Also let me point out that Quentin Tarantino made overdosing and shooting people in the toilet cool...if you look at it like that.

My wife, as it happens, can't stand Tarantino, and I'd feel that she had a stronger moral basis on which to pursue this line.

Quote from: droog;256158Also let me point out that Quentin Tarantino made overdosing and shooting people in the toilet cool...if you look at it like that.

I think that's a stretch. He may have made those situations entertaining in Pulp Fiction, but he didn't make them cool.

There's also the vicariousness of watching a movie and the more immediate experience of role-playing, when comparing a movie to an RPG, those situations. The "RPGs are like movies" analogy breaks down when you differentiate between people who would want to vicariously watch a disturbing scene well portrayed in a movie and the people who would want to role-play that same disturbing scene at the game table.

Quote from: droog;256157Now, I've seen a bloke in real life smash a door over a game of D&D. I've known people to break down in tears (and not in a good way) and go into screaming rages over other games of that type.

Wow. No wonder you don't have a game group. I thought it was just because you were too thespy or something. But if those were the guys I had to game with, I wouldn't game, either - and I'd also not think too ill of games named after "pervert cartoons".

And Andy K is full of shit. My woman's a Japanese-English translator, and works for a Japanese company, so we meet lots of Japanese people - and that stuff is not regarded as "funny sexy", but as perverted. Women see men on trains reading those books, and say to themselves, "I better move away, that's the sort of guy who's going to grope me on this train." Andy K was obviously getting his impression of the perception of the stuff in Japan from the people who produce it.

Quote from: jeff37923;256159I think that's a stretch. He may have made those situations entertaining in Pulp Fiction, but he didn't make them cool.

See, you're nearly there. Now you just have to get over the idea that RPGs are necessarily different.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;256161Wow. No wonder you don't have a game group. I thought it was just because you were too thespy or something. But if those were the guys I had to game with, I wouldn't game, either - and I'd also not think too ill of games named after "pervert cartoons".

You make very silly attacks. I don't think I can even be bothered with this one.

Quote from: droog;256162See, you're nearly there. Now you just have to get over the idea that RPGs are necessarily different.

That would be a tough one to get over since the entertainment of a movie is experienced very differently from the entertainment of a RPG.

Quote from: jeff37923;256165That would be a tough one to get over since the entertainment of a movie is experienced very differently from the entertainment of a RPG.

Why, yes, so it is. A movie is also different from a book. And a book is different from a stained-glass window.

Different media have different characteristics. Who would have thought?

Quote from: droog;256163You make very silly attacks. I don't think I can even be bothered with this one.

It's not an attack. It's an expression of pity. You've gamed with people who crack the shits over a game and start punching stuff up. And now you don't have a game group, and if those are the ones you've got to choose from, I don't blame you. You poor bastard.

And beyond pity, it's a discussion of perspective. I mean, games are games - they're designed to be played. Ages ago on some GURPS mailing list, S John Ross observed that he could always tell the difference between questions which came up from play, and questions which came up just from reading the books and thinking about stuff. And that's something we see a lot in discussions about rpgs, the play perspective vs the... I dunno, Platonic Ideal Perspective, or something.

From the Platonic Ideal Perspective, any game is playable with any group in any setting and with any playstyle, and things like how many miles a day people can hike for months on end actually matters, and 9mm vs 44 actually matters, and Intelligence-Poor barbarians, their players should not be allowed to come up with complex plans (which never work in play anyway) since "your character wouldn't think of that" - and from the same perspective, these games are playable and worthy of note. Because all this stuff is REALLY IMPORTANT, we think - when we're not playing, and are just looking at our books.

But when you look at these things from the play perspective, well... I just couldn't get any gamer I've known and played with to even try this shit out. And these guys even play my fucked-up homebrews, so they're pretty easy-going and open-minded. Hell, some of them even play Rifts. But they'd reject Maid or Poison'd. That tells you something about the "mainstream" Pundit was talking about earlier.

