of the anti-Swine have been supporting the System Matters thesis to support their argument that the author of the game and the players in that particular session were inferior to them morally.
You're asking me? I can't tell you "the position" as I think it's liking Libertarians to agree on something.
For me? I'm partial to Kyle's Cheetoism, but I think it simplifies matters as badly as those who take "System Does Matter" to mean system is so important that it will override the players, or direct them.
I thought about creating a mathmatical formula, something like P*S=R where P=players, S=System, and R=Result. So it shows that when you fuck with any of the variables you will get a change in the result, but they are roughly equal in standing. I dont' know if that equation show it, but that's my position.
So I end with the fact that Mr. Baker wrote and ran a game in which R not only stood for Result, but for Rape; brutal, tortuous rape (and that's not even getting into the necrophilia, pedophilia, etc.). And then had a bunch of players, whom I think he knew or were proponents of GNS/TBM as a Theory (though I admit to having no specific knowledge other than seeing the one player respond to the AP on the Forge), took part in the game that wallowed in the same result. Then they all sat around in a circle of abuse and convinced themselves that there was something deeper going on while remembering laughing at the rapes/torture/brutality.
So, like I said, this was fucked up whether it was system or players.
Good luck with the game - hope you attain your goal of making money by marketing this brutality emotourism to the fawning pulbic. Brilliant marketing, Mr. Baker, brilliant.
Quote from: James J SkachCultrual Staple? You're kidding, right? Do you remember when it came out, how disturbing it was? The fact that culture has become desensitized to it does not make it a staple and is certainly not something to be happy about.
That
everyone knows what TCM is after 30+ years makes it a cultural staple.
Quote from: James J SkachWas this a flashback? Because in the description they talk about the bne already happening. Also, I'm wondering if this was edited in some way as I remember the other two things, the old lady in the closet and the weird gun/bounty hunter story, but not the one you mention.
It was shown in flashback (as the story was being recounted in "real time") but it was still shown as I described.
Quote from: James J SkachEither way, I've calling bullshit on the use of the word "featured." I'll confirm one day when it comes around in reruns as we Tivo all of them.
Call bullshit all you want. It was the major issue of the episode. The "lady in the closet" was a lead-in to the home invasion/rape (same perpetrator), the lion's share of the time of the episode was dealing with Sara trying to communicate with the girl or Grissom trying to get the father to talk, and then the long lineup sequence. the final moments of the episode show the girl dead in her driveway as her parents look on.
It was "featured."
Quote from: JimLotFPAnd it dawns on me that you are conflating a bunch of things here. Can you tell me the Oscar winner that showed a boy getting beheaded and then his throat fucked? I missed that one...
Well, an Oscar-winning movie featured (yes, "featured") rape. Probably not any throatfucked dead boys on the Oscar list. We need some movie makers with the balls to not back down from the censors when they declare something to be "NC 17".
Quote from: JimLotFPSee, we're not even talking about whether some people will look at a car wreck, we're talking about people reveling in the experience of playing someone who ran a young boy over with a car, got out, and sodomized him - for Story sake.
I really see no real moral difference between that and invading some underground complex to kill members of an "evil race" or practitioners of a "forbidden religion" for profit.
Quote from: walkerp......
I have a harder time understand how all of you who jump up on your high horse when someone tells you that your system sucks, feel quite at ease telling others that the content of their gameplay sucks.
Walkerp,
To borrow your phrase :
"Good God, Man! the content of their gameplay DOES suck!!" Not only that but the majority of those AP reports about
Poisaon'd ?
"..and their gameplay is some seriously fucked up shit." At the root of the whole argument on two or three forums is a game and game designer that appears to encourage sick scenes and then act all proud about it.
- Ed C.
Quote from: JamesVWell, I think the definition and more importantly the goals of RP are different for Forge folks.
This is a legit definition IMO, but the traditional goal of this psychodrama is a Good Time. The Forge goal is a Good Story*, and I gotta say that for a number of these games, a Good Story implies a lot of odious things being done by or to the players in game.
That's an interesting way to think about it. I would suggest that it is a generalization and that there is probably a spectrum of goals in mind among the indy set (and everywhere else). However, it is a categorization that helps me understand much better what makes someone a more traditional player and what makes someone a story gamer. Thanks for that!
Quote from: JimLotFPIt was shown in flashback (as the story was being recounted in "real time") but it was still shown as I described.
Call bullshit all you want. It was the major issue of the episode. The "lady in the closet" was a lead-in to the home invasion/rape (same perpetrator), the lion's share of the time of the episode was dealing with Sara trying to communicate with the girl or Grissom trying to get the father to talk, and then the long lineup sequence. the final moments of the episode show the girl dead in her driveway as her parents look on.
It was "featured."
The rape wasn't featured, dimwit. The story of the rape and its effects were featured, but not
the rape.
Quote from: JimLotFPWell, an Oscar-winning movie featured (yes, "featured") rape. Probably not any throatfucked dead boys on the Oscar list. We need some movie makers with the balls to not back down from the censors when they declare something to be "NC 17".
Oh yes, we
need that.
Quote from: JimLotFPI really see no real moral difference between that and invading some underground complex to kill members of an "evil race" or practitioners of a "forbidden religion" for profit.
I feel sorry for you - for a number of reasons.
Quote from: James J SkachSo I end with the fact that fifth_child wrote and ran a game in which R not only stood for Result, but for Rape; brutal, tortuous rape (and that's not even getting into the necrophilia, pedophilia, etc.). And then had a bunch of players, whom I think he knew or were proponents of GNS/TBM as a Theory (though I admit to having no specific knowledge other than seeing the one player respond to the AP on the Forge), took part in the game that wallowed in the same result. Then they all sat around in a circle of abuse and convinced themselves that there was something deeper going on while remembering laughing at the rapes/torture/brutality.
So, like I said, this was fucked up whether it was system or players.
Good luck with the game - hope you attain your goal of making money by marketing this brutality emotourism to the fawning pulbic. Brilliant marketing, Mr. Baker, brilliant.
You seem to be confused: I am not Vincent Baker. My name is Dan, and I have no published games to my credit. Vincent goes by the name of "lumpley" on every forum I've ever seen him at - I've no idea whether he's a registered user here or not.
I'm also confused about the R standing for Result and Rape thing. Maybe it's an in-joke I'm not getting? There's nothing it seems to reference in the text.
Fifth-child,
Simple, blunt question:
Were you part of the group that was in the Actual Play example that everyone is talking about ? (or one of the other 3 AP group scenes referred to ?)
In that context, if you were, then the questions and comments you are reading from James and others up above make perfect sense.
- Ed C.
Quote from: walkerpI would suggest that it is a generalization and that there is probably a spectrum of goals in mind among the indy set (and everywhere else).
I'm willing to concede that point, and in a way, that is what the OP was about. Some tend to think of Forge folk as a monolithic group bound by The Big Model and its accessories, but some just happen to make similar games, and have developed their own motivations outside the philosophy.
Quote from: fifth_childSo enduring rape (or any of the other listed hardships) might make your character better at being violent, and worse at being cunning - again, it depends a lot more on the comparison of the two scores involved than on any single value.
Hmm. Let's see how much of this I got right... The hardships that your character has suffered in the past determine his initial Brutality, and during play you roll Soul vs Devil to endure further hardships? Does Brutality later increase only with failed rolls, or is it the inevitable consequence of suffering the abuse in the first place?
Quote from: KoltarFifth-child,
Simple, blunt question:
Were you part of the group that was in the Actual Play example that everyone is talking about ? (or one of the other 3 AP group scenes referred to ?)
In that context, if you were, then the questions and comments you are reading from James and others up above make perfect sense.
- Ed C.
Nope, I wasn't at GenCon and haven't played Poison'd yet, although I may be playing it over the internet with some good friends that I haven't seen in a long time this weekend. Depends on whether the third player prefers Poison'd or Spirit of the Century. I was a participant in the Story-Games thread that sparked the idea in Vincent (basically, someone challenged him to make a game about cooking), though. I bought the pdf the day before yesterday.
Quote from: James J SkachI thought about creating a mathmatical formula, something like P*S=R where P=players, S=System, and R=Result. So it shows that when you fuck with any of the variables you will get a change in the result, but they are roughly equal in standing. I dont' know if that equation show it, but that's my position.
That's a good equation. That's where I stand as well. I assumed that's what System Matters meant. I guess the divide arrives when you start putting weight on one versus the other.
Quote from: James J SkachSo, like I said, this was fucked up whether it was system or players.
This is where I disagree (not the "whether it was system or players" but that it is fucked up at all and why do we get to be the judge of that). But I understand your argument. I think my original point stands, that the generally accepted dogma here is system relativism and moral absolutism. I consider those two positions contradictory.
Quote from: GrimGentHmm. Let's see how much of this I got right... The hardships that your character has suffered in the past determine his initial Brutality, and during play you roll Soul vs Devil to endure further hardships? Does Brutality later increase only with failed rolls, or is it the inevitable consequence of suffering the abuse in the first place?
If you suffer a new hardship - that is, one on the list that you haven't suffered previously - your Brutality score increases, regardless of whether you succeed or fail at the roll.
Quote from: fifth_childIf you suffer a new hardship - that is, one on the list that you haven't suffered previously - your Brutality score increases, regardless of whether you succeed or fail at the roll.
Looks like I was wrong about that, then, but thanks.
In the long run...it probably doesn't matter.
Games like "Poison'd" and Puppies in the Swineyard will never make a real dent on charts like the kind we discuss or post here :
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6959
The only "Indie"/small press games that I've seen for sale locally at an FLGS was two Squirrel Attack booklets by Hinterwelt games and that Ron Edwards thing ELFS.
The Actual Play reports do indicate some sick 'game play'.
The game itself tho will never make a dent in the real RPG market.
- Ed C.
Quote from: fifth_childI'm also confused about the R standing for Result and Rape thing. Maybe it's an in-joke I'm not getting? There's nothing it seems to reference in the text.
Okay, obviously I passed out for a second during reading or something. Never mind this query, I found the answer in the post I quoted.
Quote from: KoltarIn the long run...it probably doesn't matter.
Games like "Poison'd" and Puppies in the Swineyard will never make a real dent on charts like the kind we discuss or post here :
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6959
You could very well be right. The thought doesn't bother me overly much.
Quote from: KoltarIn the long run...it probably doesn't matter.
So why the outrage?
My apologies. I was under the impression, just from the way the posts ran together, that you were one and the same.
I will edit my earlier post to reflect the correct name.
EDIT: and correct the spelling in this one!
Quote from: walkerpSo why the outrage?
Gee, Walkerp - just go back and read those AP reports.
AND the fact that one of those games took place at Gencon - the place where some nongamers or new gamers encounter RPGs for the first time.
I'd like it if my hobby put the best possible impression out there for new people.
- Ed C.
Quote from: walkerpIsn't that a definition of roleplaying right there?
Yes but with the added bonus of learning how to be a pirate. For all that is worth. And learning that brutality is bad.
Quote from: walkerpThat's a good equation. That's where I stand as well. I assumed that's what System Matters meant. I guess the divide arrives when you start putting weight on one versus the other.
Not really. The divide happens when someone tells you there's a theory that says your balance, wherever it might be, is objectively wrong or something. I don't care where your balance point is (no offense). Hell, it changes with venue (home game versus convention, for example) and over time (new group versus familiar group).
The idea is to make system matter so much that it makes the game important. As I've said before, it's all a marketing tool. Can and have people made interesting/funny/good stories out of D&D? Hell, Tony's halfling literally threw himself on a sword for the greater good - he still owes a write up for that! Can you get the same from other rule sets? Of course. But when you're up against a market so dominated by a product or set of products, you have to provide differentiation in order to sell your concept.
Quote from: KoltarAND the fact that one of those games took place at Gencon - the place where some nongamers or new gamers encounter RPGs for the first time.
Technically, two of them took place at GenCon. One might or might not be considered a demo - it was Vincent running the game for a bunch of people he knew, some of whom had played before. The other one was definitely not, and IIRC, was run after-hours by a group of friends who'd bought one or more copies of the game at the convention.
