Quote from: HaffrungMy sense is the people who play the sorts of games described in the Poison'd APs have great difficulty finding other locals who share their appetites. So they only get to indulge them when the few other likeminded individuals are gathered together at cons and such.

Which is why I was so stunned, after this issue erupted, to see Ken Hite (at least that's who everyone believes it to be) say the following in the Slate clip on GenCon:

QuoteNo matter what kind of left handed libertarian necrophile you are, there's a lot of others like you. I mean, we were...we felt marginalized. It was just, you know, standard victim thinking. But when you see there's a whole raft of us, it's a powerful psychological emotion.

Maybe I won't go to GenCon next year after all...

Quote from: James J SkachHey! Look! I can throw rocks at the car cause the other kids are doing it! But Mom!  Vincent's doing it, and he's cool. His mom lets him do everything. He got to stay up to see the midnight movie and saw Night of the Living Dead!

James, translated from Vitriol into English, do you mean "Just because others in society do (these bad things) doesn't mean you have to"?

If so, I get the impression that Your Perfect World would be a rather dull one, devoid of both Cartman and Hannibal Lecter.

Quote from: lachekJames, translated from Vitriol into English, do you mean "Just because others in society do (these bad things) doesn't mean you have to"?

If so, I get the impression that Your Perfect World would be a rather dull one, devoid of both Cartman and Hannibal Lecter.

Hey Look! I'm edgy! You're Boring!

Quote from: KenHRI'd question why you'd feel the need to explore such a theme in public at a con rather than at your home.

I think you're right! I haven't done my research on the AP fully enough to have a strong opinion, but it may very well have been the wrong venue for it. Further, by the sounds of it, the AP seemed to have been written in a way that made it sound like the participants reveled in the icky factor. Bad presentation all around.

S'got nuthin' to do with the game itself, its author, the Forge, GNS/System Matters, whatevah. It just sounds like the people involved didn't realize many others would take offense to its public presentation - something many gamers seem to have a problem with (you know, the old "let me tell you 'bout my cool character" joke).

Quote from: lachekI think you're right! I haven't done my research on the AP fully enough to have a strong opinion, but it may very well have been the wrong venue for it. Further, by the sounds of it, the AP seemed to have been written in a way that made it sound like the participants reveled in the icky factor. Bad presentation all around.

S'got nuthin' to do with the game itself, its author, the Forge, GNS/System Matters, whatevah. It just sounds like the people involved didn't realize many others would take offense to its public presentation - something many gamers seem to have a problem with (you know, the old "let me tell you 'bout my cool character" joke).

And I agree with most of the first sentence of your second paragraph.  I'm not a "war" person; I just question the pretensions of the people who are defending that mode of play as some sort of examination of issues, as art, or as some sort of realistic depiction of the game's subject.  The fact that the game's designer seems to agree with the players bothers me, as well.  I do think everyone involved knew very well what they were doing and what kind of response it would provoke, however.

Quote from: HaffrungActually, my understanding is that some of the most extreme stuff didn't make it into the AP. Baker says we don't get to read about all the 'good stuff'. Given the content of the stuff he did print, I seriously doubt the good stuff is anything more than particularly vile incidents that even Baker was too wise to post on the net. So I don't see any likelihood that anything at all meaningful or sophisticated happened in that game.

What I'm trying to say is, in the privacy of the game as played, the interactions of the individuals, their mental perceptions of what they were doing, it may have had value. It may have made them happy, helped them become better people, better friends, enriched their lives.

But (a) none of this is conveyed convincingly by the APs--neither that the game was "deep and meaningful" to the participants, nor the "deep meaning" itself. (b) The overall tradition of Forgist thought, such as insisting that "fun is portable" and produceable "out of the box" via carefully crafted mechanics, leads to the conclusion that certain games aren't just platforms for the players to produce their own experiences, but devices for transmitting more-or-less canned experiences, which takes them into the realm of emo-exhibitionism and emo-tourism by encouraging the players to take part in the game designer's moral fantasy.

