Quote from: lachekWhile we're on the subject of movies: The Passion of the Christ wouldn't be welcome at my table - I just wouldn't be comfortable with it. The brutality overwhelms the message, for me.

Excellent example of a creative work where the fetisization of suffering, and fixation on the grotesque renders the end product trivial and crude. Yes, after the 12th or so movie we get it Mel - suffering makes you ecstatic.

Quote from: jeff37923OK, would you mind ammending that to the Slate article so that those who have no clue who Ken Hite is get clued in and don't think that gamers are all fucked up people based on what he said?

Feel free to do it yourself, but I am not in the business of trying to convince people that I or my gamer friends are "normal".  Moreover, if someone can't recognize the sarcasm in his statement, then it's not worth it trying to explain it to them.  "Oh well, he's a student of the literature of elder tentacle gods whose very existence can drive one insane, he says a lot of wacky stuff like that."  That's not really going to help your cause.

Quote from: lachekI'm not going to call for a film burning because it doesn't work for me.

I don't recall anyone in either of the threads here (this one or the original here at TheRPGSite) calling for the burning of the book, did they?

I know further amending of the poll wouldn't help much of anything ... but I wonder how things would have worked out if, in addition to the "It matters HOW you do it" option, there were also an option for "It matters WHY you do it."

The division between things it's okay for a player to do and things it's okay for a GM to do highlights (for me) some interesting viewpoints on what impacts the morality of story-telling.  In short, it seems that there's a big difference for some folks between:

• Telling a story of appalling evil in order to, for instance, give other people a chance to stand against that evil
• Telling a story of appalling evil in order to revel in that evil.

It's always a hard thing to judge the same action differently, depending upon the motives of the actor (which you can never be 100% sure of) but it's a reasonable position ... just a challenging one to put into practice.

And, like I said, I wonder how widely that position is held.  Not enough to actually make another survey though.

I've experienced some pretty nasty shit at certain points in my life. If it's taught me anything, it's that gaming is not a cathartic experience. It doesn't offer anything real or valid in terms of understanding beyond the vaguest sense of sympathy. There's just no fucking comparison.

As such, I'd rather keep the kind of graphically horrific things that we're all aware are out there at arms length. I game for fun.

Quote from: CalithenaSo if you answer anything but the first option, you are saying no human beings for any reason in any social circumstances anywhere ever in human history no matter what their individual psychology or personal needs should ever allow themselves even with consenting adults with similar needs to address any of that stuff in an RPG, even if doing so would improve their lives and make them happier people.

I'd pick the last option (with allowances for Pundit's tacked-on example as being just an example that might or might not apply depending on the circumstances, which seems to be the main point of the option).

So, maybe I've been hoodwinked but I don't agree with what you say I'm saying.

I do judge people based on their tastes and behaviors, at least the ones they choose to expose--I mean judge them in terms of whether I want to associate with them, and how intimately. As I wrote upthread, even the choice to expose certain things is a factor, beyond the things-in-themselves. Conceivably this can lead to what could be considered a kind of compulsion: if I don't want to deal with certain people, my expression of distaste might persuade others to exclude those people too, which could lead to ostracism. That's fine with me: I believe in privacy and free speech, I don't believe in shielding people from the social consequences of their moral or aesthetic choices except in very specific ways. (E.g., discrimination with respect to religion or sexual orientation when it comes to political or workplace rights.)

^
Well said.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI do judge people based on their tastes and behaviors, at least the ones they choose to expose--I mean judge them in terms of whether I want to associate with them, and how intimately. As I wrote upthread, even the choice to expose certain things is a factor, beyond the things-in-themselves. Conceivably this can lead to what could be considered a kind of compulsion: if I don't want to deal with certain people, my expression of distaste might persuade others to exclude those people too, which could lead to ostracism. That's fine with me: I believe in privacy and free speech, I don't believe in shielding people from the social consequences of their moral or aesthetic choices except in very specific ways. (E.g., discrimination with respect to religion or sexual orientation when it comes to political or workplace rights.)

Very well put.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't recall anyone in either of the threads here (this one or the original here at TheRPGSite) calling for the burning of the book, did they?

Not me, that's for sure. I might want to burn the players of those sessions, but as I usually GM wanting to set fire to and cause suffering to players for their stupidity is normal for me.

Quote from: TonyLBn short, it seems that there's a big difference for some folks between:

    * Telling a story of appalling evil in order to, for instance, give other people a chance to stand against that evil
    * Telling a story of appalling evil in order to revel in that evil.

It's always a hard thing to judge the same action differently,

That is indeed the difference, and no it's not hard to tell the difference. Just listen to the players describe the events of the game. If the player says, "this bastard NPC did X, and we stood against him!" or "my character did X, it seemed right but I don't really want to play my character any more, and if I do I'll have them try to redeem themselves," then contrast that with a player saying, "my character did X, woo that's so cool and badarsed."

Players are usually pretty clear about the sort of game experience they've had, if you'll just listen to them describe it. And let's face it, gamers are never reluctant to tell you about their game experiences

And of course I agree with Elliot Wilen, too, in that judge people in terms of whether I want to hang out with them. I don't think we should go around to Vincent Baker's house and make fun of his dog or anything like that, but there's no way in hell I'd game with him, nor would I recommend anyone else to game with him. Normally as a GameCircle.org guy I'll always try to match people with game groups which fit their style, whether that's my style or not doesn't matter, I want to help them hook up with people who match their style so they can have fun. But if your style is "sick fuck", then you can fuck off and find a group by yourself, I won't help you.

Quote from: walkerpFeel free to do it yourself, but I am not in the business of trying to convince people that I or my gamer friends are "normal".  Moreover, if someone can't recognize the sarcasm in his statement, then it's not worth it trying to explain it to them.  

I'm going to pick on walkerp here for moment on this, because I've seen this sentiment expressed all too often amoung gamers and feel the need to address it.

Role-playing games do not exist in a social vacuum.

Thus, if we wish to not be forced into the derogatory gamer sterotype through lack-of-knowledge, then it would behoove us as a whole to not act like idiots when the media decides to focus on us. Slate is a mid-range media outlet with a lot of readers, our best face should have been put on for them because people who might be interested in trying out our hobby are going to make their decision based upon what they read.

So when under public scrutiny, try to behave and express yourself in a civil manner - if not for yourself, then for your fellow gamers because it does effect all of us eventually when the article sees print or is shown on TV. No, I don't think we can have total control over how the media sees us or portrays us. However, that doesn't mean that we should add to the negative image.

Elliot Wilen speaks Truth.

I'll point out the obvious and say that laying down prescriptive universal rules in these kinds of things is always troublesome. It's entirely dependent on the personalities of the group members, the game, and the style of game everyone enjoys. I'd murder, rape, pillage and loot with my current group, but I wouldn't bust that stuff out in a PbP with semi-strangers unless they'd agreed it was OK beforehand.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'll point out the obvious and say that laying down prescriptive universal rules in these kinds of things is always troublesome. It's entirely dependent on the personalities of the group members, the game, and the style of game everyone enjoys. I'd murder, rape, pillage and loot with my current group, but I wouldn't bust that stuff out in a PbP with semi-strangers unless they'd agreed it was OK beforehand.

To quote FIGHT CLUB : "I am Jack's total lack of surprise"

Quote from: KoltarTo quote FIGHT CLUB : "I am Jack's total lack of surprise"

As you follow Pseudo, so do I follow you.

::Ominous music::

Quote from: jeff37923Thus, if we wish to not be forced into the derogatory gamer sterotype through lack-of-knowledge, then it would behoove us as a whole to not act like idiots when the media decides to focus on us. Slate is a mid-range media outlet with a lot of readers, our best face should have been put on for them because people who might be interested in trying out our hobby are going to make their decision based upon what they read.

So when under public scrutiny, try to behave and express yourself in a civil manner - if not for yourself, then for your fellow gamers because it does effect all of us eventually when the article sees print or is shown on TV. No, I don't think we can have total control over how the media sees us or portrays us. However, that doesn't mean that we should add to the negative image.

As a representative of a local con and having dealt with the media a few times in that capacity, I generally agree with your overall sentiment.  Where we may differ is in what we consider civil and positive.  Ken Hite's words were fairly appropriate representation of who we are.  Furthermore, many of us are geeks and were ostracized in high school, which is exactly what he is referring to.  Being geeks is, to some degree, who we are.  The computer industry is able to run with that.  Why can't we?

And while I think a positive, civil face is important, I don't think we should water down the nature of our hobby to such a degree that it will appeal to everybody.  It is a creative, imaginative pasttime that has a lot of weird, supernatural and violent content.  I don't want to try to attract anyone to whom that sort of stuff doesn't appeal to.  It's not our market.