Maybe that's really getting to the heart of it -- the "mature atmosphere of safe exploration of any issue". I get the sense that's central to a lot of Forge / Story games.  Exploring issues isn't part of a lot of people's experiences with more traditional RPGs.

I'd rather "explore issues" through other channels than tabletop gaming, and that might explain why I find little compelling about so many Forge / Storygames products.  Someone who feels more comfortable and/or enjoys exploring issues through gaming will obviously feel different.

Hmm...

Quote from: MelinglorAnother example that springs to mind: My wife and I went over to Jake Richmond's house recently to play Shock[...]

For what it's worth, the description of this scenario doesn't bother me at all; in fact it sounds like it could be part of an interesting SF movie or thriller.

QuoteAnd that example makes me think of another issue I've noticed as this thread's progressed: A lot of answers have focused on whether PCs or NPCs are the ones committing atrocious acts.

This is a fine observation, but my reaction's similar to Kyle's. I don't exactly insist that PCs be "heroes", but I do see them more or less as fantasy projections of self, for a variety of reasons. (E.g., losing a PC typically has a profound effect on your ability to interact with the game.) Whereas NPCs (and note even in the example above, it wasn't a Protagonist) aren't people you identify with in that way, whether they're good or bad.

So the closer you get to storytelling, where your responsibility, concern and control is the narrative as a whole, the less likely it is that you're a self-indulgent creep if one of the characters does something disgusting.

Quote from: StuartMaybe that's really getting to the heart of it -- the "mature atmosphere of safe exploration of any issue". I get the sense that's central to a lot of Forge / Story games.  Exploring issues isn't part of a lot of people's experiences with more traditional RPGs.

Indeed. And some of us are skeptical that the 'mature exploration' is anything more than crudely groping in the muck of emotional porn.

I'm currently playing in an Unknown Armies campaign where the party are united by a dream telling of an impending magical apocalypse coming that will wipe out the occult underground.  Through research of the dream and other exploration we have learned that we must build a crazy structure (like the Winchester Mystery House) in a certain piece of land in Cincinatti.

My character is a middle-aged real estate agent, father of three kids, house and two cars in the suburbs.  He is a Merchant Avatar (a character class that is obsessed with the deal and gains greater and greater negotiating powers through doing deals).  In order to get the appropriate zoning papers to start construction on the property (which we got by trapping the previous owner's soul in a television), I had to deal with a corrupt bureaucrat whom I found out is heavily into S&M.

I had the cash to buy him off in the short term, but I have the feeling that he is going to keep coming back and harrassing us.  Plus, he is powerful enough that if he was in my pocket, I could use him to deal with other municipal problems, should they arise in the future.  So I went in attempting to offer him something beyond cash (if I make a deal, both parties are magically bound to carry out their end of the bargain).  What he wanted?  A woman that would give up her will entirely to him.  Forever.

I told him I would see what I can do.  My character is desperate to survive, and he considers himself a good guy.  But he is always working and kind of obsessed and I'm not so sure how good he actually is.  He also has a Hardened Self of 3 (one of the madness mechanics in UA, roughly means that he is slowly losing hold of his identity).

My point of this example is that my character is definitely not a hero.  He's just trying to make it alive through this apocalypse and keep his family protected (though even that is getting kind of questionable).  His weaknesses and foibles gnaw at him and he makes a lot of questionable choices.  This potential deal with the bureaucrat is the first one with the possibility of pushing him over into doing something really terrible.

Now shit can get really dark in UA. Our GM is a thoughtful guy and he isn't into any unecessary excess, so I'm sure he'll pull things backstage if they get too nasty.  Am I trying to explore deep psychological issues?  No.  Am I trying to write some profound story about moral corruption?  No.  This is my character as I made him, combined with the stuff that's happened to him in the game as translated through UA's mechanics (particularly the madness meters).  It's fun and interesting and challenging.

This is the most non-good I've ever taken a character, in a non-cartoon way (I had a neutral evil assassin in D&D, but it was all kind of light).  It's been quite enjoyable so far, though there may come a point where my own character sickens me.  I don't know how I'll feel playing him at that point.

Yeah, Stuart, you're probably right. And I guess I do have a strong enough desire to explore issues through gaming, that it sets me apart from you, who don't. That's perfectly all right.

To Haffrung: I certainly didn't feel like I was "crudely groping" in any kind of emotionally pornographic muck. I felt more like I was playing a very enjoyable game with a great story that I and my fellow players cared very much about. Which was awesome. In fact, we're getting together for a second session this Sunday.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor what it's worth, the description of this scenario doesn't bother me at all; in fact it sounds like it could be part of an interesting SF movie or thriller.

Thanks, Eliot. That's pretty much what we were going for. Glad it worked.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is a fine observation, but my reaction's similar to Kyle's. I don't exactly insist that PCs be "heroes", but I do see them more or less as fantasy projections of self, for a variety of reasons. (E.g., losing a PC typically has a profound effect on your ability to interact with the game.) Whereas NPCs (and note even in the example above, it wasn't a Protagonist) aren't people you identify with in that way, whether they're good or bad.

So the closer you get to storytelling, where your responsibility, concern and control is the narrative as a whole, the less likely it is that you're a self-indulgent creep if one of the characters does something disgusting.

This is a fascinating observation, similar to Kyle's but differently nuanced. If I read you right, it's less about the 1:1 player/character ratio, and more about your role in relation to the character. This is certainly an understandable feeling and I can dig it as one mindset with which to approach RPGs. I'd say that for me, for sure the more I'm feeling like the PC is an Avatar of me, the less I'll feel comfortable with horrible acts. Same with my buddy's acts, if it feels like "YOU raped ME." I still feel in my gut that it's possible to approach RPGs with the openness for protagonists to be despicable. It's kind of like how I don't want to always watch the same kind of movies. All Reservoir Dogs would get old real quick, but so would all Lord of the Rings.

Peace,
-Joel

I'd rather "explore issues" through other channels than tabletop gaming, and that might explain why I find little compelling about so many Forge / Storygames products. Someone who feels more comfortable and/or enjoys exploring issues through gaming will obviously feel different.

I'd just like to add that "exploring issues" in this context doesn't have to mean anything even related to group therapy, personal catharsis or some other bollocks. I'm sure it can mean that for some people and that some people benefit from it, but I'm not that person.

I like movie analogies. The Matrix series has some awesome action and special effects, but also touch on subjects like faceless technology overpowering personal identity, the nature of reality as filtered through our nervous system, stuff like that - apparently enough fuel for an entire university philosophy course. Requiem for a Dream tell a story about addictions and obsessions, where the entirely sympathetic protagonists do awful things to themselves and others and slowly sink face-first into a disgusting, horrible pit of a life.

The latter was painful to watch but also incredibly moving - entertaining, in a way, because some emotional buttons were pushed. It didn't "help me deal" with anything because I don't think the situations the protagonists were in applies to me in any way. The former was a great edge-of-your-seat rollercoaster ride (well, the first one at least) but still managed to broach some interesting subjects to jog the graymatta a bit.

Both types of movies are perfectly fine models and modes for roleplaying games with me, in addition to stuff about high adventure in fantasy realms and Jedi kicking stormtrooper butt and saving princesses. It's all entertaining in its own way, though as with movies there are some I'm not interested in playing with certain groups and vice versa.

No group therapy. Fun and entertainment.

Quote from: MelinglorThat's an interesting perspective. I can definitely see your point, though it seems somewhat individual [...] For instance, when I GM, I certainly don't feel the same investment with (most) NPCs as with a PC, but I still care a great deal about how the NPCs act and what acts I depict with them. . .

The thing is, when you're a player you do what you think is in your character's personality and interest to do. When you're a GM you do with the NPCs what you think would be most interesting and fun for the group. A player's partial, and GM is impartial - or if partial, is partial to the players. Remember another name for "Game Master" is "referee". The referee doesn't have a personal stake in the game, they're just there to make sure it all goes fairly towards its final goal. In a football match, that final goal is that all the rules are followed; in an rpg, it's rules plus the fun of the group. But still the referee doesn't have a personal stake in things, whereas the players do.