Quote from: James J SkachNot really. The divide happens when someone tells you there's a theory that says your balance, wherever it might be, is objectively wrong or something.
From my perspective, you guys are making a nearly identical judgement, saying someone's gameplay is objectively wrong on moral grounds.
I used to watch a lot of horror films. I've seen The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, all the George Romero films, etc etc.
Playing a PC as one of the protagonists in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be a scary, intense, RPG. Playing one of the villains - - that'd just be sick.
Edit: To clarify -- playing one of the villains in the style presented in the Poison'd Actual Play examples would be sick. Playing the villains in an abstracted / board-gamey way would be fine.
QuoteThe point about fictional violence being protective is a good one.
I dunno. The distance is what allows the game to work, and especially to be fun, but surely that distance removes any claim to worthyness.
It allows you to play with things without really letting them get to you. So then you are just posing surely.
No more worthy than playing Call of Duty and saying its giving an insight in to the trials of men under fire.
We've hit the ping-pong ball of the exchange.
There are basically three places to stand:
1. We have people who feel that rpgs shouldn't wallow in, and certainly shouldn't be designed to encourage the various play AP examples we've seen.
2. We have the authors stance that says, "yes, rape and other moral crimes are part of the design, AP of that nature is intended. It can be nothing else. And we think that makes good games."
3. We have a small subset of vocal people who say that the designer is wrong about his intent. Odd group that, who thinks thinks that calling Baker a liar is a way of defending the game.
4. We have another group that says the designer may be correct about intent- but is wrong about effect. Another odd group both in logic and in the fact they are (with respect to my original post) simply trying to deflect the thread to a different direction.
5. And then we have the group of people who think things like the AP examples are all fun and games plus healthy for all involved (this also includes the Designer). This is only slightly different than #1 in that they don't think (or maybe don't care) that System Matters- but they are good with result in any case.
Really, at this point we know all we need to know. The question left is solely an individual one. Where do you stand? How are you going to deal with the people who create and play in games like this?
I for example have expanded my Ignore list- I don't need 'wisdom' or comment from preverted gamers. I'll be certain to point out to anyone asking me about these games what the intent of the author and the nature of it's defenders are.
Beyond that, I think I'm done. If anyone has questions, PM me.
What about the people who don't care either way, and just want this thread to die.
Quote from: chucklesWhat about the people who don't care either way, and just want this thread to die.
They don't post to it.
Quote from: gleichmanWe've hit the ping-pong ball of the exchange.
There are basically three places to stand:
1. We have people who feel that rpgs shouldn't wallow in, and certainly shouldn't be designed to encourage the various play AP examples we've seen.
2. We have the authors stance that says, "yes, rape and other moral crimes are part of the design, AP of that nature is intended. It can be nothing else. And we think that makes good games."
3. We have a small subset of vocal people who say that the designer is wrong about his intent. Odd group that, who thinks thinks that calling Baker a liar is a way of defending the game.
4. We have another group that says the designer may be correct about intent- but is wrong about effect. Another odd group both in logic and in the fact they are (with respect to my original post) simply trying to deflect the thread to a different direction.
5. And then we have the group of people who think things like the AP examples are all fun and games plus healthy for all involved (this also includes the Designer). This is only slightly different than #1 in that they don't think (or maybe don't care) that System Matters- but they are good with result in any case.
I was with you until point 5, which is a blatant mischaracterization and an oversimplification. Since, I don't fall into any of the first four categories, that must put me in the fifth and I never said the AP was fun and games or healthy. I'm just having a major problem with the badwrongfun labeling that's going on here.
Quote from: gleichmanI for example have expanded my Ignore list-
Damnit! Now I'm never going to get him to admit he might have been mistaken about something (ANYTHING!)
Ah well, trying to get The Fifth to express an opinion of his own instead of parroting someone elses (about ANYTHING*) is probably gonna be more fun/challenging anyway.
*srsly dude. Whats your favorite flavor of icecream? And no you can't check with Ron first.
Quote from: walkerp....... I'm just having a major problem with the badwrongfun labeling that's going on here.
However - roleplaying rape and the defiling of a body IS
badwrong fun.
Quote from: KoltarButt - roleplaying rape and the defiling of a body IS badwrong fun.
Misspelling or Freudian slip? You decide!
Quote from: KoltarButt - roleplaying rape and the defiling of a body IS badwrong fun.
Yes, but only in 4e and there still hasn't been an official announcement.
Quote from: BrantaiMisspelling or Freudian slip? You decide!
:haw: I was looking at the space on the right. I chuckled. Then I saw the "error" on the left. I guffawed.
That's a good summary gleichman. I've said my piece, and I don't want to spend anymore time discussing this particular game. I've lost a lot of respect for Vincent Baker, as well as some of the people championing this type of play.
Rather than spend more time dwelling on the awfulness of this game, I'm going to focus on creating and doing positive things instead. :)
Quote from: KoltarHowever - roleplaying rape and the defiling of a body IS badwrong fun.
C'mon, Koltar, you have to admit that was a pretty funny typo given the circumstances. :D
Quote from: StuartRather than spend more time dwelling on the awfulness of this game, I'm going to focus on creating and doing positive things instead. :)
Like you and your team of little gnomes baking cookies for an orphanage?
Quote from: Erik BoielleDamnit! Now I'm never going to get him to admit he might have been mistaken about something (ANYTHING!)
Ok, already got PMs on who is in my ignore list. Not you Erik, so you still have your chance if you want it- pick a subject and make a thread.
It's a small list: GrimGent, droog, fifth_child, and walkerp. I may have missed some people, but I'll cut some slack to someone who posts "I disagree" but doesn't go on an endless pro-gaming porn spree like these guys.
Edit: Add TonyLB to the list. He's scum, but at least he's honest.
One other note, I find it interesting that given past posting history- I don't lose anything by this ignore listing. I can't recall any posts by them that were useful (in a good way) to me. I might be forgetting something- but even so that stands as proof.
Quote from: gleichmanIt's a small list: GrimGent, droog, fifth_child, and walkerp. I may have missed some people, but I'll cut some slack to someone who posts "I disagree" but doesn't go on an endless pro-gaming porn spree like these guys.
Wow. Your OP here seemed quite rational. It was driven like the rest of your gang by your ideology, but it was well thought out and critical. Unfortunately, you've now fallen back into the easy method of censorship. Saddens me. Though you can't hear this, I would like for you to tell me where I participated in an "endless pro-gaming porn spree".
So far, this site is ending up being more restrictive than rpg.net, but not because of mod activity but because of the behaviour of the loudest posters! :eek:
Quote from: gleichmanIt's a small list: GrimGent, droog, fifth_child, and walkerp. I may have missed some people, but I'll cut some slack to someone who posts "I disagree" but doesn't go on an endless pro-gaming porn spree like these guys.
Oh I get it now. People who disagree with you more than once are put on your ignore list. That's a good technique. That way you are always right once you respond to the first disagreement!
Also, I thought you weren't going to post here anymore?
Incidentally, another player in Vincent 'Smutmeistro' Bakers game had this to say:-
QuoteI was comfortable with the brutality and sexual violence because I felt safe, and was able to keep my character as safe as I felt comfortable. I also trusted my fellow players and their characters to hurt Abyssinia with a reason.
Srsly. Titilation. No more than BDSM with a safe word. Jews getting people to dress up as nazis and call them naughty boys. British people getting people to dress up as nannys and call them naughty boys. I'm sure its fun, but noble and worthy it ain't.
Smore of a kink.
Quote from: walkerpOh I get it now. People who disagree with you more than once are put on your ignore list. That's a good technique. That way you are always right once you respond to the first disagreement!
Also, I thought you weren't going to post here anymore?
...umm, one of the things about being on an ignore list is that he can't read what you're typing. You're kinda shouting at the wall there.
Quote from: walkerpLike you and your team of little gnomes baking cookies for an orphanage?
Something like that. :)
Quote from: ghost rat...umm, one of the things about being on an ignore list is that he can't read what you're typing. You're kinda shouting at the wall there.
I know. A combo of being a bit annoyed at getting so summarily ignored, defending myself to the few stragglers still here and seeing if I could shout loud enough that he'd come out and see what the noise was. He already did it once.
And it's lame that he just jumps in, says his piece and then says, I'm outta here and I'm ignoring everyone who disagrees with me.
Quote from: walkerpOh I get it now. People who disagree with you more than once are put on your ignore list. That's a good technique. That way you are always right once you respond to the first disagreement!?
(http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/Grail_being_repressed_small.jpg)
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!Quote from: walkerpAnd it's lame that he just jumps in, says his piece and then says, I'm outta here and I'm ignoring everyone who disagrees with me.
Dude. This thread has gone on for 60 pages over the past 6 days...that's not exactly a half a page thread and then he pulls the ripcord.
Quote from: Erik BoielleDamnit! Now I'm never going to get him to admit he might have been mistaken about something (ANYTHING!)
Ah well, trying to get The Fifth to express an opinion of his own instead of parroting someone elses (about ANYTHING*) is probably gonna be more fun/challenging anyway.
*srsly dude. Whats your favorite flavor of icecream? And no you can't check with Ron first.
I like chocolate. When I was living in Massachusetts, there was a flavor of Friendly's ice cream called grasshopper pie that I was particularly fond of. Sadly, upon investigating the intarwebs, it doesn't appear to be in production anymore.
I've never spoken one-on-one with Ron Edwards, whether face-to-face or via email or whatever. I've spoken a little bit with some other designers, but nothing face-to-face. I don't post much at the Forge, but I spend time at Story-Games and RPGnet under the same handle, if anyone's interested in searching out my posting history.
What are you trying to convince me of, Erik?
By the way, just curious: were you banned from RPGnet or something? I'm just wondering why you weren't addressing me over there instead of here, seeing as I didn't even have an account here until I registered today.
Quote from: fifth_childI like chocolate. When I was living in Massachusetts, there was a flavor of Friendly's ice cream called grasshopper pie that I was particularly fond of. Sadly, upon investigating the intarwebs, it doesn't appear to be in production anymore.
I've never spoken one-on-one with Ron Edwards, whether face-to-face or via email or whatever. I've spoken a little bit with some other designers, but nothing face-to-face. I don't post much at the Forge, but I spend time at Story-Games and RPGnet under the same handle, if anyone's interested in searching out my posting history.
What are you trying to convince me of, Erik?
By the way, just curious: were you banned from RPGnet or something? I'm just wondering why you weren't addressing me over there instead of here, seeing as I didn't even have an account here until I registered today.
This is the only place where people can be assured of the right to speak freely.
Quote from: walkerpFrom my perspective, you guys are making a nearly identical judgement, saying someone's gameplay is objectively wrong on moral grounds.
I didn't say it was objectively wrong, did I? But let's, for the sake of argument, say I did...
I'm comfortable with that judgement in this position. I'm not telling someone they aren't
really having fun. I'm not telling someone the rules with which they seem to be having a grand old time are objectively bad or damaging the hobby (see Luke Crane on GM fiat). I'm not calling into question the fact that these folks appeared to have fun.
I'm saying if you think that's fun, you have bigger problems that need to be addressed. That's a personal judgement on the folks in the AP and the designer who, apparently, designed the game for this very purpose.
To say we can't make a moral judgement on something is silly, and, honestly, not the same discussion at all.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is the only place where people can be assured of the right to speak freely.
And I got banned.
:-P
Quote from: James J SkachI didn't say it was objectively wrong, did I? But let's, for the sake of argument, say I did...
You may not be, but many others are.
Quote from: James J SkachI'm saying if you think that's fun, you have bigger problems that need to be addressed. That's a personal judgement on the folks in the AP and the designer who, apparently, designed the game for this very purpose.
And I'm saying it's okay to make the same personal judgement about people who play lame games.
Quote from: walkerpYou may not be, but many others are.
Right. So please don't respond to my posts with their arguments. I'm not making them.
