TheRPGSite

With the entire Poison'd debate/debacle, I'm just annoyingly tired now. Threw in the towel on TBP. Seen crap in this whole discussion that truely disturbs me and I wonder what has happened to common sense in gamers anymore.

Remember the scene in Sin City where Marv is talking to the bishop (played by Rutger Hauer) and he is getting told by the bishop about how angelic the cannibal boy was, and Marv just responds with "I think its mighty weird to be eatin' people." Simple, direct, and it gets to the heart on the matter without any pretentious crap about cool the cannibal boy was getting in the way.

Well, that's how I'm feeling. No matter how you slice it, its still baloney. Sick shit is still sick shit no matter if its labelled artistic expression or not.

And even if its considered OK by the masses, then its still not OK by me and I wouldn't want that kind of crap play in or near any game I was running or playing. Whatever label that makes me, I can't get myself to really care - because I can only be who I am and how I feel about this crap.

It just bugs me.

What bugs me ?  If it was any other type of game or style of game - I think the mods over there would have locked that thread between 15 and 20 pages into it.  Insead we got a 100 page thread on a game that will never make it onto those charts in Comics & Games retailer.

Much ado about a small, sick noise.

- Ed C.




 Holy crap !! There's a new issue ...I got to post the chart standings.

Jeff, I agree.  In fact the only reason I even read this thread is I thought it wasn't about it.

I'm never again posting to or reading a thread about that fucking game.

Quote from: KoltarIf it was any other type of game or style of game - I think the mods over there would have locked that thread between 15 and 20 pages into it.

Not really. It's not as though there haven't been earlier threads about PCs committing atrocities (rapes, mass murders, necrophilia) in other RPGs, most of which haven't been threatened with lockdowns either; and as I pointed out over there, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly offensive in Poison'd itself that you couldn't find in, say, WoD. The common opinion over the years has consistently been that the consent of everyone at the table and respecting the boundaries which they don't want crossed are the most important factors when dealing with potentially disturbing topics, and I agree with that. It's all about what the group brings to the game.

Quote from: GrimGentNot really. It's not as though there haven't been earlier threads about PCs committing atrocities (rapes, mass murders, necrophilia) in other RPGs, most of which haven't been threatened with lockdowns either; and as I pointed out over there, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly offensive in Poison'd itself that you couldn't find in, say, WoD. The common opinion over the years has consistently been that the consent of everyone at the table and respecting the boundaries which they don't want crossed are the most important factors when dealing with potentially disturbing topics, and I agree with that. It's all about what the group brings to the game.

Moral relativism at it's finest.

Why is it that people who claim there should not be such an uproar can't leave these threads alone?  I mean, there were a couple of posts and the OP - but you, GrimGent, just couldn't let it go.

If everyone who said they don't care acted like it, would there be 600 post threads?

The common opinion?  Over the years?

Whose common opinion?  Over which years?

I hereby proclaim that common wisdom over many years states that there are lines which, when crossed, mean the group is fucked in the head.

See how that works? You don't believe it any more than I believe your hack claim about "common opinion."

It's an opinion you are not likely to change.  And as much as it might drive pseudoephedrine crazy, it's probably best to just agree to disagree and promise not to game together...

Quote from: James J SkachWhose common opinion?  Over which years?

RPGnet's, 2002-present. And I'm not claiming that there's anything admirable or gloriously artistic about the actions described in the AP. What I find ridiculous are the constant claims that Poison'd is a morally bankrupt game from a morally bankrupt designer from a morally bankrupt movement, all on the strength of a snippet from a session. I could understand railing against the players in that individual case, but instead it seems to have triggered a wave of hysteria that's out of all proportion.

Quoteall on the strength of a snippet from a session.

No, on the strength of multiple goddamn actual play reports, and statements direct from the designer.  A designer with a history of making games about getting the players to do fucked up things like worshiping Satan and lynching adulterers.

Quote from: GrimGentRPGnet's, 2002-present. And I'm not claiming that there's anything admirable or gloriously artistic about the actions described in the AP. What I find ridiculous are the constant claims that Poison'd is a morally bankrupt game from a morally bankrupt designer from a morally bankrupt movement, all on the strength of a snippet from a session. I could understand railing against the players in that individual case, but instead it seems to have triggered a wave of hysteria that's out of all proportion.

