Quote from: CavScout;257975After seeing you ride to the defense of pedophiles everywhere, I don't doubt it.

I don't know, I think maybe Fritz is just really, really naive.  I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But it's difficult...

I've got a question for Geoffrey about his methodology for the spells under discussion, if he's willing to answer it.

Was it necessary to make them graphic and thus controversial content? RPGs like Call of Cthulhu have had rituals that summoned and bound Lovecraftian Horrors without going into graphic detail about the rituals themselves to dissuade PCs from using them, instead using other game mechanics to show the cost of such rituals to the PC casting them. So why did you decide to go for the controversial content?

Quote from: jgants;257987I don't know, I think maybe Fritz is just really, really naive.  I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But it's difficult...

He seems to have to much "research" into the subject to claim the mantle of naiveté.

Quote from: jeff37923;257993I've got a question for Geoffrey about his methodology for the spells under discussion, if he's willing to answer it.

Was it necessary to make them graphic and thus controversial content? RPGs like Call of Cthulhu have had rituals that summoned and bound Lovecraftian Horrors without going into graphic detail about the rituals themselves to dissuade PCs from using them, instead using other game mechanics to show the cost of such rituals to the PC casting them. So why did you decide to go for the controversial content?

What I don't get is this plus the aspect, as I understand it, that it all but encourage PCs to engage in the acts if they want to progress in power.

Quote from: CavScout;258000What I don't get is this plus the aspect, as I understand it, that it all but encourage PCs to engage in the acts if they want to progress in power.

I hadn't caught on to that, but it does make a good question. Why put spells or rituals that you want to dissuade players from using in a setting that requires them to do so to advance in power in the game?

Quote from: jeff37923;258005I hadn't caught on to that, but it does make a good question. Why put spells or rituals that you want to dissuade players from using in a setting that requires them to do so to advance in power in the game?

His "explanation" of I did it so player would be encouraged to participate rings hollow to me. If you, as the game designer, didn't want players to participate you would have made it NPC only.

I am preparing my Carcosa campaign.   I will post about it next week.   If this makes you seethe with outrage, please visit the Dragonsfoot review forum to see the message I left for you.

I like the book and the author has been open on his blog and his forum posts regarding why he made the choices he made.   I disagree with some of the author's choices and I will be altering them for my campaign.   Oh, there will be blood, but no rape of children.   Will vile sorcerers throw babies into snake pits?  Hell yeah.  Will there be in-game, story-motivated repercussions for PC sorcerers who throw babies into snake pits?  Double hell yeah.

I like that most of the rituals require human sacrifice.  It draws the line sharply between Good and Evil in a world where these concepts do not exist.  In Carcosa, there is only those who seek power, those who are preyed upon and a miniscule few who stand righteously.

Magic is evil in Sword and Sorcery tales.  In Carcosa, you can be a righteous Sorcerer and never murder anyone by only doing Rituals of Banishing.   Banishing is a major achievement because it rids the world of one of the Cthulhoid horrors and invoking them back to Carcosa is a dangerous effort.  Most invoking rituals put the sorcerer in grave peril.

You could easily play a group of sword swinging warriors and a Lawful sorcerer devoted to making Carcosa safe for Men.  You could travel the world slaying any sorcerer devoted to Chaos and destroying every last vestige of the Snake Men and thus end the tyranny of the Old Ones...or would the heroes become tempted by the sweet lure of power?  

The fact that there are only two classes and one race is liberating.   Carcosa is a world like our own where humans have different skin colors and some people may declare attributes associated with that skin color.  However, the rules are clear than no skin color race gets any mechanical difference...except Bone Men are kinda creepy and folktales assume Jale Men are adept at sorcery.  

As for two classes, the Sorcerer comes with a big decision for the player...and the other players as well.  As for the Fighting Man, having one non-Sorcerer class means players need to take a moment to non-mechanically differentiate his character.   And isn't that exactly the Old School ethos of chargen?

Quote from: Geoffrey;257617I'm the author.

1. The level of grisly detail of my book is exactly that of M. A. R. Barker's The Book of Ebon Bindings. Any line that has been crossed was already crossed by Prof. Barker 30 years ago.

3. No one at my table has ever gone into detail on human sacrifice during the game.

Thanks for stopping by and fielding questions in this thread. Threads like this and your site have been helpful in making up my mind re: Carcosa.

1) I already covered this on the old DF thread so no need to rehash here, except to say that we disagree on Barker's level of detail & tone esp. re: yours.
3) the group I play Tekumel with, who would be the group I'd potentially buy this for, is very very immersive. The combination of for PCs + detail & subject matter -> No go, no way.

As for me personally, I wish that you had instead chosen to go with the style of your editing of the AP thread over on DF, perhaps even more edited than that. Even if Carcosa is in many ways a campaign notebook. It's your product so your choice to make, but my money to choose not to spend on Carcosa.

Quote from: StormBringer;257902I guess you aren't finding a point to discuss because I don't really have one.  Just a statement of belief, as to why, aside from the content itself, I think these kinds of games are damaging to us all.  We can recognize the darkness, we can examine its boundries; when we start to delve into it too deeply, we risk losing sight of our better selves.  We carry the attitude with us for the rest of the day, or the rest of the week.  Sometimes, for the rest of our lives.

I mentioned one of my players in the "Fragile" thread. He would agree with you. And I don't think you are alone in this belief. I don't however share it. I can appreciate the reasons why it is brought up in conversations like these, but like I said to TGA, it's dodgy too refutable nature , just muddies the waters and detracts from the overall point of the discussion - the merit or lack there of, of the work in question. Better to concentrate on the objectionable nature of the content itself, than apply such "beliefs" to the nature of escapism. Suffice to say, I know many people who are attracted to the darker aspects of human nature as expressed in various mediums, but who themselves are not "corrupted" or influenced by their choice of entertainment, as to the way they see the world and their role/responsibility in it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;258015I mentioned one of my players in the "Fragile" thread. He would agree with you. And I don't think you are alone in this belief. I don't however share it. I can appreciate the reasons why it is brought up in conversations like these, but like I said to TGA, it's dodgy too refutable nature , just muddies the waters and detracts from the overall point of the discussion - the merit or lack there of, of the work in question. Better to concentrate on the objectionable nature of the content itself, than apply such "beliefs" to the nature of escapism. Suffice to say, I know many people who are attracted to the darker aspects of human nature as expressed in various mediums, but who themselves are not "corrupted" or influenced by their choice of entertainment, as to the way they see the world and their role/responsibility in it.

Regards,
David R

Understood, and thanks for clarifying your position.

I'm not advocating the view that someone's first trip into Hot Topic is an irreversible slide into drugs, devil worship, and debauchery.  If you multiply the little jabs and pokes people take at each other all day by the number of people interacting, say, 3billion at any given time, well, I think the root cause of human misery isn't hard to find.

Of course, there are some truly wicked people on the local level and on the national stage, but I think they already stand outside the normal flow of ill-will circulating among people.  Although, they can be considered part of the current, for sure.

Anyway, I agree that the content itself is reprehensible without my maudlin ramblings as re-inforcement, so hopefully that hasn't coloured anyone's opinion of my argument overmuch.

Quote from: RPGPundit;257681Yeah, except that I've seen the Book of Ebon Bindings. It was a supplement, basically a spellbook, written as an imitation of a "Sorcerous Grimoire" in an almost academic level of detail.

Link to cover image of BoEB

From the (red or black depending on edition) cover with gold sigils on it's the faux Necronomicon of Tekumel and Tahb'n's Change Demon Guide. There would have been a corresponding book on the other side of the Tekumel orthodox pantheon, for Demons of Stability, The Book of Ivory somethings but it's never been published and AFAIK never been written. Demons in this case meaning extra-dimensional (and/or alien) beings, Stability being roughly equivalent to Law, Change (which the BoEB covers) being roughly equivalent to Chaos. Though certainly there are plenty that we would call demonic, on both sides.

