TheRPGSite

So 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.

I don't like stories in RPGs at all, so I didn't answer your poll, Tony. I put them in mine - I hire folks to write them - because it's demanded, but fiction belongs in novels or books, not in games IMO.

-clash

I don't know where the specific line is, but I have a suspicion it has more to do with how lovingly and graphically detailed said descriptions are than what actually goes on.  There's a huge difference between subtle hints or off-screen items, such as possible rape or child molestation, and then there's bubbling happily about such events, cheerfully describing them, and laughing about "basking in the description or (in-game) pursuit of said events.

What would concern me more is someone reveling in said nastiness, considering it enjoyable or holding it up as something worthy of admiration.

Depends largely on how it's done. I don't mind the existence of gore, rape, drugs and such stuff, and also not their implementation in actual play, but I don't want to play it out at length and in detail.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstThere's a huge difference between subtle hints or off-screen items, such as possible rape or child molestation, and then there's bubbling happily about such events, cheerfully describing them, and laughing about "basking in the description or (in-game) pursuit of said events.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between the incidental mention of atrocities and making graphic depictions of atrocities the main content of the game session.

Tony - I don't like the way you phrased the choices. One of those is phrased as a double negative or at least in a misleading way . The poll is a good idea tho.

 Here's my simple answer :

1) Rape

2)extreme brutality

...and sometimes...

3)overly-explicit sex in a mixed gender group of gamers.

Now I have had rapes or near-rapes mentioned in games that I have run - but they were "offstage" or "offscreen".  In My BANESTORM game a barmaid was raped and molested by Megalos Knights before the player characters arrived on the scene. They already knew her from previously in the campaign - so it wasn't a nameless NPC to them...it was a person that they had interacted with 2 or 3 game sessions earlier.  They were in pursuit and possible revenge mode after that.

Extreme Brutality??

Not my players bag or their idea of a good time.  Thats the kind of stuff that the bad guys have done that they fight against or organize others aganst. Evil characters do extreme brutality, heroes don't...normally.


Overly-explicit sex?

Not talked about aloud amongst the group. In notecards passed between the players and me the GM - they have written some pretty graphic, explicit stuff that they do with NPCs that they are romantically involved with.  Again, tho thats not "on-screen" for the whole group to see. (Tho some players have guessed stuff about other characters' activities)
The most they ever say in group mode is "My character is looking for single men at the starport Bar, Anat is feeling frisky. " or is she says that in first person mode "Can I buy you a drink? " - said to an NPC she has already figured out is single and close to her character's age. All "sex scenes" with that character are handled "ST: TNG","Deep Space Nine", or BABYLON 5-style - we fade to black or the equivalent of a commercial...and when we resome its the next morning.


 As a reminder : my usual group of players is 3 women and 1 man. The youngest player is in her early 30s, the oldest is 60 something.


- Ed C.

I live in the real fucking world, I don't need or want any of that bullshit in a game.

I can't think of any boundary that our group hasn't crossed at times, usually while laughing themselves sick, yes we're bad people :deflated:


Vadrus

I can't imagine being offended or bothered by anything depicted just about anywhere. I enjoy short fiction in my gaming materials if it helps set the scene in some way.

Quote from: flyingmiceI don't like stories in RPGs at all, so I didn't answer your poll, Tony. I put them in mine - I hire folks to write them - because it's demanded, but fiction belongs in novels or books, not in games IMO.

But, like ... when you play a game, things happen in it, right?  What kind of things are okay to have happen?

Tony.
Don´t mess with us. What´s your stance on the recent revelations.
Is that okay for you, or not?

Simple question.

For me, it's never that an individual run game *or* a system has or can have such things as rape, brutally described murder, or other horrible actions take place, but rather a combination of things. What I end up asking is "why" and "how" did these things come to be in the game.

For example, nobody denies that someone can be raped in D&D. Or Mage (any iteration). Or GURPS, or whatever. It's possible, without a doubt. But to the best of my recollection, the actual systems don't give you bonus points for doing so.

In some cases there might be tangenital rewards for things like torture or extreme, graphic violence, but those are typically situational and either come with penalties (WoD) or no bonus at all. Again, typically, those situations are totally optional to the group (and really, are usually thought of as in awful taste).

But sometimes, not. In any case, you don't lose anything from the game by excluding these topics.

In some cases, you do 'lose' something from the game by choosing not to go that path. I'm not making a moral judgement, because even though that's not a place I want to go, it does depend on how the game treats it. But, for anyone who never wants to go there, and feels strongly about it, these games are going to seem like anathema, and for a pretty good reason. For me, they're far too limiting, and I probably wouldn't enjoy them because of the play they'd facilitate.

Quote from: TonyLBBut, like ... when you play a game, things happen in it, right?  What kind of things are okay to have happen?

I don't want to pick on you, but there are people that will have a concrete answer to this, and those that will have a nebulous one. The more nebulous answers won't fit on a quiz.

Quote from: SettembriniTony.
Don´t mess with us. What´s your stance on the recent revelations.
Is that okay for you, or not?

Simple question.

The whole rape/necrophilia thing that came out of Poison'd?  That's a fuckin' dark story.  But it's just a story.  I think it's fine to tell sick, dark, nasty stories.

Quote from: Thanatos02I don't want to pick on you, but there are people that will have a concrete answer to this, and those that will have a nebulous one. The more nebulous answers won't fit on a quiz.

Yeah, I get that.  I hope those people will use the discussion thread (as Koltar has!) to make themselves clear where the multiple-choice format doesn't work for them.

Yeah, Tony.  I'm with Sett.  This is where the stench of damage control comes flowing out.

WTF?

I don't think anyone here has said it's not OK for the background material, as you use ever so cleverly in your OP example, to be dark. Those other threads you so blithely reference were AP about in game events taken by the characters; not NPC's or setting or whatever.  This was a person saying "My character cuts off the head and performs sexual acts with the corpse of the boy."

You can't seriously be OK with that, can you?

So rephrase your question to more accurately depict the conversation if you want any kind of meaningful discussion.  Unless, of course, this was all just a way to divert attention. Have you read the game we're talking about?  Have you read the AP? As Sett asks, would you be OK with this kind of play?

For me, the boundaries of what is acceptable within any given group are something to be decided beforehand with the others. Within those limits, the PCs are absolutely free to do as the players wish; however, my descriptions will never go into explicit detail except under rare circumstances and by mutual consent, and there will always be consequences for every action.

Quote from: TonyLBThe whole rape/necrophilia thing that came out of Poison'd?  That's a fuckin' dark story.  But it's just a story.  I think it's fine to tell sick, dark, nasty stories.

Ahh...well then...we part ways...

EDIT: And Tony, please don't PM me.  We'll have any conversation about this or anything else in public. Thanks.

OK, Tony.

Farewell.
Please never speak to me again.

I didn't answer the poll because it depends on the context, who the protagonists (PCs) are, and how the game system rewards certain actions.

Schindler's List the RPG would be acceptable
Neo Nazi Concentration Camp Glorification Game, definitely not acceptable

Tying this back to the game that brought this up...
Dealing with the topic of Rape in an honest, sensitive, mature, grown-up way -- acceptable
Dealing with Rape in a smutty, brutal, enthusiastic, adolescent way -- not acceptable

Quote from: TonyLBYeah, I get that.  I hope those people will use the discussion thread (as Koltar has!) to make themselves clear where the multiple-choice format doesn't work for them.

 Tony,

 You might be an okay guy ....and a poll on this sort of thing might work, but your choices in this poll are just murky and ill-defined.

 Even the modern "Battlestar Galactica" has had some VERY dark things occur or referred to - but they don't show them graphically on screen.  It treads that delicate balance beam of implying and getting the idea across - without going too far , which is what I try to do in my RPG when I'm really on-my-gameas a GM.
The protagonists that we follow on BSG are appalled when bad/wrong/dark things happen.

The characters have conscience.

They don't revel in it.

- Ed C.

Tony, 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.

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.

Thanks for using much better terms than I could put words to.

I deal with as much as my players want to deal with in my games.
I usually try to gloss over graphic content, if I don't know the group well and am not sure if some players are offended by this and I *definitely* do nothing to encourage this kind of (in-game) behavior, but saying "No, you can't do that!" is something I generally avoid saying when I GM, if I don't have a  (in-game) justification ready.
Doing so would destroy any meaningful immersion.*
I do take, however, the liberty to have the game-world react in an appropriate way to the act in question, making sure it isn't seen as something "desirable" or "fun" to do and I talk to the player in question after the game.
I just don't switch into the "moralistic god-mode" for any reason.

*unless part of the immersive experience is the notion that certain things from our world just don't exist in the game world (i.e. in a 4-color superhero world it would be OK to establish, that rape and torture simply don't exist in this world, so characters couldn't attempt them, obviously).

Stuart said pretty much what I would have said.

I'm not a "Swine War" person, but it really does seem that this poll has been put up in bad faith.

This seems obvious.

In short- I think all subjects are ok for roleplay, but depending on how they are handled certain people look like fuckwads for doing so.

What was the paraphrase in the holocaust thread?

It was something like.. "Anyone mature enough to handle such subjects is mature enough not to want to."

Quote from: TonyLBBut, like ... when you play a game, things happen in it, right?  What kind of things are okay to have happen?

That is dictated by my players, not me, and I mean players as a group. If anyone feels uncomfortable about something we won't go there. By uncomfortable, I mean sickened, not squeamish. I personally see such things as the celebrated Poison'd AP as completely disgusting.