You are misinterpreting (assuming you are talking about the original thread here) what was being said.  It's only a morally bankrupt game/designer if you agree with the theory upon which the designer seems to talk about as a significant influence on his work.

If not, then you're absolutely right about condemning the players - no differently than if they were playing D&D or GURPS and had that session. But the minute you blame the players, the cracks begin to appear in GNS/TBM.  And that was the point - that you can't have it both ways.

All of this not helped by the fact that the designer ran one of the games about which session were written - further conflating the issue.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo, on the strength of multiple goddamn actual play reports, and statements direct from the designer.  A designer with a history of making games about getting the players to do fucked up things like worshiping Satan and lynching adulterers.

I'll be worried when the players start lynching anyone. The PCs killing people for petty reasons or summoning demons, on the other hand? That happens all the time, although I personally never let an act of violence go by without consequences.

Quote from: James J SkachYou are misinterpreting (assuming you are talking about the original thread here) what was being said.

GNS isn't my concern: as I've said before, the system matters but not as much as the players. And the majority of posters who rushed to condemn the game never struck me as particularly keen on the theories, either, or interested in checking whether their feverish ideas about "rape power-ups" had any basis in reality.

GrimGent, your opinion's your own, but I don't think you get it. That's fine, nothing wrong with that, but you still don't get it.

Quote from: jeff37923GrimGent, your opinion's your own, but I don't think you get it. That's fine, nothing wrong with that, but you still don't get it.

Probably not. I certainly don't get why instead of productive discussions such as "What would be the best way to restrict sensitive material during play so as to guarantee player comfort?" or "Should moral degeneration be modelled by game mechanics?" or "Is describing rape acceptable in fiction?" everyone ends up wrapped up in something so... pointless. We all agree that the APs had their disgusting moments. Repeating that over and over again doesn't lead anywhere.

I disbelieve in this thread.

Quote from: AosI disbelieve in this thread.

Poof!

The illusion vanishes.

Quote from: jeff37923Poof!

The illusion vanishes.

If only it were that easy...


TGA

Quote from: GrimGentProbably not. I certainly don't get why instead of productive discussions such as "What would be the best way to restrict sensitive material during play so as to guarantee player comfort?" or "Should moral degeneration be modelled by game mechanics?" or "Is describing rape acceptable in fiction?" everyone ends up wrapped up in something so... pointless.

As pointless as you defending the play and/or the game?

Please allow me to anticipate your response.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that one agrees that the play was disgusting.  There are, then, two possibilities:

• System matters more than people.  In this case then you have to take a look at the designer and whether or not the designer(s) built a system to result in the disturbing behavior.  Even if the players wanted it to happen, they had no real say because the system was designed to do it.  I, personally, think it's bunk.
• People are more important than system.  In this case, it was the players in the game who are to blame for the distrubing play. This is probably what most people would say.  It's only confusing because the designer, in the case of on AP, was a player.  But we'll leave that aside for now and just consider him a player.

Now, you seem to say you agree with #2:

Quote from: GrimGentWe all agree that the APs had their disgusting moments.

But, see, I'm not so sure. That's because earlier you said:

Quote from: GrimGentThe common opinion over the years has consistently been that the consent of everyone at the table and respecting the boundaries which they don't want crossed are the most important factors when dealing with potentially disturbing topics, and I agree with that. It's all about what the group brings to the game.

So, I want to get this straight - what you really seem to be saying is that #2 is your choice, and while you seem to agree that there were some disgusting things done at the table, it's none of your business. So people matter more than system, but not enough to hold responsible for the kind of play that emerges.

So the players vicariously revel in rape, beheading, and defiling of the corpse of a boy - and it's none of our business? How about that they did this at a public convention - can it be our business now?  How about when they pronounce how they did so on a public forum associated with RPGs? At what point is it OK to denounce this? Do you?

I guess nobody is responsible - not the designer, not the players - nobody. And we should just ignore that this happened at a convention that is supposed to represent the hobby. And it's pointless to even try to point out how revolting this is, right?

Quote from: jeff37923With the entire Poison'd debate/debacle, I'm just annoyingly tired now. Threw in the towel on TBP. Seen crap in this whole discussion that truely disturbs me and I wonder what has happened to common sense in gamers anymore.

