I voted for the new option, just to piss walkerp off.  

I really don't see the point at all.  It's innately juvenile to concentrate so much on seeming grown up.  That's why BSG is such a hackneyed piece of trash TV.  

It's superfluous.  Unnecessary.  It speaks more to the self-esteem of the person intent on interjecting this kind of crap, than anything else.  

As was stated above, "Anyone mature enough to handle such subjects is mature enough not to want to."

QuoteIt speaks more to the self-esteem of the person intent on interjecting this kind of crap, than anything else.

Or sometimes you're just along for the ride, interested to find out what the story's going to do next. . .  Speaking about BSG here, which I enjoy without any feelings of increased self-esteem.

So does #5 mean it's ok to have corpse throat fucking, as long as it's done tastefully?  Cause that sure what it sounds like, I mean there is a choice up there to say some things cross the line, #2.  

So the AP about Poision'd, the problem was they didn't talk about that stuff in a way you liked, Pundit?  That seems a little creepy.


P.S. Yes, I'm a Forgey, I'm a story gamer, I'm the sock puppet of Christmas past.

Quote from: chucklesSo does #5 mean it's ok to have corpse throat fucking, as long as it's done tastefully?  Cause that sure what it sounds like, I mean there is a choice up there to say some things cross the line, #2.  

So the AP about Poision'd, the problem was they didn't talk about that stuff in a way you liked, Pundit?  That seems a little creepy.


P.S. Yes, I'm a Forgey, I'm a story gamer, I'm the sock puppet of Christmas past.

Yes, that's what it means. If you can describe and discuss fucking the throat of a corpse tastefully, then have at it.

Quote from: James McMurrayOr sometimes you're just along for the ride, interested to find out what the story's going to do next. . .  Speaking about BSG here, which I enjoy without any feelings of increased self-esteem.

Dude, you totally missed the point.  BSG is a perfect example of the same drive that leads people to make RPGs about pirate rape.

We're talking about a series that started in it's original form as childish space opera, so in the new one they overcompensate to ludicrous extremes.  

It's nothing but sad insecurity, not willing to accept and admit their tastes on their own merits, they have to force them into some mold of what's "grown-up" to like.  

In reality, there's nothing wrong with some good no-brainer space opera, hell, Star Wars built an empire on it, an empire that the original BSG was just trying to carve a piece of off for itself.  But by trying to make it something it's not, it comes across as forced and lame, just like the midichlorian shite in Episode 1.

Sorry, I didn't mean to push you anti-BSG button. I was just having fun. Please feel free to revile it in any way you see fit. I'll keep waiting for the next season to start. We'll both be happy.

It is OK to describe, in an RPG, anything that is acceptable within the context of the game to describe to the group you're playing with.

So to a group who are OK with it, playing a scene of child rape in Poison'd is perfectly fine.

Playing a scene in Capes where the aliens come out of nowhere to destroy the city without any graphic depictions whatsoever (to use an example which happened to a friend of mine) may not be, if the remainder of the group think that blows.

In James' words, "don't be a dick" applies in full force.

If the question is what is morally right? I'm not about to determine that for the rest of society or the gaming hobby, but in my own games I would personally find it morally acceptable to describe anything found in popular media or sitting on my own bookshelf. That includes things I can find in horror novels and mainstream films all the way to Black Metal albums. However, I tend to be exercise some amount of caution when bringing up contentious subjects because others in my group may be more sensitive than me to such subjects. For example, the father of a member of our group just passed away - it'll be a while until I bring up story lines that include family members dying with him present.

And as for my wife, she's way more risque than I am - yet the sweetest little sugar-coated angel you could find. She can't handle any fiction where children get hurt though, and everyone respects that, but pretty much anything can happen to adults without her blinking a pretty eyelash.

This ain't got nuthin' to do with the game, per se. A game may encourage a certain playstyle, and if it encourages themes that's not for your group, then your group shouldn't play it. Hell, I know plenty of folk in the morality squad that believe that "the kids shouldn't be sitting inside playing killing games" at all. This line of thinking is what caused the D&D Satanist scare.

Quote from: James McMurraySorry, I didn't mean to push you anti-BSG button. I was just having fun. Please feel free to revile it in any way you see fit. I'll keep waiting for the next season to start. We'll both be happy.

THis isn't about my taste for BSG, it's about it's validity as an analogy.  

Whether you like it or not, you'd be a damn fool to deny that making the old BSG "all grown up" was not part of the intent of the series direction and writing.

Quote from: lachekIn James' words, "don't be a dick" applies in full force.

I'm just parroting someone else, although I'm durned if I know who. Maybe my mom?

Quote from: J ArcaneWhether you like it or not, you'd be a damn fool to deny that making the old BSG "all grown up" was not part of the intent of the series direction and writing.

I don't deny it at all. Never did as far as I can tall. I don't think it's a particularly good analogy, mostly because BSG is good, and the stuff from the Poison'd AP report is rubbish. I'm sure it works better as an anology for you.

Quote from: walkerpYou've crossed a line and you know it.  Of the two ideologies that define this site, free speech and anti-Swinism, it is clear that the latter wins out in your mind when they conflict.