Quote from: walkerpAnd I'm saying it's okay to make the same personal judgement about people who play lame games.
And that you don't see the difference is why we have such a disconnect.
Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is the only place where people can be assured of the right to speak freely.
We'll have to be content to disagree with one another on that count.
Honestly, I don't particularly like it here. Not because I "can't take the heat" of someone saying that I should be strangled and such, but simply because if I can choose not to take part in a place where people insult myself and people I like pretty regularly, why shouldn't I do so? However, unlike the thread at RPGnet where
most people were jumping to conclusions without any knowledge of the text, it didn't seem like there was a single poster over here with any exposure to the game itself, even among those who weren't entirely critical of it.
So, I'm here to answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics, etc. Maybe questions about other stuff, too, if I feel like it.
To Erik: That explains it then.
Quote from: fifth_childbut simply because if I can choose not to take part in a place where people insult myself and people I like pretty regularly, why shouldn't I do so?
What a coincidence - that's why I don't go to the Forge (and one of the reasons I don't go to RPGNet). Common ground - aint the Internet great!
Quote from: James J SkachWhat a coincidence - that's why I don't go to the Forge (and one of the reasons I don't go to RPGNet). Common ground - aint the Internet great!
If you feel like you or your friends were insulted at the Forge, I'm not going to argue with your experience. Something tells me nobody called you a fuckwad or said that you deserve to be strangled, though.
Quote from: fifth_childWe'll have to be content to disagree with one another on that count.
Honestly, I don't particularly like it here. Not because I "can't take the heat" of someone saying that I should be strangled and such, but simply because if I can choose not to take part in a place where people insult myself and people I like pretty regularly, why shouldn't I do so? However, unlike the thread at RPGnet where most people were jumping to conclusions without any knowledge of the text, it didn't seem like there was a single poster over here with any exposure to the game itself, even among those who weren't entirely critical of it.
So, I'm here to answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics, etc. Maybe questions about other stuff, too, if I feel like it.
To Erik: That explains it then.
IOW, the other salesmen and Forge Defence Force members weren't being effective anymore, so you've taken up the torch of preaching the gospel to us evil heathens. Fuck off back to RPGnet where you belong, that shit isn't needed here.
Clearly there's some people who wll bend over backwards just to defend any piece of filth and shit the Forge pumps out. If the Pundit wants proof that there's an actual conflict going on, and some kind of ideological unity, he only need look to this thread and others like it. And I say this as someone who's gone more than a few rounds with Pundit over the existence of a "war". But frankly, ever since the Story-Games invasion here, the Luke Crane thread, TonyLB's bullshit "moderated Q&A", and now this, I'm becoming ever more of the opinion that he's really on to something here.
Gleichman's summary was dead on. This is just sad, desperate, Skarka's Law type boosterism at this point, a bunch of sad fuckers determined to defend a game in which raping and murdering a child makes your character more brave, simply because it was made by one of their ideological figureheads.
Quote from: fifth_childIf you feel like you or your friends were insulted at the Forge, I'm not going to argue with your experience. Something tells me nobody called you a fuckwad or said that you deserve to be strangled, though.
No shortage of keyboard courage here on therpgsite, that's for sure.
Quote from: fifth_childSo, I'm here to answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics, etc.
Did you actually play that one or are you going to make up stuff as usual?
Because you know, no matter how cool or edgy you think you are when you describe games you've never played, you actually do everyone a disservice when you do that.
Quote from: fifth_childIf you feel like you or your friends were insulted at the Forge, I'm not going to argue with your experience. Something tells me nobody called you a fuckwad or said that you deserve to be strangled, though.
Did someone say that to you here? I didn't see that. Or are you talking about how we deal with each other. If that's it, perhaps Kyle can give you a 1000 word essay on how it's really just like pissing at each other in a pub (or some other quaint Australian saying).
I mean, walker and I have exchanged some pretty heated words. And here we are having yet another protracted conversation about this shit.
And I honestly don't recall anyone being told they should be strangled - but I wouldn't put it past Pundy...
So, it's a shame you can't stay - but if all you're here to do is push the game, your loss.
Quote from: Consonant DudeDid you actually play that one or are you going to make up stuff as usual?
Because you know, no matter how cool or edgy you think you are when you describe games you've never played, you actually do everyone a disservice when you do that.
I really don't think you can bring that card into play. Nobody on this thread has played the game.
Quote from: J Arcane...I'm becoming ever more of the opinion that he's really on to something here.
Oh yeah. Last unconquered teritorry almost virgin. Not raped yet. That must be set right. Or wrong, it depends. Anyway, the sudden invasion and the amount of "admitted" lurkers is amazing. This site is more influential than one might think at first glance...
Quote from: walkerpI really don't think you can bring that card into play. Nobody on this thread has played the game.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that fifth_child does have a history of lying about his actual experience and exposure to RPGs.
So if he claims he is ready "to answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics" he better damn well do a better job than he did with Universalis. His brand of bullshit can fly on RPG.net, where it's ok to lie and you can't be called on it but here, I'm not going to let it go so easily.
Quote from: Consonant DudeDid you actually play that one or are you going to make up stuff as usual?
Because you know, no matter how cool or edgy you think you are when you describe games you've never played, you actually do everyone a disservice when you do that.
I already said I haven't played Poison'd yet, though I might this weekend. If you're talking about the slip-up I made that you've so graciously kept alive as your signature, I have actually played a number of sessions of Universalis, including a couple with some people who'd never played anything but D&D before. (One of them liked it, one of them didn't.)
I can list what games I own, and which of them I haven't played, if you'd like.
Quote from: Consonant DudeThe reason I'm bringing this up is that fifth_child does have a history of lying about his actual experience and exposure to RPGs.
So if he claims he is ready "to answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics" he better damn well do a better job than he did with Universalis. His brand of bullshit can fly on RPG.net, where it's ok to lie and you can't be called on it but here, I'm not going to let it go so easily.
There isn't really anything I can do to convince you that I'm not lying, so this seems like a pointless direction to take the conversation in. Believe me or not, whichever you prefer.
I do have the Poison'd pdf open on my desktop as we speak, so I can assure you that any answers I give will be textually correct, at least.
Quote from: James J SkachDid someone say that to you here? I didn't see that. Or are you talking about how we deal with each other. If that's it, perhaps Kyle can give you a 1000 word essay on how it's really just like pissing at each other in a pub (or some other quaint Australian saying).
I mean, walker and I have exchanged some pretty heated words. And here we are having yet another protracted conversation about this shit.
And I honestly don't recall anyone being told they should be strangled - but I wouldn't put it past Pundy...
So, it's a shame you can't stay - but if all you're here to do is push the game, your loss.
Well, Erik said I should be strangled earlier in this thread. I don't hold it against him, though - lots of people have deranged fantasies about murdering people they've never met. ;) (Just kidding - seriously, if it bothered me, I wouldn't have come here, or at least I'd probably have put him on my ignore list.)
The fuckwad thing was something I believe Pundit said in the thread about Story-Game sabotage. Maybe "fuckwad" wasn't the exact word. Anyway, I took part in the thread he was talking about at SG, so obviously whatever insults were used included me in them.
Anyway, it's your call whether you think I'm pushing Poison'd. I was trying to be as direct as possible about the mechanics and what they do - you're free to draw your own conclusions, as always.
I honestly don't know whether I'll stick around here very much. Depends on my mood, I suppose.
Quote from: AlnagAnyway, the sudden invasion and the amount of "admitted" lurkers is amazing. This site is more influential than one might think at first glance...
Stay frosty, people. They could be anywhere, anyone, lurking among us...
QuoteAnyway, the sudden invasion and the amount of "admitted" lurkers is amazing. This site is more influential than one might think at first glance...
Sgood innit. Sbeen up to 50 odd viewing. Doesn't reach much over 20 normally.
Quote from: AlnagAnyway, the sudden invasion and the amount of "admitted" lurkers is amazing. This site is more influential than one might think at first glance...
As one of those lurkers for the last couple of days, I went ahead and registered to respond to this.
Yes, there are a lot of people reading this thread after it got linked over on RPGNet. As for why I've been lurking, it's not for its influential nature, but because it's like a car wreck and I can't look away. :)
So far the benefit I can see from being here would be that you can freely make personal attacks on other posters without censure. You can't do that on RPGNet, and I think that leads to a lot of passive-aggressive crap, and pages on pages of line-by-line rebuttals. It's refreshing, in a way, to see a place where people can just say "Dude, I think you're a freak, don't talk to me again." It's a way to just admit, yeah, we're not going to actually try the "calm down and discuss this" approach, because we're angry and we're gonna stay angry. That's very honest.
So yes, this place is very entertaining, but I think it suffers for being so strongly against something, rather than for something. But then, I may just be seeing that because my exposure so far is just to the really knock-down, drag-out fights around here, rather than the other threads.
If nothing else, it seems like you folks are having a lot of fun. But in the end I can't wrap my head around the idea of a discussion forum where a common response is "Well, you're one of *them*, so obviously you're wrong".
Quote from: walkerpI really don't think you can bring that card into play. Nobody on this thread has played the game.
I don't recall anyone else offering to "answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics, etc" either.
Edited for quoting the wrong walkerp post.
Quote from: SweeneySo yes, this place is very entertaining, but I think it suffers for being so strongly against something, rather than for something. But then, I may just be seeing that because my exposure so far is just to the really knock-down, drag-out fights around here, rather than the other threads.
Well... I find it entertaining and refreshing. I think that there are movements and situations in RPG community that led to frustration of some people (mine at least) and this boards is good for airing this frustration. Also there are some interesting people which is hard to meet elsewhere.
I acutally find interesting event the people I disagree with almost absolutely like fifth_child (which I want to strangle just sometimes -
this in the bracket is joke, for those dumb enought not to get it :) ) so yes I like it here. On the other hand this is far from the only boards I visit regularly.
Oh and I appreciate you have registred and write. I have nothing against lurkers but I think that occassinally write something is better.
Quote from: SweeneyBut in the end I can't wrap my head around the idea of a discussion forum where a common response is "Well, you're one of *them*, so obviously you're wrong".
Then you've missed the boat, friend. We say:
"You're one of them? Poor misguided fuckwad. Here, let me help you understand by pointing out these three reasons why you're wrong, twit."
The fact that you don't read the points because you're convinced we think you're wrong based solely on who you are is your mistake, not mine.
Quote from: AlnagWell... I find it entertaining and refreshing. I think that there are movements and situations in RPG community that led to frustration of some people (mine at least) and this boards is good for airing this frustration. Also there are some interesting people which is hard to meet elsewhere.
I acutally find interesting event the people I disagree with almost absolutely like fifth_child (which I want to strangle just sometimes - this in the bracket is joke, for those dumb enought not to get it :) ) so yes I like it here. On the other hand this is far from the only boards I visit regularly.
Oh and I appreciate you have registred and write. I have nothing against lurkers but I think that occassinally write something is better.
Completely off topic, but I just wanted ta say Alnag that I love your accent. It clearly comes through in your writing. :haw:
Just to note, it looks like we're playing Spirit of the Century this weekend and not Poison'd, so I may not be getting actual play experience within the next couple days. Trying to keep people appraised of which of my posts might be vicious lies. ;)
Quote from: fifth_childHowever, unlike the thread at RPGnet where most people were jumping to conclusions without any knowledge of the text, it didn't seem like there was a single poster over here with any exposure to the game itself, even among those who weren't entirely critical of it.
So, I'm here to answer any actual questions about Poison'd, its text and mechanics, etc. Maybe questions about other stuff, too, if I feel like it.
Who cares about the mechanics? We know why the designer created the game, we know the type of play he intended for it to generate, and we've seen how he and some other insider actually played the game. Some of us don't really need to know anymore.
I'm no expert on RPG theory, but if you don't have any interest in the premise (in this case using piracy as a vehicle for exploring issues of brutality, abuse, and redemption), then why in fuck do you need to know about the mechanics?
Can any of the defenders of Poison'd explain to me why they're prepared to discuss the mechanics of a narrative game while ignoring its premise?