Wait, it gets even better than Poison'd:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4208

"One of our ongoing players had to bow out after a few sessions. They didn't like that they could come up with the really awful stuff the game demands, or that they could do it over and over again, or that it seemed to get easier over time. It's a challenging game in many ways. There is, however, a secret reward for playing it...which I won't spoil here, but if it gets ironed out through these last bits of playtesting, the game is really going to sing." - Corinne on Story-Games.com

Quote from: J ArcaneA designer with a history of making games about getting the players to do fucked up things like worshiping Satan...

Wait, isn't that why we all got in this hobby in the first place?

Quote from: walkerpWait, isn't that why we all got in this hobby in the first place?

....um, no it isn't.

So what we have in the link John Morrow gave us is,

Quote from: Corinne"One of our ongoing players had to bow out after a few sessions. [...] the game is really going to sing."

Quote from: fifth_childit's quite possibly the most masterfully-designed game of all time.

So when you upset players and drive them away, that means it's a great game?

Well that makes me feel much better about my fuckup that imploded the Unknown Armies group, then... I mean, if one player leaving is a sign of the brilliance of the thing, then if your group implodes entirely it must have been the Bestest Game Evah.

I'm glad these people are around to give us these profound insights into our hobby. Maybe it could be their motto: "story-games - drives players out of game groups!"

Quote from: James J SkachSo the players vicariously revel in rape, beheading, and defiling of the corpse of a boy - and it's none of our business? How about that they did this at a public convention - can it be our business now?  How about when they pronounce how they did so on a public forum associated with RPGs? At what point is it OK to denounce this? Do you?

And the point at which my own head exploded (figuratively) was when Vincent Baker said that he had been trained as a Sex Educator and that the rest of the AP group consisted of a psych nurse, someone who works with at-risk teenagers, and a woman's advocacy activist (all professions which you'd think would have a very negative view of rape and abuse). That this wasn't done as a game, but as an form of expressive art.

The whole situation then reminded me of the infamous Mapplethorpe art exhibit in which a bunch of elephant shit was placed around and on pictures of the Virgin Mary, with Mapplethorpe and the exhibitors standing around befuddled when viewers of this art were nauseated and offended.

I'm having just a true What The Fuck? moment on this one.

I'm still disbelieving in this thread- and the eighty others just like it.

Mods- a few weeks ago we had two "space dungeon" threads; they were merged into one- which was as it should be. This thread is supurfluos and should, imo, be merged with one  of the other threads about this same topic.

Quote from: AosI'm still disbelieving in this thread- and the eighty others just like it.

Yes, but every time you look at one, then you fail to disbelieve, thus bringing the thread back.

Quote from: AosI'm still disbelieving in this thread- and the eighty others just like it.

Mods- a few weeks ago we had two "space dungeon" threads; they were merged into one- which was as it should be. This thread is supurfluos and should, imo, be merged with one  of the other threads about this same topic.

seconded!  you could amend the thread title with [baker'ed].

Quote from: jeff37923The whole situation then reminded me of the infamous Mapplethorpe art exhibit in which a bunch of elephant shit was placed around and on pictures of the Virgin Mary, with Mapplethorpe and the exhibitors standing around befuddled when viewers of this art were nauseated and offended.

That wasn't Mapplethorpe.  Maplethorpe was bullwhips in backsides and stuff like that (of course those weren't the pictures the press showed).  The Virgin Mary in elephant dung was Chris Ofili.  And just in case we are keeping score, "Piss Christ" was Andres Serrano.  I'm still waiting for the artist brave enough to drop a certain religious book into a jar of urine and call it art but I guess most of these provocative artists aren't so brave when they might have to, you know, actually die for their art (unlike Theo van Gogh, who did die for his art) and prefer to attack targets that they know won't really threaten them.

Quote from: beeberseconded!  you could amend the thread title with [baker'ed].

That would make my job of ignoring this shit easier.


TGA

Quote from: James J SkachI guess nobody is responsible - not the designer, not the players - nobody. And we should just ignore that this happened at a convention that is supposed to represent the hobby. And it's pointless to even try to point out how revolting this is, right?