I guess we're just not supershockedgeycool enough.

Quote from: droog;256157I would be willing to bet money

Sorry, you'll have to bankroll this one yourself. But go ahead and do it already, if you can. I don't know how close you'll be able to get to a really unbiased test but here's what I'd look for in a professional study.

1. Don't throw two games at the same group and ask them to compare them. Throw one game at group A and one at group B, then compare the results of play, for each. (Ideally you'd have a bunch of groups and randomly assign them to each game.)

Point of this: see if the games differentially induce certain content, when played by average people.

2. As a separate test, gather a large group of people, let them read each game, and then let them select which one to play in. Again, compare the results of play.

Point of this: see if the games differentially attract people who are inclined to use them for certain content.

QuoteSorry, Elliot, but I just think you're wrong here, trivially or not. In the end, empirically, it's an entry in a table.

Well, at some point I suppose that until you engage in real testing, or have something to bring to the discussion other than special pleading, you can "just think I'm wrong" all you want, and I don't give  a damn.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;256167It's not an attack. It's an expression of pity. You've gamed with people who crack the shits over a game and start punching stuff up. And now you don't have a game group, and if those are the ones you've got to choose from, I don't blame you. You poor bastard.

No, dude--it's a PA. You don't know who or when I'm talking about, you're just lashing out in hopes you'll find a target.

I can get into several games if I want to, but I'm happier spending time with people who share my habits and tastes. Is that fairly easy to understand, or would you like me to put it another way?

QuoteI guess we're just not supershockedgeycool enough.

Now, this is just whining. Firstly, it seems from your use of the subjunctive that you haven't actually tried to get a game of these going (and it would be difficult as you haven't got the games, I suppose). Secondly, I know people who would try Poison'd without question. Maid, perhaps not, but the women might surprise me.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;256168Well, at some point I suppose that until you engage in real testing, or have something to bring to the discussion other than special pleading, you can "just think I'm wrong" all you want, and I don't give  a damn.

It's not special pleading. It's abundantly clear that D&D (and others) produce exactly what you guys are pleased to call 'fucked-up play'. The evidence is punching you in the nose--given the long history and popularity of D&D it's absolutely more abundant for this game in particular (cf. about half a dozen play reports, not all with neck-raping). It's you who's engaging in special pleading, and it's about your resentments with the Forge.

There are some very good arguments to be made against Maid (ha), but they tend to be feminist arguments, and the feminists on this forum could be counted on one hand. And woe betide the old-schooler if he opens that can of worms.

Quote from: Spinachcat;256146Our hobby would be FAR better off if we spent time talking about games we do like.   If you really want to marginalize a product, the best you can do is ignore it.

I agree with you here, although I think Walker does a piss poor job of saying this-if nothing else his attempts to one up people are sort of pathetic. But I agree-I use my wallet to express my opinions on games. I don't like it, I don't buy it. I don't play it. That simple.

QuoteThreads like this one only result in selling more copies of Maid.

You really think so? This forum is really such a marginal place-I mean so many people are so active in the hobby at a level, that as far as I can tell isn't really all that common in real life.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;256153The point I wish to make is that walkerp is on a slippery slope to an intellectual and moral wasteland where everything and everyone is entitled to "tolerance" and freedom from being judged--except for the "intolerant" of course.

I know I'm not Walker, but this has provoked a lot of thought on my part. While I think you're correct at times, I think this is a temporal condition at best. Were that to change, then I'd whole heartedly agree with you.

Quote from: droog;256157Now, I've seen a bloke in real life smash a door over a game of D&D. I've known people to break down in tears (and not in a good way) and go into screaming rages over other games of that type.

These people had problems long before they got involved with gaming, and would have problems regardless of the hobbies they choose to pursue. I think people fail to get that at times. Unstable people who have mental deficiencies are generally not good at...well pretty much anything, whether it's RPG's or body boarding.

It's not the game, it's the person. (Or as we said in the marine Corps it's not the dope on the weapon, but rather the dope behind it.)