What's ironic and telling is that the World of Darkness has been criticized in Forgist circles with a quote from Vincent himself: "A monster I am lest a monster I wankety wank wank." The criticism isn't that the WoD games are angsty emo-tourism; on the contrary, it's that the games aren't mechanically effective at what they promise. Presumably the goal isn't just to take you to the airport in the foreign land, but to give you a guided tour.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why I was so stunned, after this issue erupted, to see Ken Hite (at least that's who everyone believes it to be) say the following in the Slate clip on GenCon:

Maybe I won't go to GenCon next year after all...

 James,
 It was ONE moderately well-known author Guy at a convention saying something he thought was fliippant or wittty.

 Who knows?
Maybe his morning coffee didn't kick in the right way.

There are tens of thousands of people there doing something thats either gaming or gaming-related.
 You might have fun.


- Ed C.

I haven't voted. I seldom do in polls like this.

But it appears that 1 person here voted as I would, just goes to show that even the most unlikely things happen once in a while...

Quote from: lachekS'got nuthin' to do with the game itself, its author, the Forge, GNS/System Matters, whatevah. It just sounds like the people involved didn't realize many others would take offense to its public presentation - something many gamers seem to have a problem with (you know, the old "let me tell you 'bout my cool character" joke).

Uh, have you read the AP that Vince Baker himself wrote about his Poison'd experience? It's in some ways more vile and creepy than the GenCon one posted on RPGnet. And I'd say it speaks very much to author, the game (this was the kind of story he hoped it would generate), the Forge (where he is a prominent designer and where nobody has expressed any criticism of this shit), and system matters (again, this is the kind of story the designer hoped to generate with his system).

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why I was so stunned, after this issue erupted, to see Ken Hite (at least that's who everyone believes it to be) say the following in the Slate clip on GenCon:


Maybe I won't go to GenCon next year after all...

I don't know if you are familiar with Ken Hite's work and style, but at least on podcasts he has a very dry, wry, lightly sarcastic delivery with a tendency to use rich language.  You know he's a huge Cthulu expert.  So I suspect his use of that phrase was purposefully excessive and meant to imply "not normal people".

Quote from: walkerpI don't know if you are familiar with Ken Hite's work and style, but at least on podcasts he has a very dry, wry, lightly sarcastic delivery with a tendency to use rich language.  You know he's a huge Cthulu expert.  So I suspect his use of that phrase was purposefully excessive and meant to imply "not normal people".

Yeah, he probably didn't know there really were people at GenCon engaged in extreme sado-masochistic roleplaying involving rape and necrophelia. I wonder if the organizers knew. Hey, wouldn't it be hilarious if the journalist had found out about it?

Quote from: lachekWell, shit happens, you know? One member in our gaming group is deathly afraid of spiders - I mean, jumping-out-of-a-moving-vehicle-on-the-highway scared - does that mean that the D&D game about Lolth the Demon Queen of Spiders has to be cancelled because she's gaming on the next table over?

I think you need to look at this in the context of social norms.  Walking around a convention, or through my home town, I can reasonably predict what I will encounter and the behaviour of others I will see based on the norms of the society we live in.  We have extensive sets of customs and laws that help enforce these standardized behaviors.

It's acceptable in our society to talk about spiders, even in public.  It is generally not acceptable to talk about excessive sex and violence, except in very specific settings.

In your example above -- Let's say you were unaware one of your players had a problem with spiders.  You wouldn't be doing anything wrong by talking about spiders in your game.  However, I think you would be wrong to bring your pet Tarantula with you as a visual aid.  That's something outside of the regular social behaviour, and thus you should avoid doing it.  Similarly you should avoid talking about excessive sex and violence, unless you are in a non-public space.

Quote from: lachekFor the rest of your post, let's just say that I agree with you wholeheartedly. Experts collaborating to create stories that deal with issues is a superior model for presenting well thought out narratives about issues. No arguments.

That doesn't mean my gaming group is doing something wrong in creating an inferior piece of art (bleagh - I don't mean "artsy" art, that's not why I game) that has a stronger emotional attachment to us than, say, reading a book - because we made it and it's the distillation of our thoughts on the subjects. It just means it's not as objectively valuable to humanity as something created by experts.

