In this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=902) 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... :p
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. :D
Motive for the violence committed by the PCs is important to me.
Don't get me wrong; some heavy shit needs to be in a game occasionally so as to make clear the world is a dangerous place. It's just that most of the really grisly stuff I keep "off-stage." Also, when violence happens "onstage," I don't go into a lot of detail about it - it's like the difference between someone being shot in an old Western serial and someone being shot in a Peckinpah film. Sam liked showing blood flying and people dying gruesomely. I'm more of the school that just shows the gun firing and the guy falling, with nary a bullet hole or blood stain on his shirt.
Quote from: gleichmanMotive for the violence committed by the PCs is important to me.
Same here. The bad guys have some loot; we want it.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonYeah, 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.
Yeah, which is why I tried to frame my whole post within the context of movies. Some might say that's a cop out, but that was the best way I could think of in answering the question. Heavy themes abound in our games, but just like in movies(fiction) we don't kid ourselves in that we are exploring reality in any way. which is not to say that some groups don't do this, or derive some meaning from their games, but with my crew that ain't what it's all about.
Regards,
David R
If people like to deal with heavy shit at the game table, that's cool. Not my cup of tea, but I just took exception to the whole "violence is violence is violence" assertion. Yeah, violence is a big part of the game, but how it's portrayed and handled varies vastly from group to group.
I remember somebody posted - I don't know of this was on ENworld or NTL or wherever - about a scenario their characters had to go through.
It involved defending a town against an army of zombies. Traditional fantasy fare, right? There was a nearby "safe area." Maybe a cave or something. They sent the women and children there, and the PCs rallied the men of the town to defend against the zombie hordes.
I'm sure some of you can tell what's going to happen next...
Zombies shuffling forward in the night, some falling to arrows, but when they get close enough to see clearly... they're the women and children of the town, all zombified, and on a mission of slaughter. Some of the men just gave up and killed themselves then and there - they had nothing left to fight for, their families and children were gone, and the future of the town was doomed anyway. And the PCs had to deal with knowing it was their decision to leave the women and children behind in the "safe" place that resulted in their death and subsequent un-death. And they had to kill zombie kids of all ages.
Quote from: Name LipsThere was a nearby "safe area.".
What made them think it was safe?
Quote from: Name LipsAnd the PCs had to deal with knowing it was their decision to leave the women and children behind in the "safe" place that resulted in their death and subsequent un-death.
"This is defeat. Avoid it."
I think I'd use the zombie situation, and those like it, very sparingly. Just enough so the players would get the idea that I wasn't just fucking around.
Quote from: gleichmanWhat made them think it was safe?
I doesn't much matter - they thought it was safe, and obviously they were wrong. It's also possible the DM deliberately hyped it up as the safe place through his cronies (er... NPCs) just to try to force the scenario described and make a memorable encounter.
Quote"This is defeat. Avoid it."
The secret to doing well in life: Don't do anything stupid. Not very helpful before the fact...
Quote from: Name LipsI doesn't much matter - they thought it was safe, and obviously they were wrong. It's also possible the DM deliberately hyped it up as the safe place through his cronies (er... NPCs) just to try to force the scenario described and make a memorable encounter.
I think it makes a very great difference in light of very possiblity that you give.
If the DM/NPCs was considered a trusted source and they played it up as the best option, the players can't be faulted for following the DM's bread trail. In fact, I'd say that the DM was an asshat.
But that judgement gets heavily into the group's social contract and expectations. The only reason I bring it up is that I have seen GMs rig adventures in this way, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad.
Gandalf: "This ring must be taken to Mount Doom and cast into the fire from which it was made".
Frodo: "Ok, I'll do it"
Gandalf: "Stupid Hobbit, doesn't he know that will result in complete victory for the Dark Lord".
"Tonight, in a Very Special session of D&D..."
Quote from: BOZ"Tonight, in a Very Special session of D&D..."
Aahhg! The Oprah RPG!
Quote from: ColonelHardissonIf people like to deal with heavy shit at the game table, that's cool. Not my cup of tea, but I just took exception to the whole "violence is violence is violence" assertion. Yeah, violence is a big part of the game, but how it's portrayed and handled varies vastly from group to group.
I only meant that "violence is violence" in the sense that someone who has experienced terrible violence might be distubed by it on any level - sometimes even when they don't expect to be.
And yeah, I am totally a "his guts fall out onto the ground" or "there is a spray of blood and brains as your mace smashes into his skull" kind of descriptive DM.
Quote from: Name LipsAahhg! The Oprah RPG!
With rules for weight gain/loss. Sounds like a winner. I expect it to show up at the Forge any day now.
Quote from: Name LipsIn one of my previous campaigns it was commonplace...
That is fantastic.
This all reminds me of a D&D game I was running just before the Fellowship of the Ring movie came out. One of the players was a halfing ranger and he was really passive. The other players were proactive, moving and shaking but he was just back-up, kind of taking it all in.
I asked the player if all was well, wanted to make sure things were cool and he was having fun.
He said, "Y'know, Judd, I am engaged, I am having fun but in my day to day life I do so much political activism and standing up for what I think is right that when I game, I just want to sit back and have some fun."
And for that game, that kind of support stance was entirely cool.
With that zombie scenario, I could me having one of two reactions. In one, I rip up my character sheet for being so fucking STUPID as to fall for that. In the other, I see me ripping up my character sheet and throwing it at the DM, as I pick up my books to leave.
Could it have been an enjoyable gaming session? Anything is possible. But I kinda doubt it. It was either player stupidity or a DM I would want to beat about the head and shoulders.
Quote from: Name LipsZombies shuffling forward in the night, some falling to arrows, but when they get close enough to see clearly... they're the women and children of the town, all zombified, and on a mission of slaughter. Some of the men just gave up and killed themselves then and there - they had nothing left to fight for, their families and children were gone, and the future of the town was doomed anyway. And the PCs had to deal with knowing it was their decision to leave the women and children behind in the "safe" place that resulted in their death and subsequent un-death. And they had to kill zombie kids of all ages.
I encountered something like this some time ago. It was a kind of "What would happen if the Pcs did not manage to save the day" scenario. I had the Pcs be the guardians of a small settlement in a setting inspired by the End game.
The players grew used to the settlement folk had some adventures but to cut a long story short one of their adversaries was this "mad doctor" type carrying experiments trying to make people pure but instead turning them into "THE WALKING DEAD". They kinda of suspected that he had a "purifying bomb" hidden some place but decided to leave one of their group behind to look for the bomb while the rest of them went after the doc and his mook followers
[..if we don't settle up with him now, we can't take the chance he will back to collect a debt later....]( to be fair this pc was the tech specialist, so in theory he should have been able to handle defusing the bomb)
Well the problem was that the bomb was strapped on to a member of the settlement who was seriously delusional(and who thought that the doctor was a capital fellow and so was his plans) but who the party really liked and the player didn't manage to defuse/kill bomb or man. Shit happened. The other players were not at the table and thought everything was cool...they come back and had to deal with this...and a party member who had survived the bomb blast...which was not really a good thing.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: el-remmenI only meant that "violence is violence" in the sense that someone who has experienced terrible violence might be distubed by it on any level - sometimes even when they don't expect to be.
I understand that, but the impression I was getting from your earlier posts was that you were implying that violence is violence, regardless of context. I think that only the most adversely affected victims of violence would ever be truly disturbed by cartoon violence, or the kind of violence found in the average D&D game.
Quote from: el-remmenAnd yeah, I am totally a "his guts fall out onto the ground" or "there is a spray of blood and brains as your mace smashes into his skull" kind of descriptive DM.
And that's fine. I have used such descriptions myself. But I generally only pull out the purple prose when I feel there is something I want to emphasize.
This is sort of puzzling for me. Sometimes I like heavy stuff in my games. Sometimes I don't.