QuoteHowever, I'm not drawing some tenuous line from that to saying that D&D and RQ are bad influences on players and the RPG industry/hobby/clubhouse.

I love you, and wish to subscribe to your emailed pictures.

Quote from: droog;256157On the other hand, I've also seen quite a few fictional atrocities in games like D&D and RQ.

However, I'm not drawing some tenuous line from that to saying that D&D and RQ are bad influences on players and the RPG industry/hobby/clubhouse.

And you're right not to draw that line; you're missing a substantive difference between D&D/RQ and Poison'd/Maid.

D&D and RQ are systems that can be used to tell pretty much any story the players want. The stuff out of the box supports, largely, treasure-hunting in monster-infested areas. So, sure -- you *can* play atrocity-theater with D&D, but it's pretty clearly something the players brought with them.

Narrow-focus games like Maid and Poison'd are a lot more likely to result in questionable material at the table. If that stuff shows up, it's still clearly the player's decision, but the game itself builds it in (for a more apt comparison, imagine if D&D only had evil alignments and that Vile Evil book was part of the basic set).

Does the game's setting and background matter in this discussion? I think it does:

If I understand the damage-to-the-hobby argument it's that an observer (maybe an outside observer) will assume the hobby is full of miscreants or perverts based on game subject matter. If that's likely (I'm making no judgement here--judgement to follow) then a game that's wide-open is less likely to lead to assumptions of perversion than a game with a narrow, morally questionable focus.

Which explains why bringing in D&D and RQ is a non-sequitur.

---------------

My assessment about damage-to-the-hobby: Although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the material in Maid or Poison'd resulting in some negative publicity somewhere, I think that most people are likely to find roleplaying of any kind childish -- 'let's pretend' with dice and character-sheets.

I doubt the majority of folks truly outside the hobby are going to pay close enough attention to distinguish between D&D and Maid.

To the extent that any kind of game damages the hobby, I think games that take themselves too seriously are more likely to lead to ridicule than games that have an obviously lighter touch. On that scale, I suspect Japanese Anime Maids and Wizards and Elves are fairly harmless and Pirates-as-a-metaphor-for-a-dysfunctional-family-really-deep-stuff-seriously-it-was-like-psychology-no-I'm-not-kidding-with-Pirates! is more likely to result in howls of laughter.

Although I haven't read Maid and it could potentially be full of pedophilia, I'm  betting it's basically harmless (it's also Japanese, which provides another layer of defense: I think outsiders are less likely to condemn yet-more-weirdness-from-Japan than they would home-grown stuff like RaHoWa or FATAL or whatever).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: droog;256172given the long history and popularity of D&D it's absolutely more abundant for this game in particular (cf. about half a dozen play reports, not all with neck-raping).

Can you please explain how this is different from saying that truck drivers have a more dangerous job than fishermen, since more truck drivers die in a year than fishermen? (Note: in the US there are about 60 times as many truck drivers as fishermen.)

Of course D&D has more incidents, but what proportion of D&D play is fundamentally screwed up compared to Poison'd--that ought to be your question, I believe.

Quote from: -E.;256190Narrow-focus games like Maid and Poison'd are a lot more likely to result in questionable material at the table.

However I think they show up at far fewer tables. I mean seriously until I started posting here I'd never heard of either, and I've gamed for two decades. And I try to snag new stuff all the time, even if I don't play it.

QuoteI doubt the majority of folks truly outside the hobby are going to pay close enough attention to distinguish between D&D and Maid.

I think I'd take it a step further. Most people outside the hobby don't care about the hobby period. And their exposure to a game like "Maid" would be sheer shit luck, and certainly infinitely less likely than running across a D&D book at Barnes and Nobles, or something.

I think some people are way over estimating the effect these goofy ass games can have.

QuoteTo the extent that any kind of game damages the hobby, I think games that take themselves too seriously are more likely to lead to ridicule than games that have an obviously lighter touch.

I think the same thing about the players!