Generally speaking, graphic sex of any kind makes them uncomfortable. Depictions of ongoing extreme brutality makes them uncomfortable. Depictions of ongoing mutilation makes them uncomfortable.

Where do I as a GM draw the line?

Sex is not shown but implied. It can be happening in the same room -in fact it did last week - but it's left to the players' imaginations.

Extreme brutality is shown by its after-effects, not as it is happening. They might possibly - I doubt I would go so far, but if I did, this is how I would handle it - find the headless body of a boy whose esophagus has been sodomized, but they are not treated to the sight of it happening. They would hunt down the person who did it and kill him before he does it again. Note I treat rape of any kind as an act of brutality than as a sexual act.

Same with mutilation. It can be shown after the fact, not during.

Emphasis - I never imply any sort of moral relativism. Even if something is accepted by a society - such as the ancient Greek attitude toward pederasty, or 18th century American attitude toward slavery - I do not depict it as a good thing. My players certainly view such things as evil acts whether or not the society they are in does.

As a game designer, I wouldn't touch such things with a three meter pole. Thse things are best left to the group in question. However, just because a group is comfortable with something like this doesn't mean I am going to be entertained by it. Their right to swing their fist around ends at the point of my jaw.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhat was the paraphrase in the holocaust thread?

It was something like.. "Anyone mature enough to handle such subjects is mature enough not to want to."

Bingo. Thanks, AM! That expresses what I feel exactly

-clash

Quote from: KenHRStuart said pretty much what I would have said.

I'm not a "Swine War" person, but it really does seem that this poll has been put up in bad faith.

This and what Jeff Rients said. Emphasized.

-clash

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI don't know where the specific line is, but I have a suspicion it has more to do with how lovingly and graphically detailed said descriptions are than what actually goes on.  There's a huge difference between subtle hints or off-screen items, such as possible rape or child molestation, and then there's bubbling happily about such events, cheerfully describing them, and laughing about "basking in the description or (in-game) pursuit of said events.

What would concern me more is someone reveling in said nastiness, considering it enjoyable or holding it up as something worthy of admiration.

QFT

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:

I've never encountered anything in a 'game' that I couldn't handle...
Maybe 'cause I primarily game with friends, as opposed to random gamers.

I really won't tolerate people who want to go into detail about rape, murder, torture, etc. at or away from the gaming table.  For instance, I love Zombie movies, but don't revel in death. (they're actually more about life, but that's another discussion...)

Frankly, I'll be happy when this is all replaced with Internet Gaming Forum Thing-to-Talk-About #1137523.  (or are we up to #1137524?  I can't remember.)

A game should have rules for what's in it.

Any Akira game should have at least some stuff covering amphetamine use, vehicular homicide, etc.

Specific in-game rewards for doing nasty shit is superfluous, though. Violence is often the easiest answer, if only in the short term, and impulsiveness is its own reward for those that pick it up.

I think "The Hot Spot" (rape scene), "the Cube" (graphic violence), and "Spanking the Monkey" (taboo sex topics) are bad movies. You might argue that some of those (okay, one, if that) might challenge us and raise important issues. But I do not find viewing the things that these movies bring up are productive or entertaining mediums to vet the issues or gain insight into them. One might discover on first viewing that they are revulsed by such acts, but I am comfortable in that knowledge about such acts without viewing them.

Likewise, that's not why I game. I have debates about important issue. I don't want to see graphic human victimization and I certainly don't want to act it out. I derive no enjoyment from it. Indeed, such situations would make me distinctly uncomfortable. Like the above movies, I would class such games that dwell to much on such graphic portrayals as a bad game, as I would not enjoy them.

Congratulations, Tony. Your Poll questions are utterly biased in order for you to later be able to claim "see? Most roleplayers think its perfectly ok to explicitly detail their characters raping the throat of a decapitated boy!".

Pathetic.

RPGPundit

PS: and even then, the "who voted" list for the "dude its fiction" entry reads like a Who's Who of the Storygamer-swine crowd. Hilarious.

Exactly, Pundit. I couldn't possibly answer that poll in any way except to validate such a thing, therefore I chose to not answer it.

-clash

So, just in the interest of fairness, I've added a new option to the list.

RPGPundit

OK, now I can vote.

-clash

Me neither. I don't take Tony seriously.

EDIT: This is in response to #50 by clash.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think "The Hot Spot" (rape scene), "the Cube" (graphic violence), and "Spanking the Monkey" (taboo sex topics) are bad movies. You might argue that some of those (okay, one, if that) might challenge us and raise important issues. But I do not find viewing the things that these movies bring up are productive or entertaining mediums to vet the issues or gain insight into them. One might discover on first viewing that they are revulsed by such acts, but I am comfortable in that knowledge about such acts without viewing them.

Likewise, that's not why I game. I have debates about important issue. I don't want to see graphic human victimization and I certainly don't want to act it out. I derive no enjoyment from it. Indeed, such situations would make me distinctly uncomfortable. Like the above movies, I would class such games that dwell to much on such graphic portrayals as a bad game, as I would not enjoy them.

While we're talking about specific tastes, I see a difference between graphic violence and victimization. Fight scenes are a staple of lots and lots of stuff. Torture? Not so much.

So I'd be okay with graphic violence but not sadism and shit.
I'd also be cool with drug use in a game, but I'm a bit of a prude as to explicitly described sexual things. I might play in a game with a bit of it, but wouldn't be able to run one with a straight face.

Whoah, you just went in and added an option to an existing poll?  Can anybody do that?  If you wanted to create another poll, that would have been fine. But going in and changing the title and the poll of the OP seems to be playing awfully fast and loose with the mod rules.

Well now that it's, the poll, changed do we get to change our votes? Seems like this is a right big mess.

Quote from: ghost ratOr maybe people are annoyed with the "Dance for me, monkeys!" routine.

Indeed, there's this thing called context, where we look at a person's actions and writings and connect them to other actions and writings they have made, and use our little grey cells to draw connections and conclusions.  

So if someone's past actions center primarily around being a slimy PR worm, then it follows that more recent actions are more likely to be viewed in a similar light.

Quote from: walkerpWhoah, you just went in and added an option to an existing poll?  Can anybody do that?  If you wanted to create another poll, that would have been fine. But going in and changing the title and the poll of the OP seems to be playing awfully fast and loose with the mod rules.

Maybe so, though in fairness, I did not feel able to vote until the new option was added.

Quote from: walkerpWhoah, you just went in and added an option to an existing poll?  Can anybody do that?  If you wanted to create another poll, that would have been fine. But going in and changing the title and the poll of the OP seems to be playing awfully fast and loose with the mod rules.

Ah, but since he was nice enough not to make it some kind of secret and openly admitted the edits in thread and title we are free to cast our aspersions or agreements on this act as we see fit.

In short, I too now feel capable of voting.

I think it's a good option, and the fact that so many people want it helps to inform me on precisely the questions that I wanted to understand better.  So, cool!  Cooperation at its finest.

Quote from: RPGPunditPS: and even then, the "who voted" list for the "dude its fiction" entry reads like a Who's Who of the Storygamer-swine crowd. Hilarious.

Oops, I picked that one, but Tony's switched the terms around. I can hardly think of any content that's automatically wrong, depending on framing, audience, etc. But now he writes:

QuoteBut, like ... when you play a game, things happen in it, right? What kind of things are okay to have happen?

When I vote that "having X in a game isn't automatically off-limits", that doesn't mean that I think X is automatically okay. It's not how I judge things. All of the blood & gore in Pulp Fiction was in good taste, so was the gross-out stuff in The Naked Lunch; none of the violence in Very Bad Things was in good taste.

Also, you can add me to the list of people endorsing Pierce's piece above.

I'd change my vote to the last option if I could.

And also, how can we see who voted for what? I know I've been able to do this before, but was it here or somewhere else?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'd change my vote to the last option if I could.

And also, how can we see who voted for what? I know I've been able to do this before, but was it here or somewhere else?

Moderators can see the names regardless, otherwise, there's an option when you create the poll to display the names of those who voted publicly.

I still can't vote - because I think it's missing the option that mixes the last two...it's a combination of

• what you discuss.
• how you discuss it.
• group dynamics in relation to the above two.

And so there is no confusion: I still reserve the right to look at what you're doing and say "You are one sick fuck."  That in no way limits your ability to do the thing that made me think it. Judgment is not censorship.

He who controls the present controls the past.  He who controls the past controls the future.

-1984, George Orwell

(note: edited for attribution)

Thanks Pundit, now I can vote too.

Quote from: walkerpHe who controls the present controls the past.  He who controls the past controls the future.

And he who thinks he truly controls anything is deluded.

Wow, walker, that's profound.  Did you make that up?  You're so much smarter than the rest of us.

He changed a poll question on a small RPG site, noted it both in the thread and in the title of the thread. Get some perspective.

Pundit, can I fedex you a salve for your behind. It must be getting a bit chafed with all the kissing going on.  Scratch that, they probably have excellent native concoctions in Uruguay.  But jesus it's disturbing how you all line up to applaud a fundamental misuse of mod power. I wonder how you'll feel if it ever happens in a manner that doesn't line up with your ideologies (oh yeah, wait, that probably won't happen).

Quote from: walkerpa fundamental misuse of mod power

What other sites do you post on?  What do you think a mod is supposed to do, and do they do that on the other forums you frequent?

Quote from: StuartWhat other sites do you post on?  What do you think a mod is supposed to do, and do they do that on the other forums you frequent?