It's like asking "Do you like to eat hamburger or apple pie?" I can't like both?
A great "heavy things" moment was during the first Polaris playtest, when Vincent and I got into a nasty ping-pong of badness with my character. The best part of it was the start, when my guy is hanging by his fingernails on the cliff's edge, staring up has his companion knight (Emily's character), and his companion is just watching him slide down, neutral expression, while I scream "please! please help me!"
yrs--
--Ben
Quote from: Ben LehmanThis is sort of puzzling for me. Sometimes I like heavy stuff in my games. Sometimes I don't.
Right. But this question stemmed from a debate about having any real heavy shit at all (or at least it seemed to me).
It could just be a matter of perception. I'm not saying I wouldn't want any heavy shit at all in a game - might as well play TOON, then - but that I don't want such stuff to be the basis of a campaign.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonIt could just be a matter of perception. I'm not saying I wouldn't want any heavy shit at all in a game - might as well play TOON, then - but that I don't want such stuff to be the basis of a campaign.
I can understand where this comes from. I like heavy shit but sometimes it's nice to have a game which is a little more light-hearted or with easy decisions to make so I can get with the smashing.
I think I like heavy shit for two reasons. The first is that it lets me get further into the skin of the character because I'm suffering at making this decision as well as the character. On the other hand, I get to make decisions that I would never make in real life. I mean, I recently had a character break someone else's neck because she expected that he probably had allies who would try to rescue him, and she wanted him to be inconvenienced when he woke up. (Mage game, she needed him alive so broke his neck while making it so that he wouldn't die.) After the game, I was hit with "I did
what?!" which was pretty cool.
Previous Supers games:
Pounce, a were-panther like hero had just begun dating a slightly older woman he was a roguish devil may care high school age rebel without a care. The older woman was the elder sister of a fellow class mate he met when he was ditching class to smoke. She was outside the classroom waiting to pick up her sister, the colleg age young woman (only a couple of years his elder) and he hit it off. Some game time passes they date a few times. While pursuing a villain one day he see's her car in front of a clinic. A health clinic. He skids on the breaks and stops because well, she's in the car crying.
Turns out she's couple months pregnant from a previous boyfriend, and no way she can keep the baby and afford going to school. He stops his pursuit of the relatively minor villain to have a long heart to heart with her and offers to help her out, even though it is NOT his child (thouroughly unexpected behaviour from the "rebel" character in fact.)
So heavy? Yeah just a tad.
Quote from: CyberzombieWith that zombie scenario, I could me having one of two reactions. In one, I rip up my character sheet for being so fucking STUPID as to fall for that. In the other, I see me ripping up my character sheet and throwing it at the DM, as I pick up my books to leave.
Could it have been an enjoyable gaming session? Anything is possible. But I kinda doubt it. It was either player stupidity or a DM I would want to beat about the head and shoulders.
I had the same reaction you did.
I've know some people (online, not in person) who would claim that something like that was an enjoyable session. You can find anything online.
QuoteQuote from: ColonelHardissonIt could just be a matter of perception. I'm not saying I wouldn't want any heavy shit at all in a game - might as well play TOON, then - but that I don't want such stuff to be the basis of a campaign.
Sometimes the setting itself is pretty fertile ground for heavy shit. Midnight for example for fantasy and Unknown Armies for modern day horror. The campaign could be grounded in heavy shit but there is always humour(used sparingly) etc to lighten things up. Could be one of the reasons these settings don't hold much appeal to gamers. But I dig them -well more Unknown Armies than Midnight.
Regards,
David R
I'd be interested to know how preference for Heavy Shit in games correlates to preference in books and films.
without "heavy shit" what you really have is an exercise in hack and slash. i think the real question here is how we, as gamers, deal with the issue of keeping it within the our comfort zones. i mean, really, anything can be considered "heavy". take this, for example. you are the party's heal-bot and you have to decide who you are going to heal in a combat where the character you dont will likley die. do you choose in character based on who your PC likes better, or do you choose based on which character will be better suited to help win the fight? thats a moral dilemma there, and a common one too if you are playing in character at all.
