Review of Supplement V: Carcosa

Balbinus · October 17, 2008, 12:42:56 PM

Quote from: StormBringer;257709To that point, I would speculate that you would have likely gotten more use out of it were it not to contain such passages at all. With those passages intact, I will hazard a guess you will be unlikely to locate or retain a group if you use it as written, and one with your abilities should be able to glean as much or more from the source material with little effort.

You may be right, at the risk of breaking the internet with this next statement, I don't know.

Geoffrey · October 17, 2008, 12:44:03 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;257721You, on the other hand, have come out of nowhere, and this is the first thing you fixated on.

Actually, only 18 out of 96 pages (or 19%) in my book describe the sorcerous rituals. It is some of the book's detractors who are fixating on it.

For that matter, in the majority of game sessions in my Carcosa campaign, no PC performs a sorcerous ritual. It's merely one aspect of the setting.

The Yann Waters · October 17, 2008, 12:44:08 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;257721It feels a little like someone claiming that because there's some mention of incest in The Silmarillion (I don't remember if there is, but let's say there was, for arguments sake) then it justifies him writing elf-incest-porn on his blog.

That would be "The Children of Hurin", which Tolkien actually cribbed from Finnish mythology.

StormBringer · October 17, 2008, 12:45:42 PM

Quote from: Geoffrey;257729That's part of it.

The level of detail does indeed make player characters LESS LIKELY to perform human sacrifice.

Wouldn't it be better to expunge that kind of detail and use a more neutral description like "the ritual wracks the minds, bodies, and spirits of everyone involved in the casting, usually killing those of lesser constitution in horrible ways"?

I mean, if you are speaking out against these atrocities, it seems better to relegate those rituals to NPCs only. They would then be the target of the PCs wrath, and lavish details wouldn't be entirely necessary. I mean, players don't really need to be filled with actual disgust, anger, and righteous indignation to effectively play, do they?

Fritzs · October 17, 2008, 12:46:07 PM

RPGPundit: So, it's OK, if prof.Barker write sick thing, but bad if someone you dislikred o the same. Anyway, what you have written about your setting is tame, if you think, that it's "questionable" you are prude.

CavScout · October 17, 2008, 12:46:16 PM

Quote from: Geoffrey;257740Actually, only 18 out of 96 pages (or 19%) in my book describe the sorcerous rituals. It is some of the book's detractors who are fixating on it.

For that matter, in the majority of game sessions in my Carcosa campaign, no PC performs a sorcerous ritual. It's merely one aspect of the setting.

And I am sure you pick-up Playboy for the articles.

droog · October 17, 2008, 12:47:26 PM

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257736But it is also true that those who surrender themselves to these most vile of fantasies often act out on them.

What does this even mean? Have you got statistics? What's 'surrendering'? Is it downloading porn, flashing at the bus stop, ogling teenage cleavage or ordering Maid? Does 'acting out' mean 'becoming a serial killer'? Or 'wanking in public'?

RPGPundit · October 17, 2008, 12:48:15 PM

Quote from: Fritzs;257746RPGPundit: So, it's OK, if prof.Barker write sick thing, but bad if someone you dislikred o the same. Anyway, what you have written about your setting is tame, if you think, that it's "questionable" you are prude.

Are you drunk?

RPGPundit

Geoffrey · October 17, 2008, 12:49:26 PM

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257736To be frank, your answer seems a bit disingenuous, Geoffrey. Most people would not find the AP more interesting or readable by your inclusion of this sort of content. One is forced to consider the possibility that it made it more readable to you alone, which is the source of my concern. For that matter, why include the details at all? The same effect could have been achieved without them, and you apparently edited out the *really* questionable parts by the time I got to read it, which again makes me wonder why you included them in the first place. Forgive me, but your explanation that it underscores poetic justice just doesn't ring true.

I don't know what to say. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me.

I 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.

Balbinus · October 17, 2008, 12:51:35 PM

Quote from: StormBringer;257744Wouldn't it be better to expunge that kind of detail and use a more neutral description like "the ritual wracks the minds, bodies, and spirits of everyone involved in the casting, usually killing those of lesser constitution in horrible ways"?

I mean, if you are speaking out against these atrocities, it seems better to relegate those rituals to NPCs only. They would then be the target of the PCs wrath, and lavish details wouldn't be entirely necessary. I mean, players don't really need to be filled with actual disgust, anger, and righteous indignation to effectively play, do they?

I'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.

Geoffrey · October 17, 2008, 12:53:07 PM

Quote from: StormBringer;257744Wouldn't it be better to expunge that kind of detail and use a more neutral description like "the ritual wracks the minds, bodies, and spirits of everyone involved in the casting, usually killing those of lesser constitution in horrible ways"?

I mean, if you are speaking out against these atrocities, it seems better to relegate those rituals to NPCs only. They would then be the target of the PCs wrath, and lavish details wouldn't be entirely necessary. I mean, players don't really need to be filled with actual disgust, anger, and righteous indignation to effectively play, do they?

I 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.

As 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)."

The Good Assyrian · October 17, 2008, 12:55:17 PM

Quote from: droog;257749What does this even mean? Have you got statistics? What's 'surrendering'? Is it downloading porn, flashing at the bus stop, ogling teenage cleavage or ordering Maid? Does 'acting out' mean 'becoming a serial killer'? Or 'wanking in public'?

It 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.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that "bad thoughts" are the same as "bad deeds". I do think that it must be recognized that bad thoughts do have a role in bad deeds.

TGA

StormBringer · October 17, 2008, 12:56:49 PM

Quote from: Balbinus;257737You may be right, at the risk of breaking the internet with this next statement, I don't know.

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

Geoffrey · October 17, 2008, 01:03:47 PM

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.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that "bad thoughts" are the same as "bad deeds". I do think that it must be recognized that bad thoughts do have a role in bad deeds.

TGA

I've been playing D&D since 1980. I have never seen anyone engage in violence, occultism, deviance, etc. because of his involvement with D&D or with other RPGs. The only thing some D&D players of my acquaintance have been guilty of is neglecting their homework in order to play some more D&D.

droog · October 17, 2008, 01:04:07 PM

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;257760I 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.

Man, 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.