Not fuck with people's posts.  That's the main reason I came over here, because I heard that mod interference was minimal.  So far it has been, but this disturbs me.  He should have just made his own poll.

Quote from: walkerpPundit, can I fedex you a salve for your behind. It must be getting a bit chafed with all the kissing going on.  Scratch that, they probably have excellent native concoctions in Uruguay.  But jesus it's disturbing how you all line up to applaud a fundamental misuse of mod power. I wonder how you'll feel if it ever happens in a manner that doesn't line up with your ideologies (oh yeah, wait, that probably won't happen).

So I have to admit not being in tune with what is kosher with respect to mod behavior on internet forums. Was adding another option wrong? Because really, none of the original options were viable for me... and presumably 15 other people (at the time of this post). Seeing as how a) none of the original options were altered and so it seems to me that someone could still vote and b) the original poster of the poll seemed to sign off on the change, I don't see a problem.

What am I missing?

Look!  The tide has turned!  The Swine are retreating!  Pundit has once again saved the day with his bold move when things were looking their darkest.

Quote from: walkerpLook!  The tide has turned!  The Swine are retreating!  Pundit has once again saved the day with his bold move when things were looking their darkest.

I see.  That makes sense.  The "Swine" can only win if what everyone realyl wants to do (or say, or vote) isn't available. Not saying much for them, is it?

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, just in the interest of fairness, I've added a new option to the list.

Thanks, the new option fits exactly to my opinion.

QuoteWhat am I missing?

That walker is nothing more than a shit-stirring dickfuck who'll be crying back to RPGnet as soon as his ban is lifted.

Quote from: cmagounSo I have to admit not being in tune with what is kosher with respect to mod behavior on internet forums. Was adding another option wrong? Because really, none of the original options were viable for me... and presumably 15 other people (at the time of this post). Seeing as how a) none of the original options were altered and so it seems to me that someone could still vote and b) the original poster of the poll seemed to sign off on the change, I don't see a problem.

What am I missing?

These polls are obviously informal and unscientific, but they should at least be consistent from start to finish. So about 20 people had voted before the change who now can no longer vote.  It's all a big mess.  But what is the major problem for me is that he went in as a mod (something none of us can do) and changed the poll, without checking with the OP and he changed the title, with his name on it.  So the site then becomes more branded to him than itself.  If a mod went and changed my poll, I would flip my lid.  Now I know that is a possibility.

It's worse than having your threads moved, which is what they love to do over at rpg.net and the reason I don't post there anymore (also, it's really bland and dull).

Quote from: walkerpNot fuck with people's posts.  That's the main reason I came over here, because I heard that mod interference was minimal.  So far it has been, but this disturbs me.  He should have just made his own poll.

Well, I gotta agree with you there. Tony was asking a question of "How much X is OK", and the added option is "Well, it's not about how much X, it's about Y." What was added was basically "D. None of the above".

I figure if somebody thinks that Tony set up a false dichotomy, saying so in the thread and not voting at all makes sense. The other way to go is to mandate a "None of the above" in every poll, but again it seems like not voting is the way to go. You can see how many people voted -- if there's 5 votes and 25 people posting in the thread, nobody's going to argue the poll results are definitive!

I don't know the politics here, but I did look at enough old threads to get the impression that the forum owner doesn't like Tony. Whether or not a use of mod powers relates to that, or not, I can certainly understand why you would have that question. I can definately understand that even the impression that moderators use their mod-only powers to weigh in on a topic (rather than how it's discussed) would give a lot of people the heebee-jeebies.

Some of you may have voted otherwise if the poll had been reset, but I think that would be rewriting history, so I'd rather just keep the standing votes as they were, and have those who would have voted for the new option be free to say so. In any case, even without those "changed votes", its pretty clear now what the REAL majority opinion is here.

RPGPundit

walkerp, more people voted for the new option than any of the other options, and a fair number of people said they'd also have changed their vote to the new option as well.

If the point of the poll was to actually find out what people think, there you have it.  

If the point of the poll, as some have suggested, was more disingenuous then... too bad, I guess.  :shrug:

While I think TonyLB's poll was, frankly, bullshit, I also think Pundit's changing of the options was inappropriate.

"Well, now I can answer the poll." Man, who cares? If it's a dumb poll, don't respond. What, do you have some disease that compels you to answer every poll you see? Frankly I'd rather see a dumb poll with vague options, with full confidence that I can post my own equally dumbass poll and it will not be fucked with just because people don't like it, rather than see TonyLB's poll get the big latex-glove-up-the-ass just because it's TonyLB, regardless of how much I dislike his style.

Yeah, it ain't a democracy, I know. I'm just sayin'.

Quote from: walkerpLook!  The tide has turned!  The Swine are retreating!  Pundit has once again saved the day with his bold move when things were looking their darkest.

Ok, I get that... the holy "War" and all.

Look, I readily admit my bias. I am as "traditional" a gamer as you are going to find. I am not the least bit interested in story-games, GNS, The Forge, or DiTV. When I first signed on here, I sent Pundit a note of thanks for starting this site because frankly, I no longer felt at home reading or posting to other sites -- they had passed me by.

But really, aside from trying to drive home the point that this site is, in fact, hostile territory to the story-game set (which is undeniable), you must realize that the choices provided originally weren't comprehensive. I could not vote with the original four choices and neither could the majority of the site.

I think TonyLB will agree with that assessment and from his previous post, seemed to welcome the change.

Given that, I think the change made sense.

Quote from: StuartIf the point of the poll was to actually find out what people think, there you have it.

Which it was, so there you are.

Walker:  Seriously man, get a grip.  Pundit did me (and, I think, all of us) a favor here ... if I'd spent more time thinking up my poll questions, I probably would have included something (perhaps several varieties of something) very near what he added.

Not all moderation is oppressive moderation.

Quote from: walkerpThese polls are obviously informal and unscientific, but they should at least be consistent from start to finish.

Ok, I get that.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn any case, even without those "changed votes", its pretty clear now what the REAL majority opinion is here.

Pundit...it's a MEANINGLESS FUCKING INTERNET POLL. It doesn't mean anything. How did it possibly warrant use of the mighty mod power to fuck with it? You have a responsibility here, man.

Quote from: cmagounBut really, aside from trying to drive home the point that this site is, in fact, hostile territory to the story-game set (which is undeniable), you must realize that the choices provided originally weren't comprehensive. I could not vote with the original four choices and neither could the majority of the site.

Sure, then start a new poll.  Don't monkey with the original one.  It's just not good practice that Pundit feels comfortable just jumping into a thread and changing things at the beginning.  Yes, he announced it and made it very clear, but what if he one day decides to go in and start changing contents of posts?  He can do that as well.  It's a bad precedent.

Quote from: walkerpSure, then start a new poll.  Don't monkey with the original one.  It's just not good practice that Pundit feels comfortable just jumping into a thread and changing things at the beginning.  Yes, he announced it and made it very clear, but what if he one day decides to go in and start changing contents of posts?  He can do that as well.  It's a bad precedent.

If I'd wanted to do that, I'd have reset the poll altogether (or just closed the thread or whatever).

I didn't. So jump off your red herring, its swimming downstream to nowhere.

RPGPundit

Guys, I think we can agree that I'm as quick as anyone else to jump on Pundit's case for asshettery. If not quicker.

Yeah, he fucked up by editing someone else's post without their permission. It was an abuse of mod power. However, the OP says he's happy with the results, and has retroactively vetted the modding.

How about instead talking about the topic itself? I'll start:

I wouldn't change my vote away from the first option even though I do think that how you discuss things matters. I would have, but the example tagged onto the end stopped me. I personally will never detail necro-pedophilia, and will stick metaphorical fingers in my ears if it comes up in a game (and probably leave soon after if there wasn't a damn good reason for the scene). But just because it's past my limit doesn't mean it's past someone else's. I'm not entitled to make that call for them, and the last option forces me to.

Take the example off and I'm firmly in the camp of option 5.

Quote from: ghost ratWhile I think TonyLB's poll was, frankly, bullshit, I also think Pundit's changing of the options was inappropriate.

"Well, now I can answer the poll." Man, who cares? If it's a dumb poll, don't respond. What, do you have some disease that compels you to answer every poll you see? Frankly I'd rather see a dumb poll with vague options, with full confidence that I can post my own equally dumbass poll and it will not be fucked with just because people don't like it, rather than see TonyLB's poll get the big latex-glove-up-the-ass just because it's TonyLB, regardless of how much I dislike his style.

Yeah, it ain't a democracy, I know. I'm just sayin'.

I care. I wanna answer the dumb poll. I wanna post about it afterwards. Just like you wanna whine and rant about all of us not liking the poll and Pundit's changing it.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I'd wanted to do that, I'd have reset the poll altogether (or just closed the thread or whatever).

I didn't. So jump off your red herring, its swimming downstream to nowhere.

You'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.  

Not only that, the poll option you added actually contained specific content from the pirate thread, thus rendering any data on moral limits in games more moot than it already was with the original poll.  You might as well have just asked "who thinks Poison'd is sick?"

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

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.

Quote from: alexandroThere 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.

Off topic, but how come I see a copy of the BoEF in every freaking big-box chain bookstore I go into?  It's always the latest from wizards, a few white wolf books, maybe a copy of BESM3, LoTR3 or Serenity (of all things) and a copy of the BoEF.  It's mind boggling that that's pretty much the only 3rd-party d20 supplement I see outside of specialty shops now.  Anyone else notice this, or is it just my area?

Melinglor, my reason for objecting to the idea of PCs rather than NPCs performing acts of a morally transgressive / "sick" nature is based on why I'm playing the game.

If I'm playing a game to portray people who overcome obstacles, the idea of the character overcoming obstacles while - or even, in the case of Poison'd, assisted by - doing vile, nasty things, I might well be repulsed. I don't want to watch Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and have Indy go around brutalizing people - it makes it very hard for me to experience sympathy with the protagonist. If the underlying message is that this is supposed to be a cool, heroic type of guy, I'd even be offended on a personal level. Since this is the mode of gaming the majority of people play and are familiar with, I can see why it would sound distasteful.

If I'm playing a game to portray real people with real faults, where the story isn't necessarily about how they overcome those faults but the repercussions of the faults, and there may not even be a "happy ending", I'm far more forgiving. I might even go so far as to portray a rapist, though the idea certainly doesn't have any inherent appeal to me. I might be playing the game to see how my character's actions affect others, or how it affects myself, or how it affects the world.

Whereas fucked-up-beyond-belief evil NPCs are awesome antagonists in both types of game.

The first mode is an action-adventure film or maybe a comedy. The second mode is a twisted thriller, a dark drama or a tragedy. They're two different types of movies, one no "better" than the other. A single person can enjoy both in two different contexts, but when you start mixing up the premises people often get confused and sometimes angry. I know I do.

Quote from: BrantaiOff topic, but how come I see a copy of the BoEF in every freaking big-box chain bookstore I go into?  It's always the latest from wizards, a few white wolf books, maybe a copy of BESM3, LoTR3 or Serenity (of all things) and a copy of the BoEF.  It's mind boggling that that's pretty much the only 3rd-party d20 supplement I see outside of specialty shops now.  Anyone else notice this, or is it just my area?

Maybe they just don't sell.

I saw a hell of a lot of LotR books in all the B&N type stores for the longest time, but they were always the same copies on the shelf (usually pretty obvious from the shelf-wear).  

It wasn't that the game was selling well, it was that there was a lot of initial hype and expectation so a lot of stores ordered it, and then couldn't get rid of it.

Anything goes. I don't even hold their fantasies against the FATAL crew.

Quote from: MelinglorA 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?

I think that's a fair question. I was wondering when someone was going to bring it up, unfortunately none of the Forgers are intelligent enough to see that possible hole in our arguments against players doing such things with their characters.

My response would be: with the players, your character is "my guy"; with the GM, the many thousands of characters, none of them are "my guy." The difference is the sense of investment a player has in their character, the "protagonisation" as people like to put it. Your individual character, you just have them to control, so they're very much an expression of something within you. Whereas the GM has a cast of thousands to play. The GM must play the caring mother, the callous guard, the dutiful servant, the stormy weather, the delicious food, the child-murderer - the GM has to play a wide variety of characters, describe many scenes and events. So the GM doesn't have that sense of investment. The GM doesn't have any particular one of those things as their own personal character.

When the players play their character, it's for themselves and it's personal. When the GM plays their characters, it's not for themselves and it's not personal, it's for the whole group.

Of course that's different when we see a GMPC, you know when the GM always has some NPC come in and save the day, annoying stuff that. Well, if the GMPC was one who was a child murderer and necrophiliac, I'd be as disturbed and disgusted by that as when a player does it - because the GM is treating that vile character as their protagonist. Or if several NPCs in a row did disgusting things, I'd start to wonder... But if the GM just presents a game world with the normal distribution of good, okay, and evil people, well then that's not a problem, that's just good GMing.

Quote from: MelinglorAnother 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.

Ok...

Is it something about Forge / Storygames that leads to this kind of play?  I mean, it's not my experience at all, and most of the forums / podcasts about "traditional" RPG gaming I've seen and heard say they don't go anywhere close to stuff like that.

Does anyone who has not played and been influenced by Forge / Storygames type games play like this?

Stuart - yes. Seventies and eighties D&D culture has really fucked up stuff all over its margins. Not everywhere of course, but I've seen, heard about, and been in some games with really amazingly wretched content, going back to the seventies.

People start fantasizing, shit happens.

Yes, I found the "Evil DM" in the documentary "The D&D Experience" to be pretty vile.

What I'm wondering though, is that today how many of the people on this forum who are not from the Forge / Storygames end of the hobby -- how many have games with lots of kink in them?

"ME" - definitely  NOT part of the Forge/indie crowd.

 As I said in a previous post, there has been kinky sex and sexual situations referred to in my games - but its usually on private notecards between the players and me the GM.

 Although, aloud amongst the group there has been some playful teasing of an NPC that maybe she flirts too much and she should settle down with just one guy or girl.  The starship's navigator can be a bit of a flirt.*


- Ed C.








* ...and No , she is NOT a "lesbian-stripper-ninja". She is a veteran of the Imperium Navy, but not yet 30 yrs old...she looks like she is constantly smiling and is pretty affectionate with people that she already knows. Doesn't like to get into fights and brawls - but sometimes can't help it, tho she usually manages to come out of brawls mostly okay.

It ain't today, but it also ain't the seventies -

You heard of White Wolf's "Black Dog" imprint? You know, for "mature" gamers?

Not Forge/SG. Rather mainstream, as far as RPGs that aren't Hasbro property can be mainstream. Rather kinky, though.

@Kyle:

QuoteThere can be evil in games. But the PCs don't do pure evil, they avenge it.
...
That's what heroes do.
...
Sometimes the PCs aren't heroes, sure. But they should never be villains. Or at least, their villainy should not be like true sociopathic villainy.

Most games don't work under the assumption, that PCs are heroes (because being a hero carries a lot of baggage and is already one step into the realm of the dramatic "PCs shouldn't die because of a die roll, because that wouldn't be HEROIC" argument).
They often aren't really villains either, because to be villains the players need to identify more strongly with the NPCs their characters oppose, than with their characters themselves.
Sociopathic...yeah, that's a problem. If the players are doing things "just because" they can do so, without giving a flying fuck about what their actions actually MEAN in the context of the game (whether you see "game" as a story or as a simulation of a fictional society or...etc.pp.)
The poster at leat doesn't deny this ("You will have long term ambitions..."), suggesting that some meaningful content has to happen, not just random rape, without relation to what is actually going on. That would be lame. And it wouldn`t qualify as a "story" either.

QuoteThere's a difference between representation and reality. But what you choose to represent says something about you. If a roleplaying game session is "art", then like all art it's an expression of the artist. When you have your character murder a child and molest his corpse and you laugh about it, what are you trying to express? What are you telling us about yourself?

So what is an artist (I doubt RPGers count here, but lets run this argument through to its logical conclusion) really telling us about himself, when he is condoning an atrocity in his fiction? Is Tarantino telling us, that dousing a guy in gasoline is a fun thing to do, just because there are no moral repercussions in his work?
Do you want a Comics Code for art, where "in every instance good must triumph over evil" and no evil deed must go unpunished?
Is the fact, that no (immediate) repercussions occur for the vile act, that even (for the moment) the characters seem to actually be "better off" by acting the way they did, in any way causing the PLAYERS to feel BETTER about what their characters did?

I daresay not.
You can't classify players as "sociopathic", because their characters do sociopathic stuff.

And considering your argument of "character identification" from the other thread: it's a sad day to see you quoting the exact rationale politicians are citing time and time again for banning "violent" computer games.
Fact is: even if you have just one character, you don't play him 100% the same way all the time. If you end up doing vile shit with him, than you do it, because it felt right at the moment. Maybe next time doing the morally right thing will be more consistent with how you want to portray him. It's your choice and not "the game is set up this way to make me do it".

We enjoy playing villains at times, and have done so several times over the years. I can't imagine artificially restraining my games with some sort of arbitrary morality.

i voted the first option, but now the last entry fits me better.  consider it flopped if anyone is bothering to re-tally.

I'm gonna echo Calithena on this one.  If everyone in the group is a consenting adult and is okay with it, do whatever the hell you want.

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.

Sorry, man, I'm not sure what it is you're objecting to. Apologies if I offended, but I stated the concept the only way I knew how.

Quote from: lachekMelinglor, my reason for objecting to the idea of PCs rather than NPCs performing acts of a morally transgressive / "sick" nature is based on why I'm playing the game.

[SNIP]

The first mode is an action-adventure film or maybe a comedy. The second mode is a twisted thriller, a dark drama or a tragedy. They're two different types of movies, one no "better" than the other. A single person can enjoy both in two different contexts, but when you start mixing up the premises people often get confused and sometimes angry. I know I do.

I can totally buy that. That's a quite reasonable standard, and pretty parallel to what I was, more clumsily, trying to convey above.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMy response would be: with the players, your character is "my guy"; with the GM, the many thousands of characters, none of them are "my guy." The difference is the sense of investment a player has in their character, the "protagonisation" as people like to put it.

That's an interesting perspective. I can definitely see your point, though it seems somewhat individual: different roleplayers are probably going to feel the investment level differently. What you describe IS pretty common, I'd say. But even within that framework folks are going to feel that GM-detatchment on different levels. 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. . .I would not feel, if an NPC were to commit rape, any less (or more) like "I raped [so-and-so], than if I had done it with a PC.

So on that level I'd say it goes right back to "it's individual to the group."

I 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. To be sure, if I had the understanding that we were going to play Heroic (in the modern, non-classical sense) PCs, I'd be horrified at acts of brutality, rape, torture, and what-not on their part. I'd wonder what the fuck was wrong with my fellow-players that they found that "heroic." But I don't think all games employ the assumption that the PCs are heroic. There's about six D&D alignments that speak otherwise, and the bulk of my personal RPG experience besides. Hell, I think perhaps I've tended to play noble and upright characters myself so much over the years in part just so someone would. We've never broached the topic of rape in my long-standing group, but we've had plenty of brutal violence.

So I think it's important to get your assumptions straight. Not all gaming (even within the same group) need emply the same assumptions about PC action. And to be absolutely clear, I'm 100% OK with your holding that particular comfort level for yourself and/or your group. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable exploring rape or brutality issues with everyone I game with; it's a maturity thing.

Quote from: StuartIs it something about Forge / Storygames that leads to this kind of play?  I mean, it's not my experience at all, and most of the forums / podcasts about "traditional" RPG gaming I've seen and heard say they don't go anywhere close to stuff like that.

I just wanted to clarify, in the example I cited above, there was not one hint of "kink" or "fantisizing" going on for any participant of the scene. There was simply a mature atmosphere of safe exploration of any issue that may confront our various protagonists.

In this case, it involved molestation, but there was nothing titilating or purient about David's portrayal. The situation involved Annie's Protagonist coming out of a VR existence into the real world and experiencing the sensory and emotional shock of separation, and being victimized by a sleazeball scammer who poses as a sort of "integration counselor" to help you adjust to physical life, and takes advantage of you in that vulnerable state. David described him bathing, soothing and massaging Annie, and we had a roll to see if she succumbed to his emotional influence in her drugged state. She didn't, and pulled away from him. If she had succumbed, we would have stopped well short of verbal porn, believe me (The guy was more about domination than sex, anyway).

I don't know if this sort of thing is peculiar to story games or not, but I'll take this incedent any day over my old D&D experience where my and another player's characters saw our Dryad fellow-PC unconscious and naked and the DM told us "roll Wisdom to see if you resist raping her."

Peace,
-Joel

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127140&postcount=15) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132356&postcount=6), 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.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFrom what you've written about your Star Wars game here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127140&postcount=15) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132356&postcount=6), 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.

What's funny is you don't actually link to the game (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6983) itself. As you'll see if you read that thread it's all pretty boring, compared to what you're thinking. :)

QuoteA 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.

This might work for you, but when I GM, I am no referee.

I'm a world builder, which means, yeah I sure have a personal stake  in the game world.

I don't have a "final goal" either, I just let the world unfold as it would.

QuoteThey don't have to be perfect saints. Just normal humans is enough. But not sociopaths.

You would be surprised what "normal humans" are capable of doing.
Comic book morality doesn't help you here, as I said before.

None of those responses made sense to me.

The table I game at sets its barometer at the level of the most squeamish person at the table.  We're not out to make anyone at the table uncomfortable.

But if everyone's game, anything's on.

Quote from: PakaThe table I game at sets its barometer at the level of the most squeamish person at the table.  We're not out to make anyone at the table uncomfortable.

I don't see anyone here in this thread looking to do that.

Quote from: Serious PaulI don't see anyone here in this thread looking to do that.

It wasn't an accusation at all towards anyone.  Just a statement of how we decide what's kosher at our table is all.

Quote from: lachekRequiem 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.

I found Requim for a Dream to be about as sophisticated, nuanced, and meaningful as American Pie II. It's a prime example of the popular fallacy in vogue in pop culture these days that if you want to make a serious film, you need to grab the audience by the hair and jam their faces into a pile of shit. Extreme horror =/= reality or seriousness, even when it comes to issues like addiction. Addiction is horrible, but it's also grim, depressing, and ultimately very, very boring. Sexing it up and pumping the audience full of adrenelin and nausea is not serious filmmaking. Heck, you could go all the way back to Days of Wine and Roses for a more sophisticated, authentic, and meaningful depiction of addiction. But I suppose a lot of today's audience simply cannot respond emotionally to a situation unless they're shocked and emotionally manipulated in the most crude fashion.

And from the sounds of some of the storytelling APs I've read dealing with 'issues', the RPG scene displays the same crudity in its 'mature explorations' . The common model seems to be shocking = serious, brutal = moving, and transgressive = sophisticated.

Maybe there are some storyteller groups who tell meaningful stories in a serious and emotionally nuanced manner. But given how rare it is for even exceptionally talented and devoted artists to pull off that feat, I remain skeptical.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI 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.

Excellent point. The really offensive thing about Baker's Poison'd posts isn't so much the subject matter, which doesn't rise much above the depravities adolescent boys dream up to gross each other out. It's the attitude that making up vulgur sado-porn stories with your friends is an aesthetically and morally sophisticated way to spend a few yours. It isn't. It may be cathartic, especially if you have subliminated sado-masochistist urges that you can't bring out any other way. But it isn't sophisticated or beautiful or brave. It's really kinda pathetic.

Quote from: HaffrungI found Requim for a Dream to be about as sophisticated, nuanced, and meaningful as American Pie II. It's a prime example of the popular fallacy in vogue in pop culture these days that if you want to make a serious film, you need to grab the audience by the hair and jam their faces into a pile of shit. Extreme horror =/= reality or seriousness, even when it comes to issues like addiction. Addiction is horrible, but it's also grim, depressing, and ultimately very, very boring. Sexing it up and pumping the audience full of adrenelin and nausea is not serious filmmaking. Heck, you could go all the way back to Days of Wine and Roses for a more sophisticated, authentic, and meaningful depiction of addiction. But I suppose a lot of today's audience simply cannot respond emotionally to a situation unless they're shocked and emotionally manipulated in the most crude fashion.

Cool, to each his own. Like I said, stuff like that would be cool at my gaming table but that doesn't mean it has to be at yours if it's not nuanced enough for you. Calling the movie shallow torture porn is fine, of course - the fact that 84 out of 100 professional movie reviewers disagree with you doesn't mean you're wrong.

Quote from: James J SkachAhh...well then...we part ways...

EDIT: And Tony, please don't PM me.  We'll have any conversation about this or anything else in public. Thanks.

I participated in the Poison'd thread (tBP) and my views are there, am I on the hostile/degenerate gamer list too, James?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI participated in the Poison'd thread (tBP) and my views are there, am I on the hostile/degenerate gamer list too, James?

I'm not interested in wading through that thread for looking for posts by you. Can you give a concise summary?

Quote from: gleichmanI'm not interested in wading through that thread for looking for posts by you. Can you give a concise summary?

:shrug: if you're not interested in wading through the thread gleichman, I ain't going to trawl through it to see if I'm on your list or not. (My opinions are all over the place is the concise summary)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R:shrug: if you're not interested in wading through the thread gleichman, I ain't going to trawl through it to see if I'm on your list or not. (My opinions are all over the place is the concise summary)

A very poor answer this. What am I to make of it?

I see three options:

1. David R is a trouble maker who tosses opinions on all sides in order to create the most flames?

2. David R doesn't actually know his own opinion, or has done the Kerry Nuance Dance to the point where he was against the concept before he was for it (or was it the reverse)?

3. David R is embrassed by his RPGNet posts, doesn't really feel he can stand behind them and is now worried that he's getting fallout here?

Quote from: gleichmanA very poor answer this. What am I to make of it?

I see three options:

1. David R is a trouble maker who tosses opinions on all sides in order to create the most flames?

2. David R doesn't actually know his own opinion, or has done the Kerry Nuance Dance to the point where he was against the concept before he was for it (or was it the reverse)?

3. David R is embrassed by his RPGNet posts, doesn't really feel he can stand behind them and is now worried that he's getting fallout here?

Anyone who has read my posts here or there (tBP) know that gleichman's options are all wrong.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAnyone who has read my posts here or there (tBP) know that gleichman's options are all wrong.

Given your dodge as to the nature of those posts, and your refusal to give summary of what your position on this question of rpg play is- I flatly don't care if those options are wrong.

You're acting in bad faith in any event. So yes, you're going on my list of posters too stupid to pay attention to. James can make up his own mind in his own way of course.

Quote from: gleichmanGiven your dodge as to the nature of those posts, and your refusal to give summary of what your position on this question of rpg play is- I flatly don't care if those options are wrong.

You're acting in bad faith in any event. So yes, you're going on my list of posters too stupid to pay attention to. James can make up his own mind in his own way of course.

You never asked a question gleichman. You got a question ask it. Don't stick your nose into posts not addressed to you.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanA very poor answer this. What am I to make of it?

I see three options

I see at least one other option:  David's positions are sufficiently nuanced that rewriting them in concise form would be an effort ... and he doesn't feel like doing you any favors.

To be fair, you're really not projecting an internet persona that's likely to make people want to do you favors.  Somebody blowing you off is not necessarily a sign that they're acting in bad faith ... it might just be a sign that they don't like you very much.

Quote from: David RAnyone who has read my posts here or there (tBP) know that gleichman's options are all wrong.

Regards,
David R

 I DID read several of David R.'s posts over there. Not sure exactly where he stands in some ways - but his posts were some of more reasonable ones over there. He did seem to be calling people on their shit , tho.

 I have to stop posting over there for awhile I guess, Nina the mod is giving me warnings in PMs and on the public side.


- Ed C.

You can explore complex issues in a sensitive, mature way with some forms of expression (if you like, some forms of "Art"), but only in a very cursory and possibly exploitive or immature way with other forms of expression.