That's pretty much how postmodernism works.  Keep dismissing details until there is nothing left, and then declare that it meant nothing all along.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianThat would make my job of ignoring this shit easier.

Not clicking on the thread once you know that it contains a subject that you are not interested in also helps.  Really.  Or is there some masochistic self-punishment thing going on here?

Quote from: jeff37923Yes, but every time you look at one, then you fail to disbelieve, thus bringing the thread back.

I disbelieve in this post.;)

Jeff,

 I saw the Mapplethorpe exhbit - here in town.
 Cincinnat got famous for the controversy surrounding that - the irony is, it was the SAME local jerk who prosecuted Larry Flynt and HUSTLER back in the 1970s. Except this time he was the county sherriff.

 Mapplethorpes actually had some beautiful bits of artwork amongst that exhibit. The controversial part was blown out of porportion - even our local courts said so AND LET THE EXHIBIT GO ON.

 One of my favorite musical artists is Laurie Anderson and Robert Mapplethorpe had done a portrait of her that was the cover of her Strange Angels album. The original  Photo portrait was part of that exhibit,...so were about a dozen B&W portraits of women bodybuilders...nude, but beautiful. (also gorgeous studies of flowers and nature - but that doesn't get press coverage does it ?)


 IF Robert Mapplethorpe was still alive - even he would say that Poison'd was a bit over the top and extreme.


- Ed C.

Well, if you are into masochistic self-punishment apparently story-games have some game groups that are really good for that.

Quote from: John MorrowNot clicking on the thread once you know that it contains a subject that you are not interested in also helps.  Really.  Or is there some masochistic self-punishment thing going on here?

Fair point, John.  I am just frustrated because there is so much more interesting things to talk about and rehashing this prurient shit sucks the oxygen away from that.  But that is my problem, and not yours.

My point is made, so Fuck It And Goodnight.


TGA

P.S. I still reserve my god-given right to mercilessly ridicule people in whatever thread I choose.

Quote from: John MorrowNot clicking on the thread once you know that it contains a subject that you are not interested in also helps.

I don't dispute this statement at all. I am however a sensitive and unique flower, and I am trying to pretend that this shit isn't dominating the boards. It's hard to do that when there are several threads of the same nature running on and on at the same time. Furthermore, multiple threads about the same thing push other threads about different things off the front page; I don't think this is optimal- opinions may vary on this issue, though. Furtherfurthermore, I am dragging this post off topic out of sheer sadistic spite, and because as dull as a the subject of thread management is; it entertains me infinitely more than the topic at hand.

Quote from: AosI don't dispute this statement at all. I am however a sensitive and unique flower, and I am trying to pretend that this shit isn't dominating the boards.

Well, you don't kill topics by posting about them, you kill them by posting about other stuff. I started two (//%5Chttp://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7474) threads (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7475) and encouraged NeverCool to start one yesterday in the Game Design subforum, they all fizzled. Maybe they just weren't interesting so deserved to fizzle, but maybe people were too busy with this other shit instead. I don't know. A discussion forum's like a party - people will go where other people are already talking, not where some poor bastard is standing around looking bored and lonely. So if the active threads are talking about this stuid shit, that's where people will go; if the threads about roleplaying are dead, people won't go to them.

Right now, we have 33 members online. If each starts one thread about roleplaying, at least a few of those will be interesting to someone.

Post about topics which interest you, or shut the fuck up and stop whinging. Don't look at me, fellahs, it's not my fault if you only respond to threads that annoy you.

Post about stuff that interests you, and respond to others' posts, too. Then people will continue talking about stuff that interests you. It's not that complicated.

You, sir, are obviously wise beyond measure; still though, being the fool I am, I will do as I like; but thank you ever so much for your advice.

You don't annoy me, Aos. You only puzzle me.

But you don't kill a topic by posting about it, you kill it by putting other stuff up.

And I do follow my own advice - from 1st July to today I've posted 20 threads, 16 of them in Roleplaying or Game Design. That's one rpg thread every 4 or 5 days. Multiply that by all the active members and we'd have quite a few roleplaying threads going on.

Or we could just bitch and moan.

I mean, I could post more threads but this is supposed to be therpgsite not theKylesite. More might be counter-productive, put people off. So we need to see threads from Aos, jeff37923, and so on.