Another film/Television example. lets say you are watching a show, and its one of those shows with established characters you just know are never going to die no matter how many stupid situations they get into. How much interest is that show going to hold for you? sure, it may be entertaining for a while, but personally i lose interests in things like that once i realize i already know whats going to happen. on the other hand, what about a show with well writitten, likeable characters, where the writers kill one or two off now and then because they got into a situation they couldnt handle? that kind of show keeps you on the edge of your seat because you really dont know what is going to happen until its done.
the point is, its all about the groups collective comfort zone and how heavy the shit gets. Heavy shit is what gives a game its realisim, the sense that you are not, in fact, an unstopable force for good (or evil, or whatever) that can't do anything wrong because all you get are easy decisions. heavy shit is how you keep the game interesting and engaging while reminding the players that their characters exist in a "real world" where their decisions matter and have consequences.
Quote from: droogI'd be interested to know how preference for Heavy Shit in games correlates to preference in books and films.
I wasn't stating my preference for Heavy Shit over everything else in the games I run. Just that the Heavy shit in my games were based on movie and book narratives which is sometimes at odds with reality. That is if this question was addressed to me. Otherwise I apologise in advance :)
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RI wasn't stating my preference for Heavy Shit over everything else in the games I run. Just that the Heavy shit in my games were based on movie and book narratives which is sometimes at odds with reality. That is if this question was addressed to me. Otherwise I apologise in advance :)
Regards,
David R
I get that. It wasn't addressed to you in particular; I was just wondering. I rather like Heavy Shit in my entertainment; including roleplaying.
Quote from: droogI was just wondering. I rather like Heavy Shit in my entertainment; including roleplaying.
Yeah I figure that those of us who go for Heavy Shit in our games like the verisimlitude it(Heavy shit) brings to our games. Well not all of us but some of us.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Name LipsIt involved defending a town against an army of zombies. Traditional fantasy fare, right? There was a nearby "safe area." Maybe a cave or something. They sent the women and children there, and the PCs rallied the men of the town to defend against the zombie hordes.
I'm sure some of you can tell what's going to happen next...
Zombies shuffling forward in the night, some falling to arrows, but when they get close enough to see clearly... they're the women and children of the town, all zombified, and on a mission of slaughter. Some of the men just gave up and killed themselves then and there - they had nothing left to fight for, their families and children were gone, and the future of the town was doomed anyway. And the PCs had to deal with knowing it was their decision to leave the women and children behind in the "safe" place that resulted in their death and subsequent un-death. And they had to kill zombie kids of all ages.
If I were playing the cleric from the campaign we just wrapped up (13th lvl cleric of Lathander, FR, NG), I would turn the zombies, destroying them. I would be secure in the knowledge that the zombies were only the empty vessels and that the women and children's spirits were safe with the gods. I would know that it was not our choice that killed them, it was the evil ones who sought them out. I would pray to Lathander on their behalf, then seek redemption/repentance or retribution against the true killers in their names.
Greetings!
Hmmm...interesting. I have a reputation for running a wierd blend of "High Magic"/Heroic/Cthulhuesque/Gritty style of campaigns. Of course, there are light-hearted, fun episodes--not every session is full of blood, despair and ruthless brutality, after all.
But I use heavy description and topics all the time in my campaigns. For example;
"As your fireball explodes and shatters the doorway, you can hear the moans and screams of the dying. Entering the burning archway reveals a charnel-house of blood, and roasted bodies. In the far side of the large chamber, there are a group of ferocious, heavily-armed beastmen gathered, ready for a fight. Seeing the group stride into the chamber, the group of black-furred goat-headed beastmen retreat through a pair of doors on the eastern wall. Looking about the chattered room, several beastmen lay sprawled about, bleeding severely and moaning as their flesh sizzles from the terrifying flames. Down a inset stairway, there are several iron cages with beaten and tortured human slaves, cringing in terror. There, in the closest cage is the wizard's apprentice Maraina that you have been searching for. Stepping closer, it is plain to see that she is no longer the bright, happy girl you remember from last summer. She has no doubt been brutally raped, and her naked form shows for all to see the savage wounds of being scourged, and numerous bite marks and clawings all over her body. Sobbing and drooling numbly, she is a shocking wreck of a girl that she once was."