It's unquestionable that you'll be able to explore an issue more sensitively and maturely if take the time to think about the issue, do your research, talk to you collaborators, and get advice from others.  This would be the approach for writing a novel, or a play, or a screenplay.  That's not the same approach for improvisation though.  With improv you can't tackle an issue with the same degree of depth and sensitivity, but it's great for improving your problem solving skills and being more creative.*

If I were asked to put on a performance about "family violence" or "racism" I certainly wouldn't consider doing it through improv.  The outcome would be trite at best, and offensive at worst.

So the increased improvisation that's a key aspect of many Storytelling games is not in fact more likely to deal with issues in a mature, sensitive way.  It's actually a bit ironic that the technique most likely to deal with issues more maturely is exactly the technique most derided by many current RPG designers and players: removing the improvisation and using pre-scripted (or at least pre-plotted) events and narrative.  In short:  "Railroading".  

Just like Dragonlance.

And really, you can fault the Dragonlance era of D&D for changing the game and removing player choice, but what you can't really fault it for is the author(s) attempts to deal with moral issues in a (somewhat) more sensitive and mature manner.

Very interesting...

* I studied Film & Theatre in University, and have done a fair bit of acting -- both on stage in front of an audience, as well as doing improv and theatre sports type activities (in the same vein as "Who's Line is it Anyway").  So I'm basing this on actual academics and experience.  I know that sort of thing is very important to some folk. ;)

Quote from: David RI participated in the Poison'd thread (tBP) and my views are there, am I on the hostile/degenerate gamer list too, James?

Regards,
David R

I have a list? I was unaware. Perhaps you mixed my post up?

I was simply informing Tony that if he wants to respond to me I prefer he do it in public.  Also, that if he can't find a way to point at that AP and be appalled, we probably have too little in common to continue to try to find common ground on topics.

If you can't point at that AP thread and see the infantile stupidity and the faux-poseur-loo-at-us-explore-rape, I'm sad for you.  And if you can't see how it totally undermines one of the foundations of GNS/TBM, then we'll never find common ground on the usefulness/uselessness of that those theories. However, since you don't want to discuss it here (fair enough, I've had just about enough of the topic...almost), I don't know.

If you participated in the AP, then yes, you are degenerate, IMHO.  If not, why would I put you on that list?  Hell, Tony's not even on that list - even though I do think he is/was being disengenuous with this poll. Though I do find his inability to judge people as having gone too far for particpating in that kind of masturbatory emotourist S&M porn to be a weakness, I doubt he loses sleep over it.

Quote from: James J SkachI have a list? I was unaware. Perhaps you mixed my post up?

Guess I did. I thought the in thing now was making list of folks to ignore.

QuoteIf you can't point at that AP thread and see the infantile stupidity and the faux-poseur-loo-at-us-explore-rape, I'm sad for you.  And if you can't see how it totally undermines one of the foundations of GNS/TBM, then we'll never find common ground on the usefulness/uselessness of that those theories. However, since you don't want to discuss it here (fair enough, I've had just about enough of the topic...almost), I don't know.

Well I noticed some of the posing, some interesting comments and some shitstirring on the tBP AP thread. As far as theory talk - James it's me, I don't really give a shit about that, although I do admit, I thought Gleichman's OP about "the Forge having it both ways" thread did have some interesting possibilities in terms of theory talk in the few opening posts at least.

Regards,
David R

Stuart, I think that's a great observation. I like how you used the improv acting analogy to actually explain your stance in a much clearer way than the

QuoteRPGs are for fun, dumbass, and a bunch of fat balding nerds in their mama's basement couldn't possibly tell a story with any amount of depth

stance I tend to hear a bit too often.

I agree with you in some ways. My only arguments are these:

- Does it hurt to try? Even if the quality is inferior to a really good work of art? Some believe it does hurt. I generally disagree - I believe the human mind is pretty resistant to damage caused by exposure to media, and I also believe that most gaming groups are socially adept enough (at least within the group itself :D ) to speak up when really uncomfortable subjects are brought up.

- If it doesn't hurt to try, then why not? I guess that's my take on the subject of this whole thread.

- Finally, I tend to believe that the act of collaboration - that is, all players around the table making implicit commentary around a particular issue as part of the game - is the antidote to the problem you're describing. A single player trying to impose hir interpretation of the Issue to the rest of the group requires a damn capable player - like a renowned film director, script writer, editor, focus group etc. An "expert system".

- But if the individuals in the group are all able to introduce their own ideas surrounding the Issue into the game implicitly, through the act of play, it can provide the same effect as the individuals around the table sitting down and debating the Issue for 4-6 hours, with the system acting as a sort of moderator. It may not be fun for people who don't care about the Issue, and it may even turn into pornography if the people involved have a very voyeuristic and immature attitude towards the subject - perhaps because they're looking for "adventure gaming" in a game that has nothing to do with it, or perhaps they're just "dicks". But if it doesn't hurt anyone (see above) I don't see why we should have to prevent even the possibility of meaningful exploration and entertainment based on emotional responses.

Quote from: Serious PaulWhat's funny is you don't actually link to the game (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6983) itself. As you'll see if you read that thread it's all pretty boring, compared to what you're thinking. :)

Yup. Well, not boring, but not lurid either.

Quote from: StuartYou can explore complex issues in a sensitive, mature way with some forms of expression (if you like, some forms of "Art"), but only in a very cursory and possibly exploitive or immature way with other forms of expression.

Precisely. Just because you go into an improv with the intent of exploring issues seriously, and you have an intense emotional experience during the session, does not mean you have bravely explored the issue in a meaningful way.

Trangression is not depth; those boundaries you are crossing are not levels of emotional depth - they're boundaries of norms and taste. It may feel liberating to be naughty, but being naughty is not the same as being mature.

Depicting awfulness for its own sake is not serious art.

Getting a cathartic jolt out of a play-acting session does not give you insight.

People who believe otherwise are, at best, pitifully misguided. At worst, they're juvenile jack-offs who want to put a gloss of sophistication on their sewer-diving.

Just because we don't set any limits doesn't mean we're out to win any creepy awards. Shrugs. Everyone has their own style-we try to be laid back, and have fun.

Quote from: HaffrungPrecisely. Just because you go into an improv with the intent of exploring issues seriously, and you have an intense emotional experience during the session, does not mean you have bravely explored the issue in a meaningful way.

Trangression is not depth; those boundaries you are crossing are not levels of emotional depth - they're boundaries of norms and taste. It may feel liberating to be naughty, but being naughty is not the same as being mature.

Depicting awfulness for its own sake is not serious art.

Getting a cathartic jolt out of a play-acting session does not give you insight.

People who believe otherwise are, at best, pitifully misguided. At worst, they're juvenile jack-offs who want to put a gloss of sophistication on their sewer-diving.

I've wanted to respond to several posts, and express my feelings on this issue several times, but every time Haffrung here does it first and does it better than I could most likely, so although I'm totally being a follower here, I hafta say...

:ditto:

:withstupid:

:hatsoff:

And I'll ditto what Sigmund just said, but expand that to include Elliot Wilen and Stuart.

Quote from: lachekDoes it hurt to try? Even if the quality is inferior to a really good work of art?

I think it does hurt.  Certainly creating and promoting a game that encourages treating sensitive topics in a trite or offensive way is hurtful.  It's also bad to hold up that inferior approach to dealing with sensitive topics as deep and meaningful - it's pretentious and misleading to those who might not be mature enough to know any better.  It's also hurtful to expose the general public to something that's trite or offensive.  

I'd hate to think of an actual abuse victim walking past a table at Gen-Con where a poorly conceived improv game dealing with "mature" issues was taking place.

Quote from: lachekFinally, I tend to believe that the act of collaboration - that is, all players around the table making implicit commentary around a particular issue as part of the game - is the antidote to the problem you're describing. A single player trying to impose hir interpretation of the Issue to the rest of the group requires a damn capable player - like a renowned film director, script writer, editor, focus group etc. An "expert system".

I think any of the individual gamers could produce something more deep and insightful if they sat down and gave it serious thought, rather than in the context of an improv session, and a game improv session at that.  If all the players sat down and wrote a story together then, as you say, it would be sum of their thoughts and insights would be applied to the issue.  In the improv session you'll have varying degrees of triteness and offensiveness depending on the player -- but the overall session will only be as strong as the weakest player.

That's why in improv it's so important to support the other actors, work as a team, and develop everyone's ability.  If you went on stage with Colin Mockery and tried to do an improv together, I'm quite sure it would be of less quality than if Colin went onstage by himself.  However, I think if you and Colin sat down to work on a story together, it would be of greater quality than you could achieve as individuals.

As for debate, that alone doesn't produce meaningful artistic expression.  Reflection on what you've seen and heard, learning from experiences and others, and maturity do.

Quote from: HaffrungExcellent point. The really offensive thing about Baker's Poison'd posts isn't so much the subject matter, which doesn't rise much above the depravities adolescent boys dream up to gross each other out. It's the attitude that making up vulgur sado-porn stories with your friends is an aesthetically and morally sophisticated way to spend a few yours. It isn't. It may be cathartic, especially if you have subliminated sado-masochistist urges that you can't bring out any other way. But it isn't sophisticated or beautiful or brave. It's really kinda pathetic.

Well, at this point I'm commenting more on the presentation of the AP, including--especially--the idea that readers would/should see it as something to recommend the game book, than I am on what happened at the table. Who knows, maybe it was as meaningful and sophisticated as Byron and the Shelleys engaging in an all night chat? But the AP as presented offers nothing to distinguish it from "adolescent depravities", and the implication that the game will give players a "meaningful experience" does border on advertising emo-tourism. This too has to be seen against a background of Forgist criticism of games which are just toolkits, and claims that "fun is portable" if you write games the right way.