Well when someone accuses me of  "whinging" I must assume annoyance on their part- but, I am nearly always willing to admit error.
However, Kyle, my purpose is being well served, for the moment; we're now engaged in a discussion on two new topics;  each of which is far more interesting than the original topic of this thread: the first being thread management (btw, the request for merger of these related threads still seems reasonable to me; if nothing else it will keep the discussion all in one handy place for those who do wish to engage in it) and, second, a topic near infinite scope and fascination, placed upon the table by yourself- and that is, of course, the puzzling and enchanting enigma that is Aos. I suggest we begin the second conversation with a discourse on my seemingly compulsive abuse of the semi-colon; from there, we might move into other, even more riveting, sub topics- such as my irrational hatred of dwarves.  The future is indeed bright.

edit: I edited post 35 before I saw post 36; I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Quote from: KoltarOne of my favorite musical artists is Laurie Anderson and Robert Mapplethorpe had done a portrait of her that was the cover of her Strange Angels album. The original  Photo portrait was part of that exhibit,...so were about a dozen B&W portraits of women bodybuilders...nude, but beautiful. (also gorgeous studies of flowers and nature - but that doesn't get press coverage does it ?)

Actually, the flowers were about all they were showing on TV at one point.

Quote from: KoltarIF Robert Mapplethorpe was still alive - even he would say that Poison'd was a bit over the top and extreme.

While it's dangerous and presumptuous for either of us to speak for a dead man, are you sure about that?  I've IMed you links to some pages of Mapplethorpe's photos that don't deal with flowers, nature, or women bodybuilders.  You don't have to click on them but if you do, please let me know what you think.

John Morrow,

 Many of those I've already seen - they were part of the exhibit.
 
 There was also a seperate part of the exhibit called "The X,Y,Z, portfolios" I believe - it had a barrier partition wall....to view those photos you had to make a choice. That section contained the more graphic documentation of gay life of a certain time period.  A time period that the artist knew was due to end. They were done in a more documentary style, but still had Mappletorpe's style and artistry.

 Okay - for clarification and reminder; I was one of the people that was and is strongly against the game Poison'dand those actual play examples.
Also - apparently I am NOT an "old lady" as referred to by one poster who accused those that didn't like Baker's game to be one of those.

 Mapplethorpe's photographs can be considered artwork.  He knew what he was doing and had actual skill and talent.  The game Poison'd cannot really make that claim.

 Mapplethorpe died of AIDS, in his later years he knew he had the disease....I could see the sadness in his later stuff.

- Ed C.

(http://valedictory.chez-alice.fr/laurieanderson.jpg)


As a sidenote: I took 3 years worth of Art School classes at the DAAP/University of Cincinnati. I have "some talent", but not enough practice....I'm a pretty fair sketch artist after all these years - but I never finished my classes. Ran out of money.

Quote from: KoltarMapplethorpe's photographs can be considered artwork.  He knew what he was doing and had actual skill and talent.  The game Poison'd cannot really make that claim.

Well, Grandma, you have to be able to back that point up, because that's the crux.

No, I really don't.

Mapplethorpe never endorsed rape or corpse violating.
The writer of Poison'd and the game itself seens to.


- Ed C.

Now you're veering between two points:

A. Mapplethorpe gets a pass because he's more talented.
B. Anyway he never did such nasty stuff.

It just goes to show that Mapplethorpe is pretty much mainstream these days. Practically gay porn, really.

Quote from: James J SkachSo the players vicariously revel in rape, beheading, and defiling of the corpse of a boy - and it's none of our business? How about that they did this at a public convention - can it be our business now?  How about when they pronounce how they did so on a public forum associated with RPGs? At what point is it OK to denounce this? Do you?

Of course you are free to do so at any time, and detailed discussion of play like that should always be one of those situations in which discretion is advised. However, keep in mind that when the APs talk about how those scenes were "right", what they mean is that it makes sense for them to have happened in the context of the story and from the perspective of dramatic appropriateness, not that such atrocities are in themselves something to be celebrated. It's not a game about rape, beheading and defilement, only about unpleasant people who are sometimes willing to do horrible things if they think that it will help them to reach their goals. If it really endorsed those horrible things, it wouldn't go out of its way to remind you at every turn that they are sinful and unnatural and ultimately as harmful to you as they are to your victims.