Don't miss the point I'm trying to make:  Non-experts alone or in collaboration writing a story is a superior model for creating well thought out narratives compared to improv. Improv, whether by experts or not, is not a good system for creating things that are well thought out.  *By definition*  It's not well thought out at all -- it's improvised.

Don't confuse your emotional attachment to something (hint: Immersion, you're soaking in it) with creating a story that is actually a sensitive and mature exploration of complex issues.

I think there's lots of potential for storygames - - but I think "Serious Issues" is not the way forward for them at all.  They're better suited to light, fun, silly, creative, gonzo, weird, goofy, funny, trivial, entertaining, relaxing, social stuff.

This probably goes back to the (wrong) idea that "Role" play is superior to "Roll" play, and somehow more mature.  Also the (wrong) idea that narratives about "Serious Issues" are superior to other genres like Comedy.  This leaves some people thinking that the most superior game would be all about "Role" playing "Serious Issues".

I think it's time to move past that narrow way of looking at things.

Quote from: HaffrungYeah, he probably didn't know there really were people at GenCon engaged in extreme sado-masochistic roleplaying involving rape and necrophelia. I wonder if the organizers knew. Hey, wouldn't it be hilarious if the journalist had found out about it?

And...Haffrung gets my point...

Interestingly (to me), Stuart, is that it was Forge theory speak that allowed me to look past the Role/Roll dichotomy and accept them both as equals. We play both at our table. Prior to Forge I was dead-set in "I'm a Serious Artiste; to me, the Grande Game is about Exploration of the Selfe" BS. Today, I argue no such thing - rather the opposite.

As for emotional attachment, it certainly can come from immersion - but many story games are distinctly non-immersive. (Personally, I like immersion a lot). More importantly, an improv'd narrative allows you to own the story. I did that. I put that there. This issue matters to me.

In the end, you have a product that - while in no way superior to expertly created content - can matter greatly to the participants involved. Much like that GURPS character you've played for nine years, because you were integral in its creation and you were there as it was shaped. The problem as I see it comes when explaining your (inferior) creation to others who do not share your attachment. At best, it will sound mediocre and you'll come off as a simpleton. At worst, it will sound repulsive and shallow and you'll come off as a necrophiliac-wannabe.

Y'Know, I think some people are missing the point of why and how someone might "explore issues" in a game. It's not "We roleplayed a rape, wee-oo, isn't rape wrong? Wow, we just explored how rape is wrong!"

Of course that's silly and juvenile, and trivializes a very real and painful thing. I'd imagine when most people do these "exploring" kinds of things (at least it's held true for me, though I'd never presume to project that onto anyone else), it's generally more of a "look at these circumstances and events that led to rape," and/or "look at these circumstances and events that were the result of rape." That still might not be everyone's cup of tea, for sure, but it's a far cry from "hur hur, rape."

In fact, I can think of one very popular, very mainstream movie that looks at how a character acts in the face of daily forced sodomy: The Shawshank Redemption. It's not that Andy Dupree gets raped that makes the movie powerful, its his acts of endurance and finally defiance. It's how the experience changes him, and how it could have changed him but didn't.

The RPGnet AP doesn't have any real cues that any of this was going on. For all anyone can tell, it was just a game of "Gross Out." But having now read Vincent's AP, including all the other players' contributions, it looks like there was a lot more going on in there. A savage, brutal story, sure. But one with some pretty powerful themes. Vincent said they were telling the story of an abusive family. I've seen that remark generate a lot of ridicule around here (though if I recall he said it was someone on the RPGsite who gave him the insight), but if people want to know if there was a point besides rape porn to this exercise, there you go. A lot of folks might not think that's very sophisticated or mature (I've long since lost track of what people's standards are for that around here). But like someone said upthread, the game doesn't have to be great art to be satisfying to the participants. If the players are all amateur storytellers, then they'll probably produce an amateur product. That's fine. It can still hold some real meaning for the participants, and produce a real, personal bond between them. I think that's pretty cool.

Peace,
-Joel