I use extensive descriptions for the players, and describe their attacks, as well as wounds occasionally delivered against them, as appropriate. The campaign world is full of slavery, racism, warfare, sacrifices to demons, madness, and ruthless savagery. Much like real life. The players actions have real consequences and the world they play in is a ruthless, violent world desperate for heroes and courage. Fighting against evil monsters and villains is a rough, bloody, terrifying business. I think if I were to scrub it and sanitize it, then the players would think it was some kind of cartoon-world, or at least their believability and verisimillitude in the world would be lessened.
As for more philosophical topics, yeah, I use relationships, personal interactions, conflicting loyalties, oaths, drama, hatreds, grudges and ambitions and all that for good effect. It increases drama and tension, and makes the players *care* more about their characters and networks, and evokes deeper, more visceral responses about problems and challenges that face their characters and the people and creatures that they care about.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Interesting subject.
I like Heavy Shit in my games. The last fantasy game I ran was in a fantasy version of Constantinople--in that it was the largest, most cosmopolitan city in the setting--in which the various religious factions--templates of real world religions--were blaming each other for the mysterious murders that were occuring with frightening frequency. While the political intrigue and societal stresses had some effect on the PCs, for the most part they were too involved in finding the bad guys and fucking them the fuck up.
The Albenistan Series of adventures from SEP started out in Afghanistan. However, I knew I could never do the real Afghanistan situation justice, so I moved it to a completely ficticious template of Afghanistan. Cop out? Maybe, but I have a vast amount of respect for what the ISAF are trying to do in Afghanistan, and I didn't want to belittle it by delivering an entertainment product that did not deal with the real causes and repercussions of the situation. I tried to bring a little bit more of the sense of the situation in the final adventure "the Khororjan Gambit," but I still wouldn't feel comfortable placing it in Afghanistan. I really wouldn't feel comfortable publishing an adventure set in Afghanistan (or any other real world conflict/disaster zone) without actually going there and being involved. And that's not going to happen.
Yes, I like Heavy Shit in my games, but sometimes it's just too heavy.
I like the sound of SHARK's heavy shit. It's not real life, it is the cold, brutal realities of a fantasy world. Sounds much more fun to me than realistic heavy shit. :)
Quote from: FraserRonaldI still wouldn't feel comfortable placing it in Afghanistan. I really wouldn't feel comfortable publishing an adventure set in Afghanistan (or any other real world conflict/disaster zone) without actually going there and being involved. And that's not going to happen.
Yeah, again it all comes down to what is acceptable to your gaming group. I suppose the considerations are much more complex when it comes to publishing a game/adventure.
QuoteYes, I like Heavy Shit in my games, but sometimes it's just too heavy.
That's why Feng Shui was created - to remind people to have kickass light hearted fun :D
Quote from: CyberzombieI like the sound of SHARK's heavy shit. It's not real life, it is the cold, brutal realities of a fantasy world. Sounds much more fun to me than realistic heavy shit. :)
Greetings!
Hey Cyberzombie! Thanks! I'm glad you like it. Indeed, that's how I run all of my campaigns!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I run heavy, brutal shit in my Modern Game.
The PC's had a choice: Enter the lair of a bunch of Feral Children and try to fight thier way to the train, or use nerve gas.
If they used nerve gas, they wouldn't take any casualties, but they'd used nerve gas on children.
If they went in, they knew half thier number was dead.
That's just one of the most memorable.
But, my campaign tend to be heavy duty.