Perhaps we lack the language to express the idea that games can open doors, but it's still up to people whether to step through them or not. Or it may be that games can be more or less responsible for transmitting a message, in which case, yes, the author of a game can't dodge responsibility for what's done with it.

Edit: Stuart just posted something that's along similar lines to what I'm trying to say. So, I agree.

Quote from: lachekFinally, I tend to believe that the act of collaboration - that is, all players around the table making implicit commentary around a particular issue as part of the game - is the antidote to the problem you're describing. A single player trying to impose hir interpretation of the Issue to the rest of the group requires a damn capable player - like a renowned film director, script writer, editor, focus group etc. An "expert system".

Stuart's doing a fine job of answering these, but this just caught my eye...

Are you saying that the people who sat around that table were the equivalent of a renowned film director, screen writer, editor - an expert system on rape/brutality/family abuse?

If you are, this is the problem: they are not. If the expectation of the game designer is that they are, then his audience should only be psychologists at worst, and those of that profession/training specializing in this field at best. Is he going to be running games at the next APA?

It's why Stuart's comments are so spot on.

Quote from: lachek- Does it hurt to try? Even if the quality is inferior to a really good work of art? Some believe it does hurt. I generally disagree - I believe the human mind is pretty resistant to damage caused by exposure to media, and I also believe that most gaming groups are socially adept enough (at least within the group itself :D ) to speak up when really uncomfortable subjects are brought up.

- If it doesn't hurt to try, then why not? I guess that's my take on the subject of this whole thread.

Because you're trivializing the very issue you're claiming to "explore."

(bah, work just got busy and I'm having to...work...so I'll repost my response from that other thread as to why it's stupid to think you could meaningfully explore rape in a game)

The best such an exercise can do is trivialize the act. None of the APs showed any meaningful exploration of the subject, only the trivialization. I'd even go so far as to say no one who hasn't been directly affected by such an act (as victim or as family member/close friend/significant other of the victim) could never meaningfully explore the subject.

I don't personally know the people involved, so I can't say how close they are to the subject. But judging by their posts and the enthusiasm they had for making their characters perpetrate such acts, it's safe to say that they don't understand it at all.

[EDIT: Damn me taking twenty minutes to post...again, it's been said better than I could say it already]

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, at this point I'm commenting more on the presentation of the AP, including--especially--the idea that readers would/should see it as something to recommend the game book, than I am on what happened at the table. Who knows, maybe it was as meaningful and sophisticated as Byron and the Shelleys engaging in an all night chat? But the AP as presented offers nothing to distinguish it from "adolescent depravities", and the implication that the game will give players a "meaningful experience" does border on advertising emo-tourism.

Actually, 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.

Quote from: StuartCertainly creating and promoting a game that encourages treating sensitive topics in a trite or offensive way is hurtful.  It's also bad to hold up that inferior approach to dealing with sensitive topics as deep and meaningful - it's pretentious and misleading to those who might not be mature enough to know any better.  It's also hurtful to expose the general public to something that's trite or offensive.

I am totally in agreement with you. I guess since I haven't read or played Poison'd I just can't make the call that it is that kind of game. Having read and played Dogs in the Vineyard I can certainly make the call that it approaches its subject matter in an extremely tasteful and mature way. This biases me in favour of Poison'd somewhat, but I would have to read and play it before making my mind up fully.

Quote from: StuartI'd hate to think of an actual abuse victim walking past a table at Gen-Con where a poorly conceived improv game dealing with "mature" issues was taking place.

Well, 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?

This is the standpoint that causes my opinion that anything that is currently acceptable in popular media is alright in my group, unless someone who is actually in my group has a problem with it.

- * -

For 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.

Quote from: James J SkachAlso, that if he can't find a way to point at that AP and be appalled, we probably have too little in common to continue to try to find common ground on topics.

You mean appalled by the story that evolved, or appalled at the idea of telling such a story?

'cuz I can totally get on board with being appalled by the disgusting story.  Heck, I expect Vincent can get on board with that, too.  The story is appalling.

I just don't draw the connection from that to being appalled at the notion that people would tell such an appalling story, any more than I become sad at the notion that people would tell a sad story, or scared by the concept that people make horror movies.

So, y'know, which thing are you aiming at, there?

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?

Did...did you just compare having a phobia to spiders to being a victim of sexual abuse?

Umm.  Wow.

To James - hell no. I'd never dream of saying that.

All I'm saying is that the Issue-based story may be more entertaining (=useful) to the group than an expert-created work may be, since it was created by the group for the group.

If we agree that it's not harmful to do so (trivializing a very serious issue would be considered potentially harmful in my book), then I see no fault in creating stories to which the participants have an emotional connection.

After a few days of mulling, here are my final thoughts on the AP that started this mess:

What happened in that session of Poison'd is the business of the players involved, as long as no one actually got hurt. To brag about that experience on the internet, when it was so very vile, is supremely tacky, but I'm not the Internet Tackiness Patrol so that's a moot point. The best I can do is look at displays like this and treat them like the patterns on a coral snake, or a rattlesnake's rattle: A little hint from Mother Nature that says "stay away."

So if I ever meet anyone who says anything similar, I know not to befriend them, or lend them money or a gaming book, or leave them alone in a room with my kids (not out of fear of molestation, out of fear that they will start spouting stupid bullcrap which my kids will hear and I won't be around to filter it). But I'm not going to lynch them in the street.

And that's that.

Quote from: KenHRDid...did you just compare having a phobia to spiders to being a victim of sexual abuse?

Umm.  Wow.

No, whatever gave you that impression? All I said was that some people are having to deal with issues - if those issues are prevalent themes in popular media, I don't see why we as a hobby should have to avoid them like the plague in an effort to ensure that stray passers-by don't get hurt, when they get hurt constantly by Big Media and society and are having to cope with it on a day-to-day basis anyway.

That changes considerably when it's someone in your group coping with an issue, as I've expressed before. You actually have a shot-in-Hell to prevent that from happening, whereas you have no idea if - for example - some person at the next table over is afraid of spiders or were abused by his father as a child.

Quote from: lachekNo, whatever gave you that impression? All I said was that some people are having to deal with issues - if those issues are prevalent themes in popular media, I don't see why we as a hobby should have to avoid them like the plague in an effort to ensure that stray passers-by don't get hurt, when they get hurt constantly by Big Media and society and are having to cope with it on a day-to-day basis anyway.

That changes considerably when it's someone in your group coping with an issue, as I've expressed before. You actually have a shot-in-Hell to prevent that from happening, whereas you have no idea if - for example - some person at the next table over is afraid of spiders or were abused by his father as a child.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.  Sort of.

But I'd question why you'd feel the need to explore such a theme in public at a con rather than at your home.  A phobia to spiders is not nearly the same thing as being a victim of abuse, and to think another's reaction to one is comparable to the other is just wrong.  You're right that abuse is dealt with in popular media, but it is not put on gratuitous, graphic display the way it was in the game that touched off all this stuff.  You need a better analogy to defend your position here at the very least...but I think your reasoning is just wrong and insensitive (and I'm not a touchy-feely person).  There's a place for everything, etc.

Quote from: TonyLBYou mean appalled by the story that evolved, or appalled at the idea of telling such a story?

'cuz I can totally get on board with being appalled by the disgusting story.  Heck, I expect Vincent can get on board with that, too.  The story is appalling.

I just don't draw the connection from that to being appalled at the notion that people would tell such an appalling story, any more than I become sad at the notion that people would tell a sad story, or scared by the concept that people make horror movies.

So, y'know, which thing are you aiming at, there?

I'm aiming at the people who were involved in reveling in the appalling acts that they were, through their characters, performing in the name of tackling important issues.  I mean, look how they revel in their own importance because they had different kinds of rape. If you can't see the difference between that and a "scary story" or "sad story," I'm not sure we have much to say, really.

If that's why you're gaming and with whom your gaming, and you're OK with that - hey, no skin off my nose. But I can certainly judge those involved and those who have no problem with it.

Quote from: lachekNo, whatever gave you that impression? All I said was that some people are having to deal with issues - if those issues are prevalent themes in popular media, I don't see why we as a hobby should have to avoid them like the plague in an effort to ensure that stray passers-by don't get hurt, when they get hurt constantly by Big Media and society and are having to cope with it on a day-to-day basis anyway.

Hey! 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!

Quote from: James J SkachI'm aiming at the people who were involved in reveling in the appalling acts that they were, through their characters, performing in the name of tackling important issues.  I mean, look how they revel in their own importance because they had different kinds of rape. If you can't see the difference between that and a "scary story" or "sad story," I'm not sure we have much to say, really.

I guess that's where we are, then.  I don't find myself either shocked or appalled by the idea that people would say "Wow, it's cool how really appalling a story we created."  I've played "Gross out" at various ages, with various people, myself.  I get how it can be fun.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.  It's a shame that our disagreement on this has turned (at least on your side) into a divide ... but I appreciate your making clear where you stand.

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

My 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.

Quote from: KenHRYou're right that abuse is dealt with in popular media, but it is not put on gratuitous, graphic display the way it was in the game that touched off all this stuff.  You need a better analogy to defend your position here at the very least...but I think your reasoning is just wrong and insensitive (and I'm not a touchy-feely person).  There's a place for everything, etc.

