My personal line is quite simple:

If I get the suspicion that you're describing what you're describing in order to arouse and titillate yourself (or others), and what you're describing isn't harmless fun between consenting adults, you've gone too far.

I don't play RPGs to facilitate other people's boners.

Quote from: jrientsTony, I normally assume everyone on the board acts in good faith, but between that referee'd thread in off-topic and this one I feel like you're maneuvering for advantage rather than engaging in open discourse.

Uh ... okay.  I'm not, but ... hrm.

I don't really know how to respond to this.  Was this question not an okay one to ask?  Is there anything I can do to set your mind at ease?

Quote from: WarthurMy personal line is quite simple:

If I get the suspicion that you're describing what you're describing in order to arouse and titillate yourself (or others), and what you're describing isn't harmless fun between consenting adults, you've gone too far.

I don't play RPGs to facilitate other people's boners.

Heh, my response to the question was basically "whatever works for your group", but this works too. :cool:

I've played in games that have dealt with very unpleasant situations - including sexual abuse at a wizards' chantry in Warhammer, production of kiddie pr0n in In Nomine, curses resulting from a rape in Call of Cthulhu - though they've always been the doings of NPCs, and the PCs were the ones tasked with sorting things out.  And I'm okay with that - in games like that, actually, the "squick" factor is part of the appeal; I'm able to confront these things and, heck, solve them in-game, whereas IRL all sorts of unpleasantness goes on and there's bugger-all I can do about it.

Now, if the PCs are doing this kind of stuff, I'd likely not be comfortable in the group.  But your fun is not my fun, &c., &c.  If this stuff is being played for titillation value, then, yeah, I think there are bigger problems.

If it's poorly handled I don't want to be around extreme acts of saidsm or sexual predation, but I'm not about to try to lay out some sort of universal rule about what people should or shouldn't have in their games.

What I personally like to play and what I think is acceptable are two different things.  There is a certain level of intimacy beyond which I'm just not personally comfortable when I'm gaming. This varies depending on if it's old friends or a con game, but it's there.  With my close friends, it can get pretty sick (though nothing like that Poison'd session) but that's rare. Usually it's r-rated action movie stuff (but a good action movie, man!).

As far as what others do, I feel there is no limit.  If everyone in the group is into it, then I say let them have their fun.  Freedom of speech and thought are important values to me.

Quote from: jrientsTony, I normally assume everyone on the board acts in good faith, but between that referee'd thread in off-topic and this one I feel like you're maneuvering for advantage rather than engaging in open discourse.

That's exactly what he's doing.

But he did answer one core question- did he approve of the AP examples. He said yes, they are fine.

The second core question- Does he feel that the game design helped bring these examples into being?

Let's see if he answers that.

Quote from: gleichmanThe second core question- Does he feel that the game design helped bring these examples into being?

I expect so.  I haven't gotten more than a cursory glance over the rules, but it looks like the system draws attention both to the way brutality impacts the aggressor and the way it impacts the victim.  Combine that with a fairly insular environment (in this case, a cursed pirate ship), so that every aggressor has likely been a victim before, and every new victim can become an aggressor later, and you've set the stage nicely for the story to spiral into ever-increasing acts of misguided vengeance and abuse.

The paranoia level here is awesome!  Everything is called into question.  Every path is potentially trapped with rhetorical danger.  It's like working in the politburo in a future where Russia won the cold war.  Very cool.

Quote from: walkerpThe paranoia level here is awesome!  Everything is called into question.  Every path is potentially trapped with rhetorical danger.  It's like working in the politburo in a future where Russia won the cold war.  Very cool.

Or maybe people are annoyed with the "Dance for me, monkeys!" routine.

What's not okay?

Turning RPGs into machines for the production of "quandaries" that are "interesting" and "meaningful" only if you fit some or all of the following: a) kitchen psychology-level amateur self-therapist, b) lapsed Christian sectarian who in life and games keeps returning to the whole redemption/damnation thing like a tongue to a loose tooth; c) guy with violence issues better resolved with professional help.

So, I object to "extreme" stuff in RPGs not on grounds of morality but on grounds of taste and relevance. I'm not offended by edginess. I'm embarrassed by triteness. The triteness of "choices", selected by a mindset that's a wacky mix of a) to c), through which that extreme content is filtered in a certain recent RPG.

I wouldn't want to talk to a) through c) in real life. I'm not going to let them define for me what my fictive persona can do in an RPG, and what the range of meanings available for that persona's actions is.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, I object to "extreme" stuff in RPGs not on grounds of morality but on grounds of taste and relevance. I'm not offended by edginess. I'm embarrassed by triteness.

[Clip]

I'm not going to let them define for me what my fictive persona can do in an RPG, and what the range of meanings available for that persona's actions is.

Wonderfully well said, sir!

-clash

If I cannot recount the play session to my wife without being embarrassed or ashamed of the content, something is wrong.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's not okay?

Turning RPGs into machines for the production of "quandaries" that are "interesting" and "meaningful" only if you fit some or all of the following: a) kitchen psychology-level amateur self-therapist, b) lapsed Christian sectarian who in life and games keeps returning to the whole redemption/damnation thing like a tongue to a loose tooth; c) guy with violence issues better resolved with professional help.

So, I object to "extreme" stuff in RPGs not on grounds of morality but on grounds of taste and relevance. I'm not offended by edginess. I'm embarrassed by triteness. The triteness of "choices", selected by a mindset that's a wacky mix of a) to c), through which that extreme content is filtered in a certain recent RPG.

I wouldn't want to talk to a) through c) in real life. I'm not going to let them define for me what my fictive persona can do in an RPG, and what the range of meanings available for that persona's actions is.

QFT.

I second clash's well done, sir.

Like others have said, it seems, I don't mind anything that fits what's going on in my game. If it moves the game along, sets the desired tone, fits the genre, it's all good.

As for the Poison'd BS, I don't see why anyone with a mature and emotionally healthy nature would desire to play either a character who would revel in such graphic and detailed shit, or a game that would encourage the same. It's gratuitous and pathetic if you ask me. It's an infantile attempt at some kind of sophisticated moral "shock and awe" that ends up being just pitiful instead. At least, that's how it came across to me.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's not okay?

Turning RPGs into machines for the production of "quandaries" that are "interesting" and "meaningful" only if you fit some or all of the following: a) kitchen psychology-level amateur self-therapist, b) lapsed Christian sectarian who in life and games keeps returning to the whole redemption/damnation thing like a tongue to a loose tooth; c) guy with violence issues better resolved with professional help.

So, I object to "extreme" stuff in RPGs not on grounds of morality but on grounds of taste and relevance. I'm not offended by edginess. I'm embarrassed by triteness. The triteness of "choices", selected by a mindset that's a wacky mix of a) to c), through which that extreme content is filtered in a certain recent RPG.

I wouldn't want to talk to a) through c) in real life. I'm not going to let them define for me what my fictive persona can do in an RPG, and what the range of meanings available for that persona's actions is.

Third vote for "Well said".

:ditto:

:respect: