Quote from: StormBringer;257762Looks like the internet is holding together for now, so I will follow up with: I look forward to reading what you discover.

I may be more sensitive to these matters than many of my group, so we'll see where we get to.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257758I think that more neutral descriptions would make the PCs more likely to engage in human sacrifice. The tone of the setting necessitates making sorcery rare precisely because it is so horrific.

Even if that off-screen sacrifice was the reason five Fighting-Men are kicking in the door every day to kill the PC?  Wouldn't sorcery be as rare with other ritual components like 'tears of a snake', 'humility of the gods', or 'the nightmares of a murderer'?  Especially as, by your own admission, your players give no more mind to the actual ritual than 'I get the stuff and cast the spell'?

QuoteAs a player, I personally am filled with more fire when hunting down a mass murderer and a rapist. I'd be less engaged if the DM said, "The guy did some very bad things (details undisclosed)."

How does 'filled with fire' help you enjoy a game more?  And is 'rends babies and rapes 11yr olds for 11 hours then murders them' distinctly more effective than 'mass murderer and child-rapist'?

Quote from: droog;257771Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

You're arguing in a circle. Those who fantasise about abusing children may go on to actually abuse children. Um, sure. But there's a gaping void between sexual fantasy and playing a game which is essentially about creating fiction.

Are you not basically arguing here against someone being squicked out?

I mean, the only difference between his position and mine on that content is that I just said I wasn't personally happy with it and didn't elucidate further.  Well, that and that I might buy the game despite that particular point.

Quote from: Balbinus;257774Are you not basically arguing here against someone being squicked out?

They've had their say.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257760It means that in almost very case, those who victimize children start out as it being a fantasy.  Much in the same way that those who become serial killers fantasize about killing, which then escalates to the mutilation of animals, and then escalating to the actual killing of human beings  I am not an expert by any means, but I suspect that the act of fantisazation allows for the de-humanization of the victim.  And I see a lot of this potential de-humanization in the actual play that I read, and I don't think it is a good thing./QUOTE]

So I see several directions from this.

1) a pedophile is going to follow this progression no matter what, so it doesn't matter what content they are exposed to.
2) a pedophile may follow this progression, but if discovered early and not exposed to material that exacerbates his problem, may learn to control himself and not ever actually do the bad things.
3) a non-pedophile may actually start to become a pedophile by engaging in consumption of this pedophiliac fantasies.  
4) a non-pedophile can properly separate between fantasy and reality and distance themselves from the fantasy presented and thus won't be encouraged to act out on the fantasies.

If 1 and 4 are true, then it doesn't really matter what the content of an RPG is, in terms of actual social damage.  If 2 and 3 are true, then we should be concerned.

I suspect it's more of a range, but I don't really know.

Quote from: Balbinus;257755I'm not sure about that, making it vague makes it more likely to be used surely?  I can see that the detail might actually deter the in game act.

(I missed this one earlier)

I would say that fluff has a negligible effect on player actions when compared to mechanics.  'The ritual will cost 3d6 SAN, you will lose half your hit points, and your CON will be at 3 for two weeks'  will be a greater deterrent than the descriptions in Carcosa, which the authour admits are ignored by his own players.

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.
Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

Quote from: droog;257771Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

What the hell are you saying here droog, you mean playing heroic fantasy does not make one heroic?

Regards,
David R

I'm so sorry David....

Quote from: walkerp1) a pedophile is going to follow this progression no matter what, so it doesn't matter what content they are exposed to.

Not true... pedophiles tend not to molest kids, they are people who really love preten kids and yes, they are sexualy aroused by them to some degree. But as yourself would you rape someone you love? Ut's sadists who rape most kids, not pedophiles.

Quote from: walkerp2) a pedophile may follow this progression, but if discovered early and not exposed to material that exacerbates his problem, may learn to control himself and not ever actually do the bad things.

This sort of material might serve substitution for pedophile so said pedophile will feel less "need" if he faps to childporn cartoons. So it actually might help to protect kids from being raped.

Quote from: walkerp3) a non-pedophile may actually start to become a pedophile by engaging in consumption of this pedophiliac fantasies.

One cannot become pedophile, pedophile is born taht way.

[QUOTE="walkerp]4) a non-pedophile can properly separate between fantasy and reality and distance themselves from the fantasy presented and thus won't be encouraged to act out on the fantasies.[/QUOTE]

That's true.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257754I don't know what to say. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me.

Well, all I've got to judge your intent by is a very dodgy AP thread and your first game ever published that devotes 19% of the text to gratuitous and unnecessary detail of child abuse.  Throw me a bone here, man.  Why should I believe you?  