Quote from: RobNJClearly we differ on whether people playing a roleplaying game can generate a meaningful exploration of rape. Can't that be all? Can't we simply disagree and stop shitting on each other?
No, because a meaningful exploration of rape isn't a game anymore, its a therapy session - and if this game is used, then it is a therapy session done by a freshman psych student.
Quote from: StuartI've lost a lot of respect for Vincent Baker
Yeah, it almost makes me wish I hadn't bought DitV.
But not quite. Because its still an interesting little game and I do appreciate the design.
Besides, I loathe Kevin Seimbeida's various antics, but despite my regular public bashing of him, I still buy his books because I like the books (if not the company).
Quote from: jgantsYeah, it almost makes me wish I hadn't bought DitV.
But not quite. Because its still an interesting little game and I do appreciate the design.
Even a broken clock...
!i!
Quote from: walkerpStay frosty, people. They could be anywhere, anyone, lurking among us...
Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all...
We've got lurker movement showing up, in front and behind...
I can't lock in...
12 meters...
Quote from: KoltarAw Fuck!!
Now we're back into moral relativism shit again.
Moral relativism? No. I'm saying that roleplaying is something that happens at the table with a group of people with somewhat similar interests as you. Graphic detail of banal behavior would be taboo among the people I play with. It would be discomforting. We don't gloss on about romances or intimate behavior either. If I'm playing with my younger nephews, there is a completely different standard regarding what I would consider acceptable in the game. That being said, there are times that certain banal or romantic behavior is implied but quickly glossed over to imply a tone or mood. The same way popular entertainment glosses over the details but implies the nature of what is happening. WFRP has some pretty nasty detail for describing critical hits that I'd gloss over if playing with my nephews.
These guys waning on about nasty shit is more telling of them as players than the system encouraging them. So far I've seen a table that lists rape as an example. It doesn't say it has to be performed or how it needs to be illustrated at the table. This is just sensationalized bullshit from the people crude enough to post it to illicit an extreme reaction. It doesn't hurt you or me or how we're going to play our games.
Koltar, you're venom against the Forge seems to be from third party hearsay, than from any actual experience with the games or the people. I've never met anyone from the Forge, though I have a couple of games from them. It's not the games. We all take our games and use them for our groups playstyle. Don't get caught up in some ego-wankery war when it's just people talking up their preference of play.
Quote from: HaffrungWho cares about the mechanics? We know why the designer created the game, we know the type of play he intended for it to generate, and we've seen how he and some other insider actually played the game. Some of us don't really need to know anymore.
I'm no expert on RPG theory, but if you don't have any interest in the premise (in this case using piracy as a vehicle for exploring issues of brutality, abuse, and redemption), then why in fuck do you need to know about the mechanics?
Can any of the defenders of Poison'd explain to me why they're prepared to discuss the mechanics of a narrative game while ignoring its premise?
You say "we know why the designer created the game, etc.," but I'm thinking that the things you and I "know" in that context are slightly different from each other.
Anyway, if you haven't got any interest in the premise of the game, please feel free to not ask me questions! Please feel free to refrain from talking about the game (especially its mechanics) as though you have any real knowledge of it, also. I'm just here in case anyone
wants to ask questions - I'm certainly not going to force anyone to do so.
Quote from: fifth_childYou say "we know why the designer created the game, etc.," but I'm thinking that the things you and I "know" in that context are slightly different from each other.
Anyway, if you haven't got any interest in the premise of the game, please feel free to not ask me questions! Please feel free to refrain from talking about the game (especially its mechanics) as though you have any real knowledge of it, also. I'm just here in case anyone wants to ask questions - I'm certainly not going to force anyone to do so.
Gee. I guess Consonant Dude was right to be suspicious. If you're going to hem and haw about what Baker actually fucking said, how can anyone expect an honest conversation with you?
Quote from: fifth_childIf you feel like you or your friends were insulted at the Forge, I'm not going to argue with your experience. Something tells me nobody called you a fuckwad or said that you deserve to be strangled, though.
You're right.
It would have been
more honest if they had done that.
Instead, they take their insults and intellectualize them and
pretend they are not insults. They don't fool many people for very long, though.
Quote from: J ArcaneGee. I guess Consonant Dude was right to be suspicious. If you're going to hem and haw about what Baker actually fucking said, how can anyone expect an honest conversation with you?
Who hemmed or hawed? I'm saying I probably took something slightly different from Vincent's words than Haffrung did.
I don't know how you expect to have any kind of conversation with me without, you know, engaging me in conversation. Because all you've said so far is "Fuck you, get out of here," and "You're a liar."
Quote from: fifth_childWho hemmed or hawed? I'm saying I probably took something slightly different from Vincent's words than Haffrung did.
I don't know how you expect to have any kind of conversation with me without, you know, engaging me in conversation. Because all you've said so far is "Fuck you, get out of here," and "You're a liar."
I'm just wondering what the fuck you expect to accomplish here is all? I know I'm not buying this act, and I know the lay of the land here well enough to know there ain't many others here who would either.
So really, why? Is it realyl so important to you to defend the pirate rape game that you'd register in hostile territory just to shill it?
I mean, even a seasoned PR professional knows better than to, say, try and sell cigarettes at a meeting of the American Lung Association.
Quote from: J ArcaneI'm just wondering what the fuck you expect to accomplish here is all? I know I'm not buying this act, and I know the lay of the land here well enough to know there ain't many others here who would either.
So really, why? Is it realyl so important to you to defend the pirate rape game that you'd register in hostile territory just to shill it?
I mean, even a seasoned PR professional knows better than to, say, try and sell cigarettes at a meeting of the American Lung Association.
I already said why I'm here: to answer any actual questions anyone has about Poison'd. I fail to see what about that seems like an act to you. Even if I were some kind of Forge secret agent (I did work for the government you know - I even had a security clearance ZOMG CONSPIRACY) dispatched by Grand Master Ron, it seems like that would match up pretty well with my supposed agenda. I don't really see this place as hostile territory - it's just a forum with a bunch of gamers, some of whom seem to have some kind of phobia of being even remotely polite and an obsession with this word "honesty" while apparently not taking the concept itself particularly seriously.
The game's an ashcan - it's not even meant to sell to anyone who's not interested in playtesting it and giving feedback. So, uh, I don't see why I (or Vincent, for that matter) would care whether any of you bought copies. But J, if you want to tell yourself that you're all about honesty - including intellectual honesty - just keep in mind that I'm here in case you want to know any actual facts about the thing you're determined to criticize.
It takes a lot of stones to cast aspersions on others' honesty when you apparently want to deny actual facts, and twist the truth as much as possible. Even your supposedly neutral recountings of the game's mechanics contradict themselves.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt takes a lot of stones to cast aspersions on others' honesty when you apparently want to deny actual facts, and twist the truth as much as possible. Even your supposedly neutral recountings of the game's mechanics contradict themselves.
What facts was I denying, or truth twisting?
Mind pointing out where I contradicted myself?
Quote from: fifth_childWhat facts was I denying, or truth twisting?
Mind pointing out where I contradicted myself?
Where is the ambiguity in:
"My game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which someone had their character commit a horrible murder-rape. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise."
'Cause you seem to be determined to imply that there is such ambiguity in this and other statements by Baker regarding his design.
Then there's this gem of yours, from up thread:
"There's no concrete mechanical bonus to raising your Devil score, per se. "
"Your Devil score gets rolled against Ambition when you want your pirate to treat personal danger casually and without fear."
So which is it? Huh? You don't see an inherent or misleading contradiction in the way you've described that?
Quote from: Lee ShortYou're right.
It would have been more honest if they had done that.
Instead, they take their insults and intellectualize them and pretend they are not insults. They don't fool many people for very long, though.
You seriously sound like a fifth grader when you say that. I'm just not convinced that that's the extent of the argument, because it just sounds so... shallow. Just make your argument, don't resort to that crap. (Just my opinion, you can obv. post whatever you want.)
Does Ron sound like an asshole in many of his posts? Yeah. Just say that, jeez. The sad story that people ganged up and ostracized some poor forum poster because he didnt' agree with them doesn't convince me, because it's pretty damn easy to
just stop posting at a place that you don't like posting at, right? Does that make sense to anybody?
I mean, it's pretty easy to just say "I don't like those guys" and move on. When people invent persecution complexes about Ron, it says more about them than it does about Ron. The guy's considered the height of obnoxious by lots of folks, it's not like you're convincing somebody who was fooled by his charm. :)
Quote from: fifth_childI already said why I'm here: to answer any actual questions anyone has about Poison'd.
My goodness! Really?
Why? Did someone ask you to come here and answer questions?
I assume the answer is "no." -- if I'm wrong, I'll be surprised... but I would love to hear the rationale behind why you felt you ought to do this.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: SweeneyYou seriously sound like a fifth grader when you say that. I'm just not convinced that that's the extent of the argument, because it just sounds so... shallow. Just make your argument, don't resort to that crap. (Just my opinion, you can obv. post whatever you want.)
Does Ron sound like an asshole in many of his posts? Yeah. Just say that, jeez. The sad story that people ganged up and ostracized some poor forum poster because he didnt' agree with them doesn't convince me, because it's pretty damn easy to just stop posting at a place that you don't like posting at, right? Does that make sense to anybody?
I mean, it's pretty easy to just say "I don't like those guys" and move on. When people invent persecution complexes about Ron, it says more about them than it does about Ron. The guy's considered the height of obnoxious by lots of folks, it's not like you're convincing somebody who was fooled by his charm. :)
So... you've... come here... to this forum... and signed up... and posted into a thread you know is full of fire to...
to...
(get ready)...
To Tell People To Move On?
That's *beautiful* -- I'm writhing on the ground in ecstasy!
Seriously: self-reflection time... what are you doing here, dude?
Heh.
-E.
Quote from: J ArcaneWhere is the ambiguity in:
"My game design created, or at least contributed to, a play environment in which someone had their character commit a horrible murder-rape. I don't see why anyone would argue otherwise."
'Cause you seem to be determined to imply that there is such ambiguity in this and other statements by Baker regarding his design.
You're right, the statement itself is pretty unambiguous. And although there have been some posters arguing that the game had nothing to do with the contents of the actual play snippets, I think if you'll go back and look at my posts on RPGnet you'll find that I'm not one of them. I merely think that I have drawn a somewhat different conclusion from this statement than many posters here have, which basically boil down to: "Vincent Baker is a moral reprobate." Or if you prefer the more flattering version: "Vincent Baker is a juvenile hack." Surely my moral judgments are my own to make?
Quote from: J ArcaneThen there's this gem of yours, from up thread:
"There's no concrete mechanical bonus to raising your Devil score, per se. "
"Your Devil score gets rolled against Ambition when you want your pirate to treat personal danger casually and without fear."
So which is it? Huh? You don't see an inherent or misleading contradiction in the way you've described that?
Would you have liked me to attach more qualifiers than "concrete" and "per se?" I think it's clear from reading the entirety of my description that my point is that the bonus you get from raising your Devil stat is a) quite often insignificant, b) heavily outweighed by the drawbacks except under very specific circumstances, c) doesn't apply to further acts of brutality or even necessarily to fighting, and d) what bonus you
can get from raising Devil can also be gotten via an alternative method, which doesn't involve committing a new sin.
Hence, no
concrete bonus,
per se.
Any other contradictions?
Quote from: SweeneyYou seriously sound like a fifth grader when you say that. I'm just not convinced that that's the extent of the argument, because it just sounds so... shallow. Just make your argument, don't resort to that crap. (Just my opinion, you can obv. post whatever you want.)
Does Ron sound like an asshole in many of his posts? Yeah. Just say that, jeez. The sad story that people ganged up and ostracized some poor forum poster because he didnt' agree with them doesn't convince me, because it's pretty damn easy to just stop posting at a place that you don't like posting at, right? Does that make sense to anybody?