We don't have the distinction. My players trust me and I trust them. The sole time it came up was right after 9/11/01, where we agreed to let it as a topic (in our modern day gamed) lie for an unspecified amount of time, which ended up being about three months.
Quote from: T-WillardI run heavy, brutal shit in my Modern Game.
The PC's had a choice: Enter the lair of a bunch of Feral Children and try to fight thier way to the train, or use nerve gas.
If they used nerve gas, they wouldn't take any casualties, but they'd used nerve gas on children.
If they went in, they knew half thier number was dead.
That's just one of the most memorable.
But, my campaign tend to be heavy duty.
Definitely Gas 'em. PCs got a mission to complete and more children can always be made.
I'm willing to do brutal and heavy. I've gotten less graphic with time, but I still like the themes in place. I want a game that's worth thinking about. If it really was all about killing critters and nicking their shit, I'd just play video games.
That isn't to say, though, that I run a constant stream of Springer rejects. Just that I am willing to use dark or philosophical themes (racism, rape, diabolism, etc.) when it seems reasonable.
I'm sensing a "Son of..." thread coming up.
I'm not adverse to using Heavy Shit when it's appropriate to a certain session or campaign. It's just another tool in my GM toolbox; I see no reason to limit myself by not at least allowing the possibility for Heavy Shit.
Quote from: David RThat's why Feng Shui was created - to remind people to have kickass light hearted fun :D
Now it's funny you should mention that exact game, because this whole question about Heavy Shit and games is one I'm wrestling with at the moment
I'm currently proofing/reviewing/playtesting a series of modules for a game that contains not only the some of the heaviest shit I've seen in a game, but some of the heaviest shit I have read full stop. And I'm a Stephen King fan
No spoilers, but in HAAC:0, there is a particular detail that is intended to give the players and their characters just a little bit more motivation to hurry up. When I read it, I had to make a decision whether to leave it in or take it out. I decided to use it, but when the time came I left it out without realising it. I genuniely think my subconcious decided that he didn't want it in his game and he had the casting vote
My players said they loved that session, and I believe them, but I know that they were much more comfortable with the next session which featured (among other things), the PC's being rescued by Tom Baker driving a ice cream van through a set of French windows. You guessed it - we were playing Feng Shui
I'm a escapism player and DM. I want to play the great hero and I prefer if my players play the true heroes.
Because of that I love heavy shit in my games.
Without it, you can't play a hero, you could simply fake it.
Lets say you have the evil goblins (you know they are evil because they are goblins and raid towns) and root out their (child less, because goblin children are heavy stuff) burrows, are you a hero?
No, you're a guy in a black and white world defending himself against his enemy.
For one you need to be able to fight the truly evil, the rapists and mass murderers of the setting. But even then it's still black and white and you're just a guy fighting evil, not necessarry someone good.
Only when you have to make the truly hard decissions, then you can play a hero. If you take the choice that's disadvantegous to you, because you know it's the good thing to do. The hero needs to face heavy shit, so he can define his goodness.
Now, all I need is less pragmatic players :bawling:
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonNo spoilers, but in HAAC:0,
What is HACC:0 - I'm a little bit out of the loop here :)
QuoteMy players said they loved that session, and I believe them, but I know that they were much more comfortable with the next session which featured (among other things), the PC's being rescued by Tom Baker driving a ice cream van through a set of French windows. You guessed it - we were playing Feng Shui
I so know what you mean. Feng Shui, the game that just keeps on giving.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RWhat is HACC:0 - I'm a little bit out of the loop here :)
Hold At All Costs: Zero (http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=58), an excellent d20 Modern adventure for the Year of the Zombie (http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=1) setting
Quote from: goldOnly when you have to make the truly hard decissions, then you can play a hero. If you take the choice that's disadvantegous to you, because you know it's the good thing to do. The hero needs to face heavy shit, so he can define his goodness.
I don't mind that on an occasional basis, but a steady diet of heroics gets old quick. I want *escapism*, not constant moral quandries!