It's also not told from the perspective, as Kyle so rightly pointed out in the other thread, of the abuser being cheered on.

Quote from: TonyLBI guess that's where we are, then.  I don't find myself either shocked or appalled by the idea that people would say "Wow, it's cool how really appalling a story we created."  I've played "Gross out" at various ages, with various people, myself.  I get how it can be fun.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.  It's a shame that our disagreement on this has turned (at least on your side) into a divide ... but I appreciate your making clear where you stand.

You show me where this is Gross Out - was that in the circle of abuse afterword where they stayed and talked for hours and didn't want to let anyone else in?

If it was Gross Out, then I'd expect more from adults - even ones playing games. But I've seen no evidence that the point of this excercise was Gross Out.  So fuck that silly little argument.

Quote from: TonyLBI I don't find myself either shocked or appalled by the idea that people would say "Wow, it's cool how really appalling a story we created."  I've played "Gross out" at various ages, with various people, myself.  I get how it can be fun.

I did too - when I was 14. The appalling thing about the Poison'd APs isn't so much the vileness of the narrative itself as the fact the players are grown adults who feel their rape and slaughter fantasies were beautiful and moving. Vileness + pretentions + delusion = truly fucking disturbing.

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=136845&postcount=669)? 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

Quote from: lachekInterestingly (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.

That's interesting.  I saw strong ties between the Role / Roll and the Narrativist / Gamist dichotomies.  Part of the reason so little effort went into looking at "Simulationist" I think.  It's basically a pseudo-academic gloss overtop of the same Role/Roll bunk we've been hearing for 30 years or so.

Ultimately it's all jargoneering, and won't help you design better games, or enjoy the games you're playing more.  It also serves to artificially divide the community of online gamers and game designers, and make any legitimate analysis of game design theory all but impossible.

I became *much* more productive in designing my own game when I stopped looking at *any* online discussion of RPG theory and just focused on making a fun game.

Quote from: MelinglorBut 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.

"And just like that we had a pirate marriage; knee deep in blood, but a marriage still." I can see how that might have an impact.

Quote from: GrimGent"And just like that we had a pirate marriage; knee deep in blood, but a marriage still." I can see how that might have an impact.

Yeah, that was my absolute favorite line.

Quote from: StuartThat's interesting.  I saw strong ties between the Role / Roll and the Narrativist / Gamist dichotomies.  Part of the reason so little effort went into looking at "Simulationist" I think.  It's basically a pseudo-academic gloss overtop of the same Role/Roll bunk we've been hearing for 30 years or so.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally took what I thought sounded positive and useful out of GNS and ignored what I considered to be big, gaping holes. Like any model, it is just a model - to be used and discarded when something better comes along. Since something better has come along since then, even its creator has all but discarded it.

Having said that, I think a lot of your initial reaction to GNS has to do with how you approach it. I don't recall a place where Ron Edwards stated that Nar is so much better than Gamist play, just that thinking you play Nar when you're really playing Gamist can lead to trouble. But that's a different thread for a different day, I'm sure.

QuoteUltimately it's all jargoneering, and won't help you design better games, or enjoy the games you're playing more.  It also serves to artificially divide the community of online gamers and game designers, and make any legitimate analysis of game design theory all but impossible.

It certainly helped me enjoy the games I play, both "indie" and "trad". If it will help me design better games is for time to tell, but I've personally enjoyed many games that are in part grounded in those design principles. So to me and the gamers I know in person, your assertion doesn't hold true. Alas, different discussion, etc.

As for division, there are some strong proponents on either side, but those people are only divisive if you let them be. Hey, I'm here, speaking with you as an equal, right? I'm not trying to be divisive, am I? There's no reason we need to follow our respective Messiahs when we should be kicking back and playing a game together. Yet the Messiahs are important because they push the hobby towards new and exciting places.

I do believe that different games tickle different toes, and that is going to mean that some gamers aren't right for each other - but we already knew that. Personally, I like 'em all in different contexts, so to me GNS is unifying rather than divisive since it helps me understand what context I'm in.

QuoteI became *much* more productive in designing my own game when I stopped looking at *any* online discussion of RPG theory and just focused on making a fun game.

Damn, I can sympathize with that - I keep wondering how quickly my games would come together if I'd stop chatting on the Internet and focus on writing something real. On that note... :D

Change my vote for the last option.

Quote from: lachekLike any model, it is just a model - to be used and discarded when something better comes along. Since something better has come along since then, even its creator has all but discarded it.

If you mean GNS2: Electric Boogaloo it's built on top of GNS, and therefore just as bunk.  The something better is stop pretending it's a science that needs a taxonomy, and look at other games and the things in them that are fun.  Design, of any kind, is an Art not a Science.

Quote from: lachekHaving said that, I think a lot of your initial reaction to GNS has to do with how you approach it. I don't recall a place where Ron Edwards stated that Nar is so much better than Gamist play, just that thinking you play Nar when you're really playing Gamist can lead to trouble. But that's a different thread for a different day, I'm sure.

Like Luke said on the recent Fear the Boot podcast -- it's all the condescension (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/).  And the brain damage.  It's well established that Ron's theories are based around the conceit that his style of play is better than some other people's.

Quote from: lachekIt certainly helped me enjoy the games I play, both "indie" and "trad". If it will help me design better games is for time to tell, but I've personally enjoyed many games that are in part grounded in those design principles. So to me and the gamers I know in person, your assertion doesn't hold true. Alas, different discussion, etc.

Sadly, I believe this is a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes effect.  It's quite telling that people into GNS / Storygames are quick to label themselves and find a sense of identity in being a "hippy" gamer.  Any enjoyable games produced following GNS would be in spite of trying to follow it... not because of it.

Quote from: lachekThere's no reason we need to follow our respective Messiahs when we should be kicking back and playing a game together. Yet the Messiahs are important because they push the hobby towards new and exciting places.

My advice is to not be a follower, and to chart your own course. Play games you think are fun, and don't worry about labeling yourself or the games you like.  As a designer, learn from others, but make the game YOU want to make and don't worry who's taxonomy it fits into (or doesn't).

Interesting commentary by Stephen Colbert (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dungeons-dragons-online/537989p2.html)

QuoteOn the next campaign we saw merchant caravans crossing the desert, and my character flew down and landed next to a merchant and tore off the guy's head.

QuoteEventually, we started to judge each other based on how our characters behaved. One DM seemed to believe we were too greedy. We wanted too much. We wanted our characters to be too strong. But, you know, within the culture of high school we were the weak puppies and were looking for power, albeit imagined.

QuoteI may remembering wrong, but I think by the end we were using the game to express how we felt about each other.

My thoughts exactly.
If you start judging a person by the kind of fantasies this person enjoys, well there isn't much to discuss with you anymore.

Oh, no. So this is what it feels like when your heroes die.  

I can't believe Stephen Colbert was one of those guys. You know... I can barely type it.

The cross-gender roleplayers.

Your life size cardboard cutout will be missed at our table. Good day, sir.

-- I said "Good day!"

This poll makes me kind of sad.

I thought this was sort of a site where anything goes, and now I find out that it's got a majority of people who moralize about other people's fantasy lives. Poo.

(I mean, the question isn't about our preferences, it's about what is permissible in an RPG. So 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.)

Quote from: TonyLBThat 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?

I think you are asking the wrong question, at least for me.  The issue, for me, isn't whether a topic exists in a game but whether the PCs are the ones performing the atrocities and whether the players are enjoying it.

That's an important difference I keep emphasising but few others notice.

I mean, if you were for some crazy reason to want to roleplay through the Holocaust, there's a difference between the Schindler's List rpg and the Triumph of the Will rpg.

I'll leave trying to get into the heads of perpertators of vile crimes to the FBI behavioural profilers who are paid to do it. My guess is those guys don't woop and holler and cheer each-other on as they do it like Vincent Baker's crew does.  That's leaving aside the triviality of Baker's approach.

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".

OK, 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?

While 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.

Yet I understand there are many who feel the way Mel Gibson portrays that Biblical story is very powerful and true, to them. Obviously, to them, the brutality plays a big role in shaping the message.

I'm not going to call for a film burning because it doesn't work for me.

PS. Hearing that Vincent is trying to create a pirate propaganda game would disturb me greatly - in an oh-my-God-all-that-milk-just-came-out-of-my-nose kind of way.

Quote from: CalithenaThis poll makes me kind of sad.

I thought this was sort of a site where anything goes...

You really thought it was a place that's cool with telling stories about brutal raping and murdering children, decapitating them, and fucking their corpses? Because there's open and tolerant, and then there's nihilism.

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.)

It seems most of the people here feel the hobby isn't well served by an association with a subculture of fetishists who use RPGs as vehicles for psychodramas about savage rape, forced sodomy with dildoes, castration, and necrophelia of children.

I mean, if this were an amateur photography site with a tolerance for nudity, that tolerance wouldn't necessarily extend to exhibitions of fisting, or pictures of women being fucked by rottweilers.

Rottweilers???

 DEFinitely not that....


- Ed C.

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. :p

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.

"When we describe enjoying molesting the corpses of murdered children, we should not be embarassed. We should have Geek Pride, man."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"When we describe enjoying molesting the corpses of murdered children, we should not be embarassed. We should have Geek Pride, man."

Considering that one of the old definitions for "Geek" meant guys who would bite the heads off of chickens in a carnival side show ...thats strangely appropriate.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"When we describe enjoying molesting the corpses of murdered children, we should not be embarassed."

Fuck your judgement, man. He wasn't using that oriface anymore.