I mean, it's pretty easy to just say "I don't like those guys" and move on. When people invent persecution complexes about Ron, it says more about them than it does about Ron. The guy's considered the height of obnoxious by lots of folks, it's not like you're convincing somebody who was fooled by his charm. :)
Whatever, dude.
I was just pointing out to fifth child that both (some of) the Forge posters and (some of) the posters here engage in liberal insults of those who don't share their play style. Now maybe fifth child would prefer that those that insult him do it in an intellectualized and sublimated fashion, but not everyone would. I prefer the blunt honesty; not everyone dones. So when fifth child pointed out that nobody gets called a fuckwad at the Forge, I'm providing the counterpoint that there are those who would prefer to to be called a fuckwad to the kind of underhanded treatment that happens at the Forge.
Just because you suffer no delusions about how insulting the Forge is, doesn't mean that no one is taken in by their intellectual face.
Quote from: walkerpAt least you have a consistently theoretical position, Kyle Aaron, even if your moralizing is based on what you've decided is right and wrong and you can't separate representation from reality.
Of course I can separate representation from reality. The question is, how is the thing represented?
There can be evil in games. But the PCs don't do pure evil, they
avenge it.
In my Roman game, there was a slave rebellion. The slaves took several noble families hostage. When a PC rode up to their camp to demand their surrender, they asked him who he was, and he told them. They then went and found the woman he loved but could not have, took her nine year-old son, cut off his head and tossed it at the PC. The PCs didn't se this, they just heard screams, then saw the head land on the grass.
He took it up tenderly, wrapped it in cloth so it could be cremated with the rest of him, then led an assault on the camp, killed or captured the rebelling slaves, rescued the woman and her surviving daughter, knocked down the rebel leader in battle, and later that leader was punished with the other rebels with crucifixion.
Were his actions entirely pure? Well, no. He was ensuring slaves would stay enslaved. But that boy was an innocent, and so had to be avenged. That's what heroes do.
Sometimes the PCs aren't heroes, sure. But they should never be
villains. Or at least, their villainy should not be like true sociopathic villainy.
There's a difference between representation and reality. But what you choose to represent says something about you.
If a roleplaying game session is "art", then like all art it's an
expression of the artist. When you have your character murder a child and molest his corpse and you laugh about it, what are you trying to express? What are you telling us about yourself?
George Orwell's
1984 told us that he was disappointed with socialist movements which became tyrannical. Shakespeare's
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? told us that he was in love with a person. Verhoeven's
Starship Troopers told us that he thought militarism and patriotism could go too far. When one of my players seeks to have his character become rich but idle, he's telling us that he thinks a live of idleness and irresponsibility would be fun.
What does your character murdering a child and molesting his corpse while you laugh about it tell us? What's the message the artist is sending?
You can't have it both ways. If you want to say that roleplaying is art, and a form of self-expression, then you have to answer what the artist is expressing about themselves with their artistic works, what the roleplayer is saying with their character's actions.
Because really this is what it's about. Not representation or reality, but where those two overlap - in a human being, in the player at the game table with you, playing their character. They take their inner reality and represent it in the form of their character and their character's actions.
If a person has a child-murdering and corpse-molesting inner reality, then I don't want to game with them.
Quote from: -E.My goodness! Really?
Why? Did someone ask you to come here and answer questions?
I assume the answer is "no." -- if I'm wrong, I'll be surprised... but I would love to hear the rationale behind why you felt you ought to do this.
Cheers,
-E.
You don't find it irritating when people are making erroneous assertions based on incomplete or false information? I do. That's why I specifically started in here to answer a question and correct some factual errors.
I really, honestly don't mind informed criticism that doesn't stray into aspersions of character or pseudo-diagnosis. You're of course not under any obligation to buy and read a book that you don't think you'll be interested in, but at the very least you should refrain from casting definitive judgment without knowing the subject.
Like, for example, I think the Serenity rpg is probably not very good - from what I've heard people say about it, it sounds like it's not just not my cup of tea (I quite like the show, actually), but is actually a bit of a half-assed job at design. But I don't really know, because I never bought it, because I don't think I'll like it. So I've never once posted in a single thread about the Serenity rpg.
Quote from: Lee ShortWhatever, dude.
I was just pointing out to fifth child that both (some of) the Forge posters and (some of) the posters here engage in liberal insults of those who don't share their play style. Now maybe fifth child would prefer that those that insult him do it in an intellectualized and sublimated fashion, but not everyone would. I prefer the blunt honesty; not everyone dones. So when fifth child pointed out that nobody gets called a fuckwad at the Forge, I'm providing the counterpoint that there are those who would prefer to to be called a fuckwad to the kind of underhanded treatment that happens at the Forge.
Just because you suffer no delusions about how insulting the Forge is, doesn't mean that no one is taken in by their intellectual face.
Like I said, I'm not here to argue anyone's experience. I'll just say that I've never felt in the time that I've spent at the Forge (or at Story-Games, which I spend more time at than the Forge) that I was being insulted. So for me, the choice isn't "be insulted openly or be insulted cunningly." It's "be insulted openly or don't be insulted." That makes it a pretty clear choice,
for me.
Quote from: James J SkachAs for CSI, can you detail "featured?" Because I'm pretty sure I've seen every episode, I don't recall one where they "feature" a 16 year old getting raped. They may reference it, but I don't recall them showing it. And there's a huge difference.
I think the more importance difference is not whether the rape is shown, but whether the audience is expected to be on the side of the rapist or the victim and the cops.
That's really what we're talking about, here. Presenting horrible things happening, people will vary a lot in how detail they're happy to see or hear about. The thing which really is freaking us out is that the people playing this game
Poison'd, and those defending it, are saying how it's cool to be on the side of the murderer-rapist.
CSI, however gross it may or may not be, is always on the side of the victims and cops. There's the graphicness of the thing, and then there's the moral position of the thing. I think the second is more important. The first just needs a rating advice.
Ya know, for me it's not even about having heroic PCs or not. If my players wanna play "bad guys" then by all means. What I dislike about this AP description and what I've learned so far about the game that spawned it is that they felt the need to provide mechanics for "brutality", "blasphemy", a "devil stat", and that they felt the need to not just graphically describe their "brutality", but to seemingly revel in it. Just like I don't feel the need to graphically describe the effects of characters being hurt/killed by maces, swords, gunfire, explosions, etc.. It's gratuitous, and disturbing, and if that makes me "unhip", "uncool", "less than", or "puritan" (which if you actually knew me you would find completely silly) then so be it. Just know that finding this stuff entertaining would most likely make you incompatible with my or anyone I know's game style.
Quote from: GrimGentI'm yet to see more than a few measly questions about the actual workings of Poison'd rather than assertions about how it supposedly works.
It's because it's irrelevant.
A game can't make you play a certain way. It can encourage or discourage certain types of play, but in the end it's up to you. You, the player, get the credit and blame for everything you do at the game table.
That's part of being an adult. You're responsible for what you. The rules may inspire the session, but they don't determine it.
I'm not condemning the game book, I'm condemning its players.
Quote from: fifth_child..........
Like, for example, I think the Serenity rpg is probably not very good - from what I've heard people say about it, it sounds like it's not just not my cup of tea (I quite like the show, actually), but is actually a bit of a half-assed job at design. But I don't really know, because I never bought it, because I don't think I'll like it. So I've never once posted in a single thread about the Serenity rpg.
Well I DO own the
SERENITY RPG and we have it on the shelves at the game store.
You know what ??
IT IS kind of a half-assed job at game mechanics - thing is - its a damn gorgeous book, even tho its half assed - and I love the show and movie that its based on.
But now that you bring up
SERENITY /
"Firefly"...
Did we , the viewers ever actually see the Reavers kill the rest of the ship's crew in the third episode ?
NO - we saw , in shadow, the results of what they had done...and heard the hero character's reactions to what might happen next and saw the hooror in their facial expressions.
In a later episode we saw a bad guy torture two of our hero characters - again it was a bad guy/evil character. It was also mostly shown offscreen.
Thats the way that extreme stuff should be handled.
Heroes are Heroes.
Vile stuff is done by the NPCs that are outright evil characters.
- Ed C.
Koltar, why do you present your personal preferences as absolute truth for everyone? Doesn't that strike you as rather presumptive?
Quote from: walkerpAn interesting thing to think about is the prevalence of rape-inspired media in Japan (anime, comics, movies), a country which has one of the lowest sexual assualt rates in the first world.
one of the lowest
reported sexual assault rates in the first world.
You might want to read up a bit on the issue of reports of sexual crimes. For example, Saudi Arabia has a lower rate of reported rapes than Japan. That could, just possibly, have something to do with the position of women in that country.
Japan ain't exactly a bastion of gender equality, you know. That sort of stuff skews the reports of sex crimes.
Art's an expression of the culture, of what's on its mind, what's important to it.
Quote from: KoltarDid we , the viewers ever actually see the Reavers kill the rest of the ship's crew in the third episode ?
NO - we saw , in shadow, the results of what they had done...and heard the hero character's reactions to what might happen next and saw the hooror in their facial expressions.
In a later episode we saw a bad guy torture two of our hero characters - again it was a bad guy/evil character. It was also mostly shown offscreen.
This is all an example of the type of show that Firefly - indeed, Whedon's work in general - is. Spike is stopped short of actually raping Buffy in the 6th season of BtVS. Although people in the Firefly universe
talk about the horrific violence committed by the Reavers - including rape - very little of it is shown on-screen.
Just to make this clear - although I think it should go without saying: I don't think that every movie, show, book, or roleplaying game should have to step up to issues like rape and confront them head on. It's totally okay - hell, it's probably
better - that most don't. (It's also totally possible for media that approach these sorts of issues from the periphery or the aftermath to make a very powerful, compelling statement.) Equally, I don't think that every roleplayer should want to or have to play Poison'd - again, I'd imagine that many/most wouldn't. I'm guessing the game would have a pretty limited audience even if it was released by Wizards of the Coast.
Quote from: KoltarThats the way that extreme stuff should be handled.
Heroes are Heroes.
Vile stuff is done by the NPCs that are outright evil characters.
- Ed C.
I don't see any more value to this statement than saying: "See how D&D3.5 handles attack rolls? You roll a d20, add your BAB and other pertinent bonuses, and compare the result to the target's armor class. That's how combat should be handled."
You're just describing one (completely valid) way of handling something. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: fifth_childThis is all an example of the type of show that Firefly - indeed, Whedon's work in general - is. Spike is stopped short of actually raping Buffy in the 6th season of BtVS. Although people in the Firefly universe talk about the horrific violence committed by the Reavers - including rape - very little of it is shown on-screen.
Just to make this clear - although I think it should go without saying: I don't think that every movie, show, book, or roleplaying game should have to step up to issues like rape and confront them head on. It's totally okay - hell, it's probably better - that most don't. (It's also totally possible for media that approach these sorts of issues from the periphery or the aftermath to make a very powerful, compelling statement.) Equally, I don't think that every roleplayer should want to or have to play Poison'd - again, I'd imagine that many/most wouldn't. I'm guessing the game would have a pretty limited audience even if it was released by Wizards of the Coast.
I don't see any more value to this statement than saying: "See how D&D3.5 handles attack rolls? You roll a d20, add your BAB and other pertinent bonuses, and compare the result to the target's armor class. That's how combat should be handled."
You're just describing one (completely valid) way of handling something. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why are you commenting on this? I thought you were just here to answer rules questions - yet here you are waxing philosophically about how discussing whether combat should be d20 based is the same as discussing whether pedophila/necrophilia should be cheeringly depicted with characters as the perpetrators.
Do you see why people don't believe your doe-eyed innocent "I'm just here for rules clarifications" bullshit?
Quote from: RobNJKoltar, why do you present your personal preferences as absolute truth for everyone? Doesn't that strike you as rather presumptive?
Isn't that what GNS/TBM does? Isn't that presumptuous?
Quote from: RobNJKoltar, why do you present your personal preferences as absolute truth for everyone?
Doesn't that strike you as rather presumptive?
No... ..it doesn't .