You don't even seem all that concerned about what this makes you look like.  Can you see what part you, yourself have played in this by your frankly ham-handed presentation of the material?  You didn't even apparently properly label the original AP thread as containing objectionable material, and were later forced into editing it (god knows what details you had to remove) and giving a proper warning to readers.  When you first wrote it, didn't you realize that it would be offensive to the vast majority of the readers?  Was it simply that you were too thick to realize that this stuff is simply not acceptable to most people and you didn't think to use the ol' social editor?  Or was it that you, personally, don't consider the material offensive and were caught by surprise by the reaction?  Do you think that this negative reaction is groundless?

I apologize for sounding harsh, but just level with us about how you see the material.  Obviously, you consider it appropriate for your game table, which is your right, but why do you think this level of detail is appropriate for a published product, and for public actual play discussion?  And I don't buy your "you have to know the depths of their evil to feel good about their deaths" argument.  That can be done without the gratuitous detail, and you know it.

Quote from: Geoffrey;257754I can only reiterate that I sought to portray Yogthag and his associates as the vilest of the vile. Horrific details make a reader hate the doer of such things even more than if the details were left out. I wanted readers to really, really hate Yogthag and co., and thus feel intense satisfaction when they were all killed at the end.

If that is your intent, then why make it explicitly about PC actions?  You designed the game so that players can specifically participate in these things.  If this is all about the just desserts of evil, then why make the Sorceror a PC class at all.  By protagonizing this class, you have defeated your stated purpose.


TGA

Quote from: StormBringer;257778(I missed this one earlier)

I would say that fluff has a negligible effect on player actions when compared to mechanics.  'The ritual will cost 3d6 SAN, you will lose half your hit points, and your CON will be at 3 for two weeks'  will be a greater deterrent than the descriptions in Carcosa, which the authour admits are ignored by his own players.

Judge: The specified time for the ritual has arrived.
Player: I do everything required to perform the ritual.

You may well be right, certainly mechanics require less effort on the GM's part than fluff.

I once stopped PCs lynching a bad guy merely by describing the scene in detail and making him pathetic.  It worked well, but it was a lot more work than saying "you'll each take 1d6 san if you go through with this".  I mean, on that occasion it was worth the work, but it was more work.

Quote from: droog;257771Man, if it was that straightforward just about all the roleplayers I know would have become mass murderers by now.

You're arguing in a circle. Those who fantasise about abusing children may go on to actually abuse children. Um, sure. But there's a gaping void between sexual fantasy and playing a game which is essentially about creating fiction.

You re correct, droog.  I am not an expert on the subject.  It is obviously too complex a topic to be covered in an Internet discussion forum with any justice, and I apologize.  

I will only say that the content of the actual play and the game throw up some red flags in my, non-expert, mind.


TGA

Quote from: David R;257779What the hell are you saying here droog, you mean playing heroic fantasy does not make one heroic?

Regards,
David R

Insert "I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something about courage" joke here, right?  

TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257787Well, all I've got to judge your intent by is a very dodgy AP thread and your first game ever published that devotes 19% of the text to gratuitous and unnecessary detail of child abuse.  Throw me a bone here, man.  Why should I believe you?  

You don't even seem all that concerned about what this makes you look like.  Can you see what part you, yourself have played in this by your frankly ham-handed presentation of the material?  You didn't even apparently properly label the original AP thread as containing objectionable material, and were later forced into editing it (god knows what details you had to remove) and giving a proper warning to readers.  When you first wrote it, didn't you realize that it would be offensive to the vast majority of the readers?  Was it simply that you were too thick to realize that this stuff is simply not acceptable to most people and you didn't think to use the ol' social editor?  Or was it that you, personally, don't consider the material offensive and were caught by surprise by the reaction?  Do you think that this negative reaction is groundless?

Most fundamentally, it boils down to this:

Since M. A. R. Barker published The Book of Ebon Bindings 30 years ago, and since I've only seen praise given to it, I assumed that the level of grisly detail therein was OK with most gamers. I'm frankly perplexed why so much outrage is being directed against my little book when The Book of Ebon Bindings has no outrage against it.

For my part, I have no interest in persecuting anyone for what they think.

The moment they actually write something (publicly), however, they've gone beyond just "thinking". I'm not for persecuting anyone for what they think or even how they feel; I am for persecuting anyone who takes the action of writing certain thoughts out in the format of my hobby, and tries to present these thoughts as a part of the hobby.

Because then that directly impacts me. So damn right I'll do something about it.

RPGPundit