So if I as a player have my character do X, it's because I want them to or think it's in their interests. If I as GM have one of my many characters do X, it's because it'll be interesting or fun for the group.

That's why it's different when a PC does something great or vile to when an NPC does something great or vile. No player likes it when the GM's pet NPC rushes in and steals all the action, or steals the victory. That's because the GM's broken that unwritten rule - the GM's not being a referee, they're putting their own personal stakes into the game. And if that GM had their NPC do something vile, then it's just the same as when a player does it. Nasty.

Now whether all GMs do this or not isn't the issue. The issue is why it's different when an NPC does something vile compared to when a PC does. Obviously, if a GM actually does have a personal stake, then it's not different. The GM is being a wanker, a freaky weirdo and a bad GM.

Quote from: MelinglorI think perhaps the real meat of your point lies in the assumption that the PCs are going to be Capital-H Heroic, or at least non-villainous. [...] But I don't think all games employ the assumption that the PCs are heroic.

You're looking at half of it. There's "heroic", and then there's "non-villainous." All anyone would ask of players is that their characters not be irredeemably evil. They don't have to be perfect saints. Just normal humans is enough. But not sociopaths. We're not setting the bar very high here, you know.

As for the rest, I don't doubt that nasty shit is not confined to Forger games. I've said many times that it's the people, not the game. I'm sure Vincent Baker and his buddies are quite capable of doing sick shit in D&D, Vampire, GURPS, Toon, CORPS, or whatever game you care to think of. You don't need special game mechanics to be a fuckstick.

Quote from: MelinglorThis is a fascinating observation, similar to Kyle's but differently nuanced. If I read you right, it's less about the 1:1 player/character ratio, and more about your role in relation to the character.

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough: I do think that characters are an expression of something in the player. That stuff doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from the player. I have many times had my opinion of a player as a person made or changed by the sorts of characters they play. That's because it's an expression of themselves - not all of themselves, but part of themselves.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou're looking at half of it. There's "heroic", and then there's "non-villainous." All anyone would ask of players is that their characters not be irredeemably evil. They don't have to be perfect saints. Just normal humans is enough. But not sociopaths. We're not setting the bar very high here, you know.

I think that's a subjective limitation. We've enjoyed games in the past where the PC's were villainous beyond anything I could come up with. Why is everyone stuck on good? It's an artificial limitation.

If the answer is just-that's not our thing, then I can dig. But if it's "Paul you guys are wrong" then fuck everyone who'd say that very kindly. We have a damn good time, villains or heroes.

Quote from: Serious PaulIf the answer is just-that's not our thing, then I can dig. But if it's "Paul you guys are wrong" then fuck everyone who'd say that very kindly. We have a damn good time, villains or heroes.

From what you've written about your Star Wars game here and here, I don't think I'd want to play in your game, and I'd be apprehensive about hearing about it in any more detail. But you aren't, as far as I know, posting detailed accounts or making pretentious claims about the aesthetic or moral depth of your play.

Does that mean that the decision to expose one's "work" is something I factor into my judgment of the "work" itself? Yes, it does.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe thing is, when you're a player you do what you think is in your character's personality and interest to do. When you're a GM you do with the NPCs what you think would be most interesting and fun for the group. A player's partial, and GM is impartial - or if partial, is partial to the players.

Well, this way of assigning things isn't universal to all gaming groups in all sessions ... which raises an interesting question!

Does it make a difference to you, in terms of what you think a player is doing, if they are having their one character act in horrific ways because of the adversity it provides for other players to bounce off of, and the way that it pushes the story for everyone at the table?  If, in short, they're thinking of it in what you identify (above) as the GM's way of viewing the game?

Well then the player is acting as a GM, rather than as a player, so yes it makes a lot of difference. But then we're stepping into the realm of "GMless" games - more precisely, games where everyone's a GM - and I've little positive experience of them, so can't really speak about them.

