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.