Just the same way that some pretend their over-the-line play sessions are better than my games because they somehow got in touch with a dark place in themselves...and got to play-act molesting , torturing people and then defiling corpses - all in the name of supposed "art" .
I'nm not really claiming that my preferences are 'absolute truth' - but my preferences are closer to how the majority of RPG players play their games. (or might like to play them)
Absolute truth ? Reveling or enjoying in a play-acted rape is just over the line.
Its doing sick shit for the sake of sick shit.
It may be masked as a game play experience - but at its root its adults regressing to a juvenile level and doing a virtual "Lets see how Naughty I can be and if I can get away with it or not"
I am presuming that many on here may have a code of ethics or set of morals beneath all of their testosterone bluster and cussword filled postings.
So yeah I may be presumptive a bit.
I presume there may be good people in the gaming world.
The folks in the actual play examples aren't them.
- Ed C.
Quote from: James J SkachWhy are you commenting on this? I thought you were just here to answer rules questions - yet here you are waxing philosophically about how discussing whether combat should be d20 based is the same as discussing whether pedophila/necrophilia should be cheeringly depicted with characters as the perpetrators.
Do you see why people don't believe your doe-eyed innocent "I'm just here for rules clarifications" bullshit?
I said I'd answer any other questions people asked me that I felt like answering, if you recall. You'll note I kept silent on the subject until someone asked me my opinion. By the way, you seem to be confused about the precise definition of "cabin boy."
A Cabin boy or ship's boy is a boy (in the sense of low-ranking male employee, not always a minor) who waits on the officers and passengers of a ship, especially running errands for the captain.Furthermore, necrophilia (and paedophilia too, though it's unclear whether it applies to the example in question) is an illness, not an act.
I also don't really care what you think of me or my "doe-eyed innocence."
Quote from: fifth_childBy the way, you seem to be confused about the precise definition of "cabin boy."
A Cabin boy or ship's boy is a boy (in the sense of low-ranking male employee, not always a minor) who waits on the officers and passengers of a ship, especially running errands for the captain.
Furthermore, necrophilia (and paedophilia too, though it's unclear whether it applies to the example in question) is an illness, not an act.
Nice side-step of the actual point. Here's a question for ya. Actually a few I suppose. First, does saying something like, "I think we sodomized a boy's esophagus (after decapitating him). Just to make sure we had a virgin orifice." actually gain a player's character some in-game reward, as opposed to just saying something like, "I kill the cabin boy and defile his corpse." without going into specifics, and if so do the rules explain why? Next, do the rules explain why "playing a woman disguised as a man" would gain a character a "level of blasphamy", and do the rules also go on to say that "fucking women as a "man." " would gain another "level of blasphamy", and if so why? What is there in the rules that would change my opinion, which has been formed based on this AP that has been posted, that the sole purpose of this game is to showcase an escalating level of gratuitous coarseness and depravity on the part of the players? Does the game have some point (other than the celebration of violence and depravity for it's own sake)?
Quote from: fifth_childI said I'd answer any other questions people asked me that I felt like answering, if you recall. You'll note I kept silent on the subject until someone asked me my opinion. By the way, you seem to be confused about the precise definition of "cabin boy."
A Cabin boy or ship's boy is a boy (in the sense of low-ranking male employee, not always a minor) who waits on the officers and passengers of a ship, especially running errands for the captain.
Furthermore, necrophilia (and paedophilia too, though it's unclear whether it applies to the example in question) is an illness, not an act.
I also don't really care what you think of me or my "doe-eyed innocence."
This is what you've come to? Really? Poorly crafted semantic arguments that can be swatted away with a few online dictionary searches?
Here, let me help you out.
Quote from: HollianDon't sugar-coat! I think we sodomized a boy's esophagus (after decapitating him). Just to make sure we had a virgin orifice.
Now, the online dictionary (The OED isn't handy) says:
Quote from: American Heritage Dictionary- Cabin Boy - A boy servant aboard a ship.
- Boy - a male child.
- pedophilia - The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
So which part are
you not getting. I'm pretty secure with my logic.
I think your specific purpose was to claim to come in to answer any rules questions (I love Sigmunds!) so that you could later claim "Well, they were commenting on a game they knew nothing about. I was there and nobody asked me rules questions."
Then there's the "who are you to judge us" defense.
Let's see...who am I missing.
Oh yeah, Tony's "Everybody thinks it's OK to tell stories, it's
only fiction" Poll.
Anyone else?
Out of curiosity and an attempt at openmindedness I google Poison'd and I find this...
Quote from: lumpleyMe, Rich, Julia, John, Matt. Some other people watching for some of it, Julie, Ben, Ram. I was the GM. If you weren't at the table with us, then some of it, the best parts? You just don't get to know.
It's okay. There's plenty to tell. Let's start here. If you're delicate of sensibility, please cover your eyes now, okay?
It wasn't that I'd never played a game with rape in it before. Far from it - I've run towns in Dogs in the Vineyard that would curl your hair. It wasn't that I'd never played a game where a player character committed rape onscreen, not that either. Running kill puppies for satan all those times means that I've gotten pretty jaded about what PCs will do. By coincidence, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen, but it wasn't even that. What it was was, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen and everyone at the table liked it.
Remember this Perfect post of Ron's? Read the paragraph beginning "Brian provided a classic example of a Line in play..." It was a moment like the one he describes there, only the opposite: James Dobbins' player was watching us all to see if there was a line, and if he was about to cross it, and nope.
"Liked it." Jesus. But it's true. Raping Ebenezer was absolutely the right thing for James Dobbin's player to have James do. We at the table were like, holy fuck, but, fuck yeah. We laughed out loud because of how right it was. Because of what a monster former Captain Pallor had been and how he had visited his monstrousness upon all the characters in the game. The power vacuum he left behind was made of sex, violence, and their conjunction; to fill it, James Dobbins had to fucking FILL it.
Later in the game, Cuntface raped the governor's daughter. (Yes, the character's name was Cuntface. That's all you get to hear about that from me.) He didn't do a single thing that Errol Flynn wouldn't do - he scaled the wall, put his hand over the girl's mouth, fought off the guards with her slung over his shoulder, swing down the rope, took her aboard ship. We watched Cuntface's player tell about it with our mouths in thin lines, not laughing at all. Fuck, no, not fuck yeah. Oh Cuntface, you shouldn't. Shit.
Ebenezer had tried to castrate Cuntface. a) To subjugate him, yes. But also b) out of love, like a big brother's, to prevent this very thing. It's one thing for Ebenezer to rape and be raped. It's not cool when Cuntface does it.
Here's an important Poison'd GMing technique: "do you fight, or do you endure duress?" Enduring duress has the same mechanical benefits as everything else in the game, where fighting eats those benefits up, so the only reason to fight is because your character will. "Do you endure duress?" means that you can buy into even the most horrible experience for your character. It encourages a long view.
After the storm and the madness passed, while Cuntface was scaling the wall and fighting off the guards, Abyssinia, charged up with storm and madness, fucked James Dobbins. Threw open the door and bent him over. She had "a device," we called it. It had figured earlier, and you won't hear that part of the story from me either.
But. "Are you enduring duress?" I said.
"No," James' player said. "It's not that."
So, there you go. One rape no-holds-barred that made us laugh. One attempted rape I didn't tell you about. One romantic Errol Flynn rape where she was too scared to struggle and we didn't laugh at all. And one plain hard fuck.
You can uncover your eyes now.
Were we comfortable with what we did in the game? Yes. Well - we thought it was horrific, tragic, fitting, gruesome and bad. But whoever was talking, no matter how horrific and bad the things they were saying, never once did we wish they'd shut up.
After the game ended we sat and talked for another three hours or more, as friends. As, in fact, very good friends. None of us wanted to get up and go anywhere else. None of us wanted to open the circle to include anyone who hadn't been there. We split up for the night reluctantly and only very late. It was too good to leave behind.
-Vincent
...and this...
Quote from: John HarperToo good to leave behind. That's what it was, indeed. "The game most vile and beautiful," I told someone when I got back from GenCon.
I played James. By far the most vicious and damaged character I've ever played. I played James, but I wasn't the sole author of his sins onscreen. Like Vincent said, I was looking around the table the whole time we were moving across line after line, pulling down veil after veil, and not only was no one flinching, but everyone was nodding and sometimes smiling and sometimes laughing and all the time supporting. In the midst of the most transgressive and risky game I've ever played, I felt the most overwhelming sense of safety from my fellow players.
It wasn't cool when Cuntface did it, but it was okay. No one wanted the horrible things to happen, but no one objected. At no point did we hold each other in judgment. And, yeah... when James kicked down the door and fulfilled his twin ambitions to be revenged upon Ebenezer and to fuck him, too... yeah, we liked it. The extreme rightness of it was almost a joyful thing.
The bit at the end when Abyssinia fucked James was so important! Our ship was cursed. James did some black magic to see about lifting the curse, and he got an answer: Slit Abyssinia's throat and swab the deck with her blood. This he agreed to without batting an eye. But then, Abyssinia came to him and she made her move and he didn't resist her. I asked Abyssinia's player, "What's it like?" (the sex) and she says, "It's real. It's not power or revenge." After all the blood and curses, betrayals, revenge, and horror: it's something real.
Vincent asks if I'm enduring duress and I'm all, "Hell no. It's not that at all. Our ship can be cursed forever and to hell with all of us because not one drop of Abyssinia's blood will ever be spilled as long as I live."
And just like that we had a pirate marriage; knee deep in blood, but a marriage still.
Vincent is right to say we sat and talked after the game like good friends. Good, close friends were made during that game. We have been to war together, and seen each other's mettle and compassion under fire.
...and all I have to say is wtf? That is honestly pathetic...is that really the actual author of the game? Are fucking and raping and apparently murder) really as deep as this crew can get? Honestly, I sure hope I'm just seeing some out-of-context bluster and BS here because otherwise this shit is just silly. This is their attempt at exploring "moral" issues?
Quote from: fifth_childI really, honestly don't mind informed criticism that doesn't stray into aspersions of character or pseudo-diagnosis.
Wait...this is rich...you don't like pseudo diagnosis? Man, that's funny.
Quote from: fifth_childYou're of course not under any obligation to buy and read a book that you don't think you'll be interested in, but at the very least you should refrain from casting definitive judgment without knowing the subject.
See, 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.
Quote from: fifth_childLike, for example, I think the Serenity rpg is probably not very good - from what I've heard people say about it, it sounds like it's not just not my cup of tea (I quite like the show, actually), but is actually a bit of a half-assed job at design. But I don't really know, because I never bought it, because I don't think I'll like it. So I've never once posted in a single thread about the Serenity rpg.
Except 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!
A most interesting thread. Basically we have three groups of people. The first consists of a few who say, "This is too weird for me, I'm outa here." The second group is made up of those who say, "This is seriously fucked up shit, and those who take part in it are seriously fucked up people." Then you have the third group who who stare in mesmerized fascination and squeal, "Oh, look, bug guts!"
Call me a wussy petunia, but I sympathize with victims of rape and abuse. Part of my nature. I understand how emotionally fragile young adolescents are, and it hurts me. I understand how emotionally fragile rape victims are, and that hurts me. I've been out in the world, seen what happens in it, and I know how nasty it can be. Others in this thread have too.
Then you get those who show no understanding of what hurting other people involves. No idea of how physical and emotional pain can damage, even kill a victim. Especially the emotional pain. Classic examples of how profound ignorance warps perceptions. Seeing a girl being carved up for roasting on a movie screen is one thing. Having to carve up your own living daughter and then eat what you've cut off is quite another.
Yes, I'm talking about you WalkerP and Fifth_Child; among others. You know nothing about the world and the horrors it can hold. You're like the child in the Emo Philips story, told over and over again to never go past the cellar door. You've been shielded against the world and so have no defenses against the evil it holds.
You and people like you are like young children poking at a squashed beetle and telling each other, "Look at the bug guts." I hope you gain some measure of experience and maturity before it comes your day to die.