But this being Tekumel both sides co-exist with open strife being forbidden for centuries. The typical Change worshiper is pretty much the same as any human on Tekumel and are more concerned about their family, taxes and job than anything else. The typical Change spell caster, NPC or PC, (most priests do not cast spells), even if they cast spells using rituals instead of just drawing on spell power, would not use the rituals in BoEB nor have the ability (or knowledge) to even attempt casting them. BoEB is bigtime Summon Thing Most Likely Best Not Summoned Even If You Want To / Have To stuff. Inner circle high level temple spells. You do not fire up one of these spells or need one of these demons on hand to cast Tekumel's equivalent of Fireball, Create Undead or planar travel.

BoEB is Tekumel 301+ stuff IMO & has a mature statement on the back cover (and interior IIRC). There are no rules and even the stated demon powers are undefined in the book. Where they are defined elsewhere it's along the lines of:

Quote from: Tekumel Demonic Powers PDFOBNUBILATION beclouding a region so as to cause a fearsome gloom
REFLUENCE causing time to flow backwards
RENDERING reducing a victim to a dry and desiccated shell removing all of the body fluids and fat
TRANSPORTATION taking a person from location to another even across planes

Things I learned from this thread:

1. Fritzs gives Eurotrash a bad name.

2. droog invokes Flaubert, pure Comedy Gold.

3. El and Pundy are spot on re. BoEB.

4. So the Dragonsfoot "AP" post was heavily edited. That's enough for me--I won't get Carcosa, which is a damn shame because it does otherwise sound like one of the coolest D&D settings ever written.

5. I shouldn't have included the Edwards reference. I almost didn't because I *knew* the fucker would post exactly what he did:

Quote from: RPGPundit;257675So he's a Forger after all??!

Oh, that's rich.

And he was "inspired" by Edwards' Sorceror?
Motherfucking case-closed, bitches! :cool:

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;257985Certainly, this sounds like an occasion where the effort in making up the fluff paid off in spades.

I would assume that Frodo didn't fail his sans pitie check or some Pendragon-like Passion roll to stay his hand in killing Gollum, for example.  It was the wretchedness of the creature that prevented him from being killed; by all accounts, it would have been justified, but Frodo's (Bilbo's, Gandalf's, &c.) basic nature prevented him from doing so, a point made by your group as well.

He was an old guy who'd pretended to be a shaman in an RQ game, because the PCs trusted him a valued but badly wounded ally died, who they could otherwise have got to safety.  He was just a fraudster, taking money for minor cures, who got in over his head.

When they went back for him he cried and wet himself from fear, they had to pull him out of his hut with him begging the whole way.  In the end, they couldn't do it, despite the fact he had by the laws and customs of the land merited the penalty and he had caused a good man's death.  There was a big in character argument, it produced some good roleplaying.

It's not something I'd usually bother with, normally I'd just have the guy whacked and go on to the next scene (in a heroic fantasy type game obviously), but I thought for once it would be cool to make it a bit more tragic than that, for a change of pace.  Also, I figured it could work with an old fake shaman dude, whereas the "the kobolds all have babys, do you kill them too you babykillers?" thing some GMs pull just pisses me off.  "Dude, I'm playing a heroic fantasy game, kobolds don't have fucking babies or if they do they're offscreen."

Not remotely relevant to this thread though.

The setting really needs a thief or rogue class too.  S&S classically has three character types, not two.  Warrior (Fahfrd, Conan), Rogue (Grey Mouser, Cugel), sorceror (bad guys I'm too tired to remember and Elric).

Quote from: Spinachcat;258009I am preparing my Carcosa campaign.   I will post about it next week.   If this makes you seethe with outrage, please visit the Dragonsfoot review forum to see the message I left for you.

I reserve the right to be outraged in the forum of my choice.

Will you write it up in the Craft of Gameplay forum, yeah?  I'd be curious to hear how it works for you in practice.