In this thread where Cyberzombie was trying to get a discussion on die mechanics going - the topic of heavy shit in your games came up.

Paka said:

QuoteYou see Jerry Springer, I see a loaded situation with an angry man with a gun and just you between him and a killing that will damage the community for the worse. It is just you between your pissed off brother and a dead whore that will haunt him forever. Whaddya do?

CZ said:

QuoteIf I want dicey real-life situations that require delicate handling, I'll deal with fucking real life. I want some *escapism* in my roleplaying, not more of what goes on in reality. Yuck!

the Colonel said:

QuoteIt's that we see this kind of thing on the news everyday. Some of us, myself included, have known someone injured or killed in such situations. I have no desire to deal with that kind of stuff in a game. I could counter what seems to be a snide remark by saying that if you've been raised like a veal and have no experience with the real world, then such stuff might be appealing.

and G-man said:

QuoteSome people I've met who go in for this sort of stuff do it because "the art of rpgs should reflect and comment on real life". Make of that what you will.

Finally, I said:

QuoteWhile I don't really think of gaming as "art" (and if it is art, is collective ephemeral art that is gone the moment it happens), the quote above fits my view of these things perfectly.

I want situations (not every situation, but a good amount) in my games to be comment or reflection on "real" life. I don't like abuse, torture, murder, or deceit in my real life (and unfortunately have been exposed to those things in my lifetime) - but those are all aspects of the "adventuresome life" we are immersing ourselves in at the same time that we have a nice little safe distance from it.

It seems weird to me to make a distinction between various kinds of violence and distress.  I mean, RPGs generally have a lot of violence in them - so if you know someone in real life who has been stabbed, does that mean you rule out daggers and knives or assassination in your game?  Probably not.

For me, nearly any issue you might find in "the real world" is open for mining in my game. I especially like giving the player tough moral situations with no right answer to wrestle with because the level of role-playing rises incredibly in those situations in my experience (obviously you need to have the right group of players for that kind of).

Again, I think the actual distance between reality and the game makes those situations usable without being traumatic, and sometimes it can even be cathartic.  Sure, sometimes when things are close and still tender you avoid those subjects - you are not going to include a rape or attempted rape when someone in your group is still recovering from such an attack (or having someone close to them suffer such a thing).  My group played the week after 9/11 - and there was no way I was going to have terrorists and collapsing buildings and thousands dying in my game that week - but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use something similar now.

In my current M&M game (set in 1977) I am using the real world events of the Son of Sam kilings in the current arc of the game - if it were still 1977 I likely wouldn't.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Quote from: el-remmenWhere do u

I think it would come as no surprise that I'm in the escapist group of players uninterested in dealing with "tough moral situations" unless they are the type that appears in my favorite source works- and as a hint, the ones that appear there aren't of the "with no right answer" type.

Quote from: el-remmenWhere do u

Was there supposed to be more to this quote?

In one of my previous campaigns it was commonplace for male wizards to have young, pretty female "apprentices" whom they abused badly. As one wrote to the head of his cabal, "The new apprentice you sent me is simply delightful. My compliments, sir. I might even teach her a bit of magic some day!" The party found her naked, bruised, and bound to his bed. This tied in with the rise of one particular cabal of wizards who were female only, giving women with magical aptitude a way to learn magic without having to be enslaved by a harsh male master for decades. Very feminist. One of the PCs was from this cabal. It made for interesting role-playing.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheWas there supposed to be more to this quote?

Yes, I edited the original post - accidentally hit submit as I hurried closed the window when someone came to my cubicle.

Quote from: el-remmenIt seems weird to me to make a distinction between various kinds of violence and distress.  I mean, RPGs generally have a lot of violence in them - so if you know someone in real life who has been stabbed, does that mean you rule out daggers and knives or assassination in your game?  Probably not.

For me, nearly any issue you might find in "the real world" is open for mining in my game. I especially like giving the player tough moral situations with no right answer to wrestle with because the level of role-playing rises incredibly in those situations in my experience (obviously you need to have the right group of players for that kind of).

Again, I think the actual distance between reality and the game makes those situations usable without being traumatic, and sometimes it can even be cathartic.  Sure, sometimes when things are close and still tender you avoid those subjects - you are not going to include a rape or attempted rape when someone in your group is still recovering from such an attack (or having someone close to them suffer such a thing).  My group played the week after 9/11 - and there was no way I was going to have terrorists and collapsing buildings and thousands dying in my game that week - but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use something similar now.

In my current M&M game (set in 1977) I am using the real world events of the Son of Sam kilings in the current arc of the game - if it were still 1977 I likely wouldn't.

Where do you stand on this issue?

I'd say we're pretty similar.  I too have found that giving PC tough moral questions with no right answer but instead tell them what kind of person they are makes for some really good gaming.

As far as real world events, there does need to be some distance going on.  That's what a lot of the fantasical elements in fantasy and sci-fi are for.  They distance an element from its real-world components and let you see it clearly and without bias while still realizing how it relates back to the real world.  One of my favorite examples of this is the old Star Trek episode - I don't remember the name but it was with the aliens with half their face white and the other black.  One kept going on about how the other was a criminal, barbaric, and inherantly evil.  When it came down to it they realized he felt that way because the other guy's skin was colored on the opposite side.  This makes a statement about racism without being preachy or condescending.

Overall, yeah I like the heavy shit.

I want hard choices, but there are limits to how much social-realism I can take. I think most people have their personal triggers that they would prefer to avoid in game. I feel very uncomfortable about the idea of introducing sexual abuse in a game, other than possibly as some very abstract background reason for a vengeance theme. And that's not because of some personal experience.

It's hard to say what's too much and what isn't though. I'm thinking that if you like to introduce conflicts that revolve around these "heavy" issues, you really need to know who you're playing with. Maybe even have a talk beforehand about it so nobody gets caught like a deer in the headlights when you spring it upon them.

Overall, I like variation, and it shouldn't come out of left field. If I'm playing a noble knight at King Arthur's court, I would not expect the same gritty stuff I would if I was playing a soldier in Vietnam.

Heavy shit might be okay as a light seasoning.  Used very, very sparingly, to spice up the escapism.

I like my RPGs like I like my movies: lots of explosions and gunfire (or swordplay).  

Quote from: el-remmenWhere do you stand on this issue?

Yeah I like the heavy stuff in my games. My players dig it too. But the heavy stuff is more informed by movies and books than everyday life, know what I mean.

There is a kind of movie pastiche to the whole thing. I mean that in the best possible way. Lets just say I run a kind of police procedural or something. There is corruption in the establishment, moral compromise, detective work and all that stuff but there is a cinematic gloss to the whole adventure - also gritty cinematoghraphy by way of some nifty descriptions

My players have read books or seen movies about the above stuff and know the issues involved, the fun happens by putting oneself in the shoes of the protaganist and dealing with all the shit that happens. I don't think they come to any revelations about life or anything although they do in the game

And some times the issues in the game deal with some hard core real life shit but like I said all seen through the filter of movies and books. Can you dig where I'm coming from?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheIt's hard to say what's too much and what isn't though. I'm thinking that if you like to introduce conflicts that revolve around these "heavy" issues, you really need to know who you're playing with. Maybe even have a talk beforehand about it so nobody gets caught like a deer in the headlights when you spring it upon them.

Well, yeah - when I form a group I let them know that these kinds of themes may come up and see if there are any forbidden areas for specific people.

Then again, 99% of the problems in every gaming group that are ever posted about boil down with an inability or unwillingness to communicate with your players.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheOverall, I like variation, and it shouldn't come out of left field. If I'm playing a noble knight at King Arthur's court, I would not expect the same gritty stuff I would if I was playing a soldier in Vietnam.