Quote from: SigmundNice side-step of the actual point. Here's a question for ya. Actually a few I suppose. First, does saying something like, "I think we sodomized a boy's esophagus (after decapitating him). Just to make sure we had a virgin orifice." actually gain a player's character some in-game reward, as opposed to just saying something like, "I kill the cabin boy and defile his corpse." without going into specifics, and if so do the rules explain why? Next, do the rules explain why "playing a woman disguised as a man" would gain a character a "level of blasphamy", and do the rules also go on to say that "fucking women as a "man." " would gain another "level of blasphamy", and if so why? What is there in the rules that would change my opinion, which has been formed based on this AP that has been posted, that the sole purpose of this game is to showcase an escalating level of gratuitous coarseness and depravity on the part of the players? Does the game have some point (other than the celebration of violence and depravity for it's own sake)?
It'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.
As to the mechanics of the situation... it's hard to know without more information about the actual play in question. In the game, Murder is a sin, Sodomy is a sin, Rape is a sin. If the pirate in question took any of the cabin boy's possessions then Robbery is also a sin. If the character doesn't already have a level of Devil (either from character generation, where you pick a number of sins and set your Devil score equal to the number you pick, minimum 2 and maximum 6, with sins you commit habitually or without remorse counting for two), corresponding to any given one of those sins, then just doing that thing would be enough to gain a point of Devil. There's no mechanical basis for level of detail or amount of screen time or anything else - mechanically, murder is murder, rape is rape, &c., whether you killed someone off-screen or spent twenty minutes on description. It's also up to the judgment of the people playing whether having sex with a corpse counts as rape or not - it's certainly gross, but I'm not sure it technically fits as rape.
So, from those mechanics, it's clear that the player in question went significantly farther than was necessary, according to the rules. On the other hand, we know very little of the fictional context in which the act took place. It's conceivable that the character had a bargain, or that there was a Cruel Fortune in effect, that necessitated some of the other isolated details we've been provided with, such as the "virgin hole." Or maybe there wasn't, I really can't say. Of course, even if there were a bargain or a Cruel Fortune in play, it's the player's choice to honor the bargain or work to get rid of the Cruel Fortune. For example, in Vincent's actual play, one of the characters chooses not to fulfill the criteria for eliminating a Cruel Fortune, which was in that case to slit another character's throat and swab the deck with her blood.
Concerning women being dressed as men being blasphemy, it's in the rules to create tension between the game's imaginary society and our modern sensibilities. If a pirate ship were a bloodless democracy (they were often democracies of a sort, but never bloodless ones) whose crew's actions were always morally defensible, well, there wouldn't be much meat to the game. Or, more specifically, this particular game would be a fantastic failure at driving towards conflict the way it's meant to. By the way, just so you're aware, the impact of women dressing as men being a sin is pretty much negligible. During character creation, you pick which sins you've committed. You don't technically
have to choose any, but even if you've committed zero sins, you still start with a Devil score of 2. So a female character's Blasphemy can easily be one of those 2 semi-required sins, and if you like, you can still make her start as morally sound as it's possible for a pirate character to be.
The point of the game? Well, you get to play a pirate. You can use that as a vehicle to explore issues if you want - like how Vincent and his players felt that they were telling a story about an abusive family, covered with a thin veneer of pirate. You can just tell rip-roaring tales of the exploits of flawed, dangerous, and hardened pirates, with nothing deeper than surface level. You can use it to play a game of one-upmanship, seeing who can be the most daring or devious. All of these games are going to have a tendency towards brutality of some level or another, so if that idea sounds distasteful to you then you're well within your rights to avoid the game.
The basic situation also strikes me as being pretty good for a one-shot. "The captain is dead, killed by poison. The cook, a secret agent of the king, is responsible, and he says there's a warship hot on your tail. What do you?" Is pretty simple, compelling, and leads to direct and dramatic action in a lot of different directions. What do you do with the treacherous cook? Who's going to be the new captain? What do you do about the pursuing warship? If you just play out those immediate circumstances, it strikes me as pretty unlikely that rape would enter into the picture, but of course hours of fun can be had with just Murder, Robbery, Blasphemy, and Idolatry, which are pretty standard fare for roleplaying games in general.
Quote from: James J SkachThis is what you've come to? Really? Poorly crafted semantic arguments that can be swatted away with a few online dictionary searches?
Here, let me help you out.
Now, the online dictionary (The OED isn't handy) says:
[snip definitions]
So which part are you not getting. I'm pretty secure with my logic.
"Boy" in a nautical context is much like a rank. It denotes someone's position, not necessarily their age. I was under the impression that the original AP snippet specifically said "cabin boy," but I misremembered. It still might mean a cabin boy or ship's boy, but it does seem just as (if not more) likely that it's just a young male. Consider that particular comment withdrawn.
Pedophilia (and necrophilia as well) is a type of paraphilia, a family of psychological disorders dealing with aberrant urges that interfere with a person's normal consensual and/or affectionate sexuality. Properly speaking, the term classifies the illness, not the act. You can check the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia) page or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/paraphilias.htm) for more details.
Quote from: James J SkachI think your specific purpose was to claim to come in to answer any rules questions (I love Sigmunds!) so that you could later claim "Well, they were commenting on a game they knew nothing about. I was there and nobody asked me rules questions."
It strikes me as unlikely that I'll be making any claims concerning this whole debate any time in the foreseeable future. The 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. Also, there's been a number of mechanical questions asked, all of which I've answered.
Quote from: James J SkachThen there's the "who are you to judge us" defense.
Let's see...who am I missing.
Oh yeah, Tony's "Everybody thinks it's OK to tell stories, it's only fiction" Poll.
Anyone else?
I don't even know the poll you're talking about. I'm pretty much only paying attention to this thread here. Bottom line: you're free to assume anything you like about my motives.
Quote from: mythusmageYes, I'm talking about you WalkerP and Fifth_Child; among others. You know nothing about the world and the horrors it can hold. You're like the child in the Emo Philips story, told over and over again to never go past the cellar door. You've been shielded against the world and so have no defenses against the evil it holds.
Don'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?
Quote from: mythusmageThen you get those who show no understanding of what hurting other people involves. No idea of how physical and emotional pain can damage, even kill a victim. Especially the emotional pain. Classic examples of how profound ignorance warps perceptions. Seeing a girl being carved up for roasting on a movie screen is one thing. Having to carve up your own living daughter and then eat what you've cut off is quite another.
So 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.
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.
Quote from: J ArcaneI take it you haven't had much of a life since discovering the Internet then?
Heh, touche. It's true that there's a lot of baseless judgments being made pretty much everywhere, pretty much all the time. Most of the subjects involved have no personal connection to me, though, so I don't really care. But I come back to RPGnet after four days or so without internet (remodeling the house) and find this already-massive thread about this game, Poison'd. I remember reading a preview of it and thinking it sounded interesting, plus the claims some people are making seem a little outlandish. So I start digging up some information: actual plays, mechanical snippets, stuff like that. And I post to RPGnet to the effect of, "You know, it's probably not as bad as some of you are asserting." But after a while I'm getting frustrated, because you know what? I don't really
know that it
isn't that bad, because I haven't read it either. And I'm totally just adding to the chorus of people who are assuming things about the game without having even read it. So I pony up and buy the pdf. And hey! I kinda like it. So there you go.
Quote from: mythusmageI 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.
You're drunk, right? I'm cool with that.
Quote from: SigmundYes 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.
I didn't feel like I was insulting anyone. There's no such thing as perfect knowledge. I have been known to make the occasional error myself - Consonant Dude has been immortalizing one of my more egregious textual ones in his sig for, what, like a year now? He's free to continue doing so - it's not like he's lying. (I'm assuming from the "Dude" in "Consonant Dude" that you're a guy. Apologies if I'm wrong.)
No rush. Just because I'm feeling under the weather after inhaling vast amounts of polyurethane and spending most of my time at my computer desk doesn't mean that other people don't have more important matters to attend to.
Mythusmage, for the record I don't consider myself Christian, but I appreciate your concern for the state of my immortal soul.
Whether you're Christian or not - everyone has a soul or spirit.
Even Ayn Rand and Madelyn Murray O'hare had souls.
- Ed C.
Quote from: fifth_childMythusmage... 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.
When you show understanding, then I will cease. You have yet to show understanding.
I too have been in situations where I nearly killed someone. I have gotten angry enough to take a human life with my bare hands. I didn't. I understand.
But you let the distancing inherent in an RPG warp your perceptions. You forgot that for all the boy was imaginary, and his death was imaginary, and his decapitation was imaginary, and the abuse of his body was imaginary, it all happened to a person. All he is to you is a toy to be used, and then discarded when his usefullness is done. No thought to how this sort of treatment would play in the real world.
I once lived in a household that adopted a severely abused dog. She was terrified of everything. She slept under this table in the living room. She ate under this table, she shit under this table. It was six months before she would come out from under that table, and she couldn't stand to be left alone. I understand what abuse does. That family member of yours? How well do you know her? How well do you understand?
Quote from: fifth_childMythusmage, for the record I don't consider myself Christian, but I appreciate your concern for the state of my immortal soul.
I really, really, really can't tell you how disturbed and disgusted I am at this moment that a child molestor is presuming to pass any judgements on another's soul.
EDIT: I don't mean you. I'd advise you IL mythusmage, he's really a sick fucker and not worth your time.
Quote from: KoltarWhether you're Christian or not - everyone has a soul or spirit.
Even Ayn Rand and Madelyn Murray O'hare had souls.
- Ed C.
I stay further from Ayn Rand than I would from hazardous waste. Objectivism is not something I identify with.
And while it's true that the vast majority of religious or spiritual beliefs do have some concept of the soul or spirit, many of them don't believe in judgment in anything approaching the same sense as the Christian faiths.
Quote from: walkerpYou're drunk, right? I'm cool with that.
And you're a jerk. Tomorrow I'll be sober, but you'll still be a jerk.
Quote from: walkerpI would say there is inconsisten application of "System Matters" on both sides of this debate. Baker himself said that it did.
I agree that it's been misread by both, but I think Baker is wrong. Like I said, no game designer likes to think that they're the
least important part of what ends up happening at the game table.
Quote from: walkerpThe 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.
I'm with you up to there. I'd just add in some scorn to disavow any connection with people like that. I'm a person who's reasonably active in recruiting people into gaming. That sort of shit really does not help.
Quote from: walkerpI 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).
I don't think the system makes much difference, except in that had it been FATAL or D&D the rpg.net thread would have been locked very quickly and a few people banned. My own reaction would have been no different. Sick shit is sick shit.
Quote from: walkerpMaybe Baker and crew are trying to show the opposite thing, an in-game extreme abuse is an example of profound player trust and cooperation.
Well, we can speculate as to their "true" motives, but Vincent Baker's already told us that he came up with
Poison'd because he wanted to see Keira Knightly raped. That's the sort of story he's interested in having in his game sessions.
No thanks.
Quote from: fifth_childIt's trivially easy for me to prove what my career field was and where I was stationed, Kyle.
I don't doubt it your personal experience, I simply say that your personal experience is
irrelevant, and playing that as a card just leads to endless one-upmanship and even less productive discussion.
If you roleplay your character molesting the corpse of a murdered child, you yourself may have been raped, you may actually be a rapist, you may be a support worker for sex workers who've suffered sexual assault, you may be a nun who's lived in a nice safe nunnery all your life, you may be a hardened soldier who's never done anything like that but has seen it, or you may just be a balding cheetos-bellied gamer dork in black t-shirt and jeans chortling to himself - it
doesn't matter. It's still sick shit.
Your personal experience is irrelevant to whether or not this is sick shit or whether or not it belongs in a roleplaying game session, or whether it not it has any bearing on "System Matters." Nor does mythusmage's personal experiences, or mine, or anyone else's. It just doesn't matter.
All that matters in relation to the topics of this thread is your roleplaying game experiences. Let's stick to those.
Quote from: mythusmageAnd you're a jerk. Tomorrow I'll be sober, but you'll still be a jerk.
Good paraphrase of Churchill - nicely done.
Quote from: J ArcaneI am a shallow, nasty person incapable of learning from my errors and correcting them. So I find it impossible to admit others are capable of learnirng from their errors and correcting them.
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: J ArcaneI really, really, really can't tell you how disturbed and disgusted I am at this moment that a child molestor is presuming to pass any judgements on another's soul.
Um, am I to take this post to mean that mythusmage is a convicted child molester? Because that's not an accusation to toss around lightly.
Mythusmage, the woman who was raped when she was prepubescent is an immediate family member of mine. I cannot count the hours I've spent over the last twelve years talking to her, comforting her, or simply holding her. It happened to her that long ago, and it still impacts her life to this day. Being around victims of serious trauma teaches you a compassion you can't learn anywhere else. However, this is all rather personal and off-topic, so I'm thinking perhaps we should drop the matter.
Furthermore, I don't think you're qualified, nor that there's enough evidence extant, for you to make the assertions you're making about the state of my perceptions, nor do I agree with your classification of an imaginary character in a rpg as a person. I'd really appreciate it if you'd drop the matter, as I'm simply not willing to pursue it any further.
Kyle, you're free to keep making reductionist statements like "it's still sick shit," but I'm just going to keep on disagreeing with you.
I don't agree that personal experience is completely irrelevant, either, but it's true that it's tangentially related at best. Sorry for getting sidetracked.
I'm not really willing to argue theory with you in any depth at the moment. I know that you don't buy any of it anyway, and this talk about Poison'd is more than enough for me. Maybe some other time.
Quote from: fifth_childFurthermore, I don't think you're qualified, nor that there's enough evidence extant, for you to make the assertions you're making about the state of my perceptions, nor do I agree with your classification of an imaginary character in a rpg as a person. I'd really appreciate it if you'd drop the matter, as I'm simply not willing to pursue it any further.
You wish to take the subjects of the two paragraphs I clipped to PM, I will respond.
On your perceptions: All I'm going by is what you've said. If you want me to have true perceptions, say what you mean. If you disagree with what occurred in that game, say so. If you disagree with what the players said and did post game, say so. Some things are just indefensible.
fifth_child, mythusmage has previously expressed sympathy for certain ideas about lowering the age of consent and the like, and claimed that the damage to children who'd had sexual relationships with adults came from the "help" they received from social workers etc, rather than the sexual activities themselves.
This made people susect that he was in thought if not in deed a paedophile, disgusted everyone, and he was given a topic-ban on these issues by RPGPundit, and to my knowledge he has respected that topic-ban.
My feeling is that if someone is topic-banned, and is respecting that topic-ban, then it's unsporting and rude to constantly mention it to them. But J_Arcane is not particularly sporting or polite.
If you dig around the archives you can see if I've given an accurate description of the events; I believe I have. I would have PMed the information, but I think we've enough new members here who'd be unaware of the history of the thing that it'd be likely to derail the thread.
Quote from: fifth_childI didn't feel like I was insulting anyone. There's no such thing as perfect knowledge. I have been known to make the occasional error myself - Consonant Dude has been immortalizing one of my more egregious textual ones in his sig for, what, like a year now? He's free to continue doing so - it's not like he's lying. (I'm assuming from the "Dude" in "Consonant Dude" that you're a guy. Apologies if I'm wrong.)
I'm a dude indeed.
Just so you know, I tend to keep sigs for a long time, until something else strikes me as remarkable enough. That hasn't been the case, probably due to a decrease in internet presence for me.
And to clear the matter: I have no way of knowing whether you truly knew about Universalis or not. I'm rather skeptical. I can't imagine myself telling everybody how D&D is an amazing, totally classless system unless I was under heavy medication. But who knows? Still, I have to say I am (sincerely) glad that you aren't flipping over this. Honest mistake or lie, the quote is still amusing to me.
And all I've said so far in this post may seem like off-topic ramblings but it's really not. This sig to me as always been a way of expressing a frustration for me: the fact that so many people like to spout (either condemning or praising) about games they really know
fuck all about. And that's
really irritating for me, particularly back when I posted on RPG.net. And I see a lot of that behavior on this thread. People passing (positive or negative) judgment on a game based strictly on APs.
So I, for one, will be reading with interest when you report on your experience with Poison'd. I'm really hoping you
do have the game and that you
will be as objective as possible if you decide to report on it.
Quote from: Kylesnip
Well, since it was mentioned, better to clear it up with that brief explanation than to keep it hanging. Thanks.
I was pretty iffy on the guy when he busted out the "I've been angry enough to kill a man with my hands" comment, so it was pretty clear something was up with him.
Hell, I dunno, maybe people are working off different definitions of "roleplaying". I've played character who've chopped up people, sure, but I've never really sat down and imagined what it would feel like to want to kill somebody. And that's in a fictional game, much less real life.
Wow.
Quote from: Kyle Aaronfifth_child, mythusmage has previously expressed sympathy for certain ideas about lowering the age of consent and the like, and claimed that the damage to children who'd had sexual relationships with adults came from the "help" they received from social workers etc, rather than the sexual activities themselves.
Correction: Are often harmed by overzealous social workers. We forget that 15 year olds are very different from 5 year olds.
I've also realized that I'm too soft-hearted to hurt people. If I were capable I'd be in a prison hospital right now, if not dead. You learn from your errors and you correct them.
Pity the man who cannot change. Pity more the man who will not change.
QuoteUm, am I to take this post to mean that mythusmage is a convicted child molester? Because that's not an accusation to toss around lightly.
He gave me a lecture on how I was a monster because I had not intention of fucking my own children.
You don't forget a thing like that. mythusmage sure loves that topic ban though, because it lets him pretend everyone else has forgotten.
It's a stain upon this site that he's even still here, a stain that had seemed to be gone for sometime, until the pirate rape game came out and suddenly he's here again. Funny that.
Kyle, thanks for the explanation. [Edit: And mythusmage, while I'm sure that cases of harm done to a child by a social worker exist, you won't find me very receptive to a topic that criticizes workers trying to help victims in any general sense.]
Consonant Dude: it's a bit embarrassing, but I can explain to you the thought process that led to that particular slip-up. I remember it despite it being so long ago because of how extreme the "What the fuck was I thinking?" feeling was. See, I had actually just played some Universalis the week before (or maybe it was the week before that, anyway, it was pretty recently), and had a long conversation with a friend about the way its mechanics worked. Among other things, we'd discussed how what exactly the dice decide is pretty unique, and kind of shifty to describe. See, I'm sure you're aware that in most games, the dice decide what happens with a task - do you succeed or fail at this action you're trying to do? A number of Forge games switch this up a bit, and have the dice decide the outcome of a conflict - do you get what you want or not? Universalis doesn't do either of these. It doesn't really even tell you who won or who lost. It just distributes a bunch of points that you can use to say how things went down, to both the winners and the losers. So we had concluded that Universalis bore many similarities to diceless games, in that the outcome isn't really determined by the dice at all. The dice just tell you who gets to say how much.
So that's the origin of quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever said on the internet. And, admittedly, it is pretty amusing.
Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a stain upon his site that he's even still here,
We may not always be in agreement but I will never agree more with you than I do now.
My philosophy with the sick fuck has been to try and ignore him. I'm sure he doesn't mind anyway, since I've reached adulthood a long time ago.
Quote from: fifth_childConsonant Dude: it's a bit embarrassing, but I can explain to you the thought process that led to that particular slip-up.
You didn't have to explain, man.
As I said, I will appreciate any genuine report/review of Poison'd should you find the time and inclination. Although the moral posturing on both sides is mildly entertaining, I would like to know what's written in the actual game.
Personal experience with the Book of Vile Darkness and other RPG books has taught me that a few APs aren't the be all, end all.
I'm still keeping the quote until something strikes my fancy, though :p ;)
fifth_child, I can say honestly that I hope you'll be sticking around this site for other threads. Few threads have anything much new and interesting after the first 100 posts, people just continue from sheer stubborness, or are new to the party and re-ignite old subthreads from 200 posts ago.
I've often seen you on rpg.net as an apologist of some pretty dodgy indie gaming. You're smart enough to defend them reasonably well, unlike some of their keener adherents, and unlike most followers of TBM, have obviously actually read it. So that smarts and reading could be a great thing in discussions.
So I'll be most interested to see you talking in a, let's put it nicely, "more rigorous" discussion forum than rpg.net, a place where people can say, "bullshit!" so long as they back it up.
I'd be interested in hearing more of the games you've played, like Universalis. I hope you'll stick around, make threads about those games, and do more than just be an apologist for stuff like this.
Honestly, I think this particular topic is pretty much done.
Thanks for the kind words, Kyle. I remember that I'd occasionally get kind of ticked off at you over at RPGnet, too. :p
Honestly, I'm not 100% sure I'm willing to throw myself into a bunch of rigorous theory discussion with a whole bunch of people I know don't agree with me. Coming over to this thread took a bit of mental steeling, and reminding myself: "If I don't want to answer a question, I can just ignore it. If it gets too annoying, I can just leave." I consider myself to have a thick skin, but really, honestly, truthfully, there's a lot of hurtful shit that gets said on this site.
Also, I'm a big fan of using swears as expletives or adjectives - I swear all the fucking time, honestly - but I find actually directing them at people to be in exceptionally poor taste, and try to avoid doing so under even the most extreme circumstances. So, I'm probably not a terribly good match for this forum. Plus, I really do enjoy myself at RPGnet and Story-Games, and don't feel that my freedom of speech is at all constrained. There isn't a single post I've made here that I wouldn't feel comfortable making in Tabletop Open.
Maybe though, in a couple weeks. Who knows.
P.S.: Can we maybe drop the apologist stuff? I feel like I explain myself pretty thoroughly and logically, so continuing to be called an apologist makes it seem like you feel it's impossible for anyone to disagree with you unless they're slavishly devoted to a particular ideology. If it'll make you feel better, I can tell you about all the Forge games I don't much care for. (Hint: there's more than one.)
I didn't say anything about rigorous theory discussion, though I wasn't perfectly clear - I was talking about rigorous discussion about the game sessions you've had and the games you've played. That's the interesting stuff.
Yes, that's right, I really do want you to tell me about your character. That's just the kind of guy I am.
Sorry, but being an "apologist" is all I recall you doing. That's why I'm expressing the hope that you'll use that eloquence and reading and experience for good instead of evil.* Talking about your game sessions.
I talk about my game sessions (see sig) even though often the discussion falls flat. And once it even got everyone on therpgsite abusing the crap out of me (I had fucked up as a GM and person). J_Arcane and Settembrini especially, but they abuse everyone so I can't claim that as any great achievement.
It's the talk of how people play, the sorts of characters and settings they have, that's the stuff that really interests me. The abstract discussion is just a consolation prize.
* And yes, that was overstatement for ironic purposes.
Quote from: fifth_childHonestly, I'm not 100% sure I'm willing to throw myself into a bunch of rigorous theory discussion with a whole bunch of people I know don't agree with me.
You can always talk about the games and reserve rigorous theory discussion for other websites.
For every guy over here who is fixated with fictional "roleplaying wars involving theories and stuff", there's someone like me who doesn't really give a shit.
Just talking about games will be appreciated. Sure, there are many extremists but you'll find quite a few rational people who enjoy all sorts of games. You're more than welcome to add to the mix!
I'm not terribly big on actual play write ups. I'm a horrid note keeper, in every aspect of my life, and I don't trust my memory enough to successfully portray important nuances without a written record. I do have one up on the web, though, at my depressingly neglected blog (http://fruitfulvoid.blogspot.com/search/label/Actual%20Play). It's for Agon.
I managed to get it done by posting the reports pretty much right after the game sessions ended, but I'm just not regimented enough in my daily life for that to be a common thing.
And before you ask: liberal, feminist, pacifist, poor note taker, not very regimented... no, the military and I were not a perfect fit. I think intel is the only area of the armed forces that I could have gotten by in.
I think this thread has veered off its original topic so very much at this point that its really time to close it.
People are welcome to start other threads, as long as they're topical to the forum they're started at.
RPGPundit