How, exactly, has Tony's free speech been repressed here?

Also: check the posts on the thread before the Pundit changed the poll. People were crying out for the "it's all in how you present it" option. I suspect if people were allowed to edit their own polls Tony would have added one if Pundit hadn't before long.

I voted using Pundit's amended answer, because it is the most apt.

I sometimes have dark things in my games. However, I first KNOW WHO MY AUDIENCE is, and set limits to what I run as GM by who they are, and what they seem comfortable with.

 I game off an on with an 11 year old nephew, and a 8 year old niece.

What is acceptable for them, is NOT the same as what's acceptable for adult players. By the same token--most games I run are suitable for them. A few exceptions occur now and then, but they are just that--exceptions.

I've run into conflict only once in recent memory with  single player in all my years of playing for something HE wasn't able to deal with. That, in this case, was claustrophobia. Nothing immoral, terribly dark, I just hit his very real fear, and it made the game not work for him. I had no way of knowing. So it is wise to discuss your actual fears/issues you may have with a GM first.

Allow me to register my objection to the poll-monkeying: it's a totally inappropriate thing to do, as much so as altering the content of a post. I'm happy for Tony that in this case it worked out for him, but I'd never want to see that happen to a post I made without my consent.

Also, I personally voted for option 5, but I share James' distaste for the added descriptor--I want to give data on what best reflects my opinion and feelings, without playing into someone's sick political game.

But still, #5 best reflects my feelings by a long shot.

How you discuss or depict actions in an RPG is important--and what's more, individual to the group. If something is beyond the comfort threshold of a participant, then it's simple courtesy to not cross that line. This isn't necessarily about the "morality" of thing depicted. . .one of my regular fellow-players is an extremely visual person: you describe it, she sees it. You mention it, she sees it. So things that are graphically unpleasant for her to contemplate are rough for her to hear about. This can be anything from graphic sex acts to my chest hair (Oh Lord, thank God *I* found a woman who likes hairy men!).

Still and all, we have a lot of sexual humor flying around the room most nights, though it's all OOC--just the friendly banter our group has developed over time. And yes, it does gross this one player out often, but even that is kind of a game--she has no hard feelings, and has begun to even make her own sick jokes back. And these are things we would never say in front of (for instance ) children, or folks we didn't know well enough to know if it's OK. All relative to the group.

Another example that springs to mind: My wife and I went over to Jake Richmond's house recently to play Shock with a mostly unfamiliar group of players. In the game, a fellow participant was describing an attempt by a sleazy character to victimize my wife's Protagonist. A lot of the pertinent details are specific to the Sci-Fi setting we created, but the basics are: he was attempting to molest and emotionally dominate a drugged and disoriented woman. And Jake stepped in with: "whoa, back up, is everyone OK with this?" and asking my wife specifically if she was OK with having this kind of scene with her character. She assured Jake and her antagonist, David, that she was fine with the scene, (hadn't even considered that it might not be) and off we went. But Jake was right to ask a player he's never gamed with before if she was comfortable with that level of character vulnerability. All relative to the group.

And 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. In one sense this strikes me as odd: there's something sqickish or morally questionable when a regular player describes an act, but not when the Gamemaster does? In Shock, for example, play is GMless: the player to your left provides opposition for your Protagonist. Thus David was perfomring a role that is typically a GM function. But is an act less objectionable or uncomfortable when only one participant describes them? If there's really something "wrong" about describing certain things in the roleplaying context, how can we vet the GM's depictions of them?

Note that I'm not talking about level of detail or "on-screen" vs. "off-screen." That's separate, and can be handled in any way that the participants agree to whether it be PC or NPC. I'm more interested in why the GM gets a "special pass" (or special burden) to depict horrible acts in a game.

Peace,
-Joel

QuoteI'm more interested in why the GM gets a "special pass" (or special burden) to depict horrible acts in a game.

What an incredibly loaded way of putting it.  Wow.  Could you've possibly come up with a more inflammatory way of stating that?  I can't think of one.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhat an incredibly loaded way of putting it.  Wow.  Could you've possibly come up with a more inflammatory way of stating that?  I can't think of one.

What?  What now?  How could that have been possibly any less inflammatory?  You're like a friggin' pinball machine, dinging and popping off wherever the silver ball goes.

I haven't voted for the new option, because its suggestive.

Such a thing ALWAYS depends on the players.

I once had a player in a convention-game, who would have said about this "Roleplaying kissing a female NPC portrayed by a male GM is WAY past the limit" and he has every right to say so in my book. If he feels uncomfortable about it, don't force him to do it.

There are some (myself included) who consider the "Book of Erotic Fantasy" a distasteful pile of shit. Yet that doesn't make me going around and claiming Wizards is in any way "morally inferior" because they published it.

Maybe the real problem in the RPGnet thread is the amount of back-patting going on, like "Well done, you really have broached a mature subject, everyone should play like you do. Have a cookie.", to the point where anyone who even remotely says "Errrrm...I don't think I would be comfortable playing that" is treated like an outcast.

This doesn't make the AP questionable though, only the way it is discussed at RPGnet.