I don't know man, Launcelot having to decide to kill a bunch of fellow knights while naked to keep them from knowing he's humping Guenivere while still in a sense being loyal to the king seems pretty gritty to me (this coming from the One & Future King).

Quote from: David RYeah I like the heavy stuff in my games. My players dig it too. But the heavy stuff is more informed by movies and books than everyday life, know what I mean.

There is a kind of movie pastiche to the whole thing. I mean that in the best possible way. Lets just say I run a kind of police procedural or something. There is corruption in the establishment, moral compromise, detective work and all that stuff but there is a cinematic gloss to the whole adventure - also gritty cinematoghraphy by way of some nifty descriptions

My players have read books or seen movies about the above stuff and know the issues involved, the fun happens by putting oneself in the shoes of the protaganist and dealing with all the shit that happens. I don't think they come to any revelations about life or anything although they do in the game

And some times the issues in the game deal with some hard core real life shit but like I said all seen through the filter of movies and books. Can you dig where I'm coming from?

Regards,
David R

I get ya.  Just like someone can watch L&O: SVU and find it entertaining even though children are being kidnapped, raped and killed, because there is a distance between the acted portrayal and the reality of those horrid acts -and also a distance btwn the  portrayal and the viewer (which I guess is less distant when you are taking the role of one of those characters, such as in a game).

Oh, and for what it is worth - I totally cannot watch SVU - I do not find it entertaining in the slightest.  But for me it might be the visual nature of having innocents imperiled - while in one of my games I might have a similar situation, but can use implication as opposed to details to get the idea of it across.

Quote from: el-remmenI don't know man, Launcelot having to decide to kill a bunch of fellow knights while naked to keep them from knowing he's humping Guenivere while still in a sense being loyal to the king seems pretty gritty to me (this coming from the One & Future King).

I stand corrected. My basic point is still the same though - you sign up to something at the beginning of a campaign and should (basically) get what you agreed upon then. But yeah, I agree that an Arthurian game can be very interesting with a lot of moral questions - Pendragon is really written in a way that encourages that, with its conflicting personality traits.

It was a bad example, that's all...

Quote from: el-remmenI get ya.  Just like someone can watch L&O: SVU and find it entertaining even though children are being kidnapped, raped and killed, because there is a distance between the acted portrayal and the reality of those horrid acts -and also a distance btwn the  portrayal and the viewer (which I guess is less distant when you are taking the role of one of those characters, such as in a game).

Yes, this is a good point. But what I was getting at was that the way how the hard core stuff was put forward and dealt with has really no basis in reality but rather how movies and books etc depict them(which is not to stay that the protrayal in movies are not grounded in reality,sometimes they are but I'm aiming for high gloss not cinema verite )

QuoteOh, and for what it is worth - I totally cannot watch SVU - I do not find it entertaining in the slightest.  But for me it might be the visual nature of having innocents imperiled - while in one of my games I might have a similar situation, but can use implication as opposed to details to get the idea of it across.

Exactly. Here is where the comfort zone question comes in, in any depiction of difficult subject matter.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: CyberzombieHeavy shit might be okay as a light seasoning.  Used very, very sparingly, to spice up the escapism.

I like my RPGs like I like my movies: lots of explosions and gunfire (or swordplay).  

Same here. I take exception to the notion that there isn't really a distinction between types of violence, as el-remmen seems to assert here:

Quote from: el-remmenIt seems weird to me to make a distinction between various kinds of violence and distress. I mean, RPGs generally have a lot of violence in them - so if you know someone in real life who has been stabbed, does that mean you rule out daggers and knives or assassination in your game? Probably not.

Yeah, but there is a whole spectrum of difference between the relatively sanitized violence of RPGs like D&D and real-life violence. Warner Brothers cartoons of the 1940s have more violence in them than maybe a half-dozen modern action flicks combined, but I doubt anyone would be as disturbed by them as they would be watching "One False Move" or Iraqi war coverage on Frontline. I think it would be weird if someone didn't, or couldn't, make such a distinction.

As per usual, I totally agree with Hardisson.