I speak of the gaming I know about, which has a GM and players, the GM expected to be impartial, or partial only towards everyone's fun and fulfilment, and the players expected to be partial to themselves.

So to such a player, I'd say, "stick to your character, let the GM do their job." But that's not something I'd say should be universal; whereas not doing sick shit with characters you identify with ought to be universal.

I voted for the answer Pundit put in, because the others were too iffy.

Now, I believe a game is supposed to be something you do for fun. Therefore a role-playing game is not a place to engage in a meaningful exploration of any subject, certainly not a mature-themed one.

I mean really, must one engage in the vicarious experience of a rape in order to understand that it is wrong to rape?

Now for those who imply that some wouldn't feel this same way about Poison'd as we would a d20 game, then read some of my own posts. The same derision that I feel for Poison'd has been aimed at the atrocious Faith and Blood PDF. Both do not offer any meaningful exploration of the subject matter, and I think that Faith and Blood in particular trivializes the Abortion debate in the USA.

If the game group consents to it, mature themes can be played. However, as DM/referee/GM/whatever, I reserve the right to declare the subject matter too fucked up to continue play and I also reserve the right to kick out a player who is using the mature theme agreement to be an asshole. As a player, I reserve the right to leave the table if I think the play has become too fucked up. This opinion all goes back to my belief that a game should by its very nature be fun.

Quote from: TonyLBSo recent threads have raised quite a ruckus on the specifics of "Oh my GOD!  How can you play such a game, or tell such a story?  That's ... sick!"

I figure the ruckus is largely a cluster phenomenon:  People who care, one way or another, get attracted to the noise, so the audience is self-screened to have strong opinions.

That said, I'm pretty interested in what a broader audience thinks:  Are there stories that should be off limits to RPGs?  If so, where is the line, generally, drawn?

Personally, I figure it's all fiction, so anything's fine.  If my buddy talks about his evil megalomaniac, and details the regime of selective infanticide that the madman uses to keep his workers in line, I say "Wow man, that's dark!" but it doesn't make me think my buddy is morally suspect.  Being able to imagine horrible acts doesn't mean that someone's inclined toward them.

But that's me.  I'm interested in how other people think on this subject.

There are ways of doing things.

Brutality exists in the real world, but players and GM's seeming to relish in it and choosing to describe really unpleasant examples of it are engaging in gratuitous behaviour. That i think is what sets of warning signs.

It's the mindset of someone who comes up with the act of fucking a decapitated head. And a game that seems little more than a set of mechanics for doing and enduring such things. Where's the depth in that?

Talking about horrible things is one matter, approving of them is quite another.

When it comes to horrible things in a game session I prefer to just note it's happening, and let the players react. Though I will note a scene in David Edding's King of the Murgos. In this scene the Grolim are about to sacrifice another victim to their dead god, Torak when Garion decides he's going to stop it. Belgarath prevents this, reminding him that the only way to really stop such sacrifices is by completing their mission, and that you can't complete your mission if you've been sacrificed for stopping a sacrifice.

You can't stop all the evil in the world. The best you can do is work to lessen the chance of such evils happening. Be aware that such things occur. Be alert for those in your neighborhood who might be capable of such. Get to know the people around you, for no one can hide their true colors for long. Abusers and predators and such as that avoid real contact for just that reason.

(BTW, I've had visitors to my blog from the US Department of Justice. I suspect certain parties from this and other forums have been tagged with, "nut job" and "unreliable".)

Getting back to the main point I can say only this; it bothers you have the courage to not participate. If it includes the potential to hurt somebody, have the courage to stop it.

Quote from: signoftheserpentThere are ways of doing things.

Brutality exists in the real world, but players and GM's seeming to relish in it and choosing to describe really unpleasant examples of it are engaging in gratuitous behaviour. That i think is what sets of warning signs.

It's the mindset of someone who comes up with the act of fucking a decapitated head. And a game that seems little more than a set of mechanics for doing and enduring such things. Where's the depth in that?

Bingo. My thoughts exactly. If the game that provoked this is in fact designed to explore moral issues, it's design to do so in the shallowest, most juvenile fashion I think I've seen yet.