Quote from: droogNow you're veering between two points:

A. Mapplethorpe gets a pass because he's more talented.
B. Anyway he never did such nasty stuff.

It just goes to show that Mapplethorpe is pretty much mainstream these days. Practically gay porn, really.

No "veering' at all . My Gut "art-meter" says that Mapplethorpe was an artist, and Vincent Baker is not one.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarNo "veering' at all . My Gut "art-meter" says that Mapplethorpe was an artist, and Vincent Baker is not one.

It always helps when the papers call him one, doesn't it?

...and that there is an actual body of work that has a variety to it. Also, that I viewed those works of art in person.


Neither "Dogs in The Vineyard" or "Poison'd"  are art. They are small press game designs from a man who has not yet produced enough stuff to be calling what he does "art".

 Thats used to often as an excuse. Something doesn't make sense or is a little screwed up ? Oh, we'll just say its Art! and you're not supposed to get it. Well thats a crap defense.

To be "edgy" or "breaking the rules" - you have to have worked within the rules in the first place. People like Da Vinci, Picasso, David Bowie, Van Gogh, Laurie Anderson,  Monet,...and yes even Mapplethorpe at least had a grounding in the "rules" of their chosen art before they tried to do daring and unique stuff.


- Ed C.

It's actually you who introduced the Art Defence by saying that Mapplethorpe's photos can be considered art. Okay, but some might just consider them gay porn.

Funny you should mention Picasso, too, because I met a man who painted watercolours and told me that Picasso couldn't paint.

And of course, poor old Van Gogh never made any money off his art when he was alive and painting.

Quote from: KoltarThats used to often as an excuse. Something doesn't make sense or is a little screwed up ? Oh, we'll just say its Art! and you're not supposed to get it. Well thats a crap defense.

In this case it does make perfect sense for, say, a pirate to attempt something vile in order to prove both to himself and the rest of the crew that he's hardened enough to go through with it, you know.

Bottom line: The theories are bullshit, the games are lame, and the people are total fucking tools.

Quote from: droogOkay, but some might just consider them gay porn.

In the examples I sent, the issue was less that they were gay and more that they were unpleasantly sadomasochistic.  They suggest that Mapplethorpe wasn't simply having tea and quiet romantic sex with the boys when he wasn't photographing people.

I think that just because an artist is talented and does produce good art (and some of Mapplethorpes photos do show real artistic talent) does not mean that everything that they produce is art or valuable or not vile, nor does it mean that they can't have personal problems or worse (there are plenty of examples of excellent artists who are also despicable people).

Quote from: John MorrowThat wasn't Mapplethorpe.  Maplethorpe was bullwhips in backsides and stuff like that (of course those weren't the pictures the press showed).  The Virgin Mary in elephant dung was Chris Ofili.  And just in case we are keeping score, "Piss Christ" was Andres Serrano.  I'm still waiting for the artist brave enough to drop a certain religious book into a jar of urine and call it art but I guess most of these provocative artists aren't so brave when they might have to, you know, actually die for their art (unlike Theo van Gogh, who did die for his art) and prefer to attack targets that they know won't really threaten them.

John, Koltar, I could have sworn it was Mapplethorpe. Thanks for the correction, I must be going senile in my middle age and don't want the wrong guy tarred with my brush. Mea culpa and all that.

For those who are tired of this, I feel your pain. I was at the same point when the situation being described and discussed became Even More Fucked Up, which I hadn't thought possible. Thus the thread.

Ya'll may disbelieve en masse now...

Quote from: KoltarMany of those I've already seen - they were part of the exhibit.

I figured as much, yet you were talking about female body builders, nature, flowers, and one of your favorite singers.  That's not why people found Mapplethorpe's art obscene.
 

Quote from: KoltarThere was also a seperate part of the exhibit called "The X,Y,Z, portfolios" I believe - it had a barrier partition wall....to view those photos you had to make a choice. That section contained the more graphic documentation of gay life of a certain time period.  A time period that the artist knew was due to end. They were done in a more documentary style, but still had Mappletorpe's style and artistry.

The issue I'm trying to make here is not that the artwork depicts gay themes (though I'm sure that was an issue with many of his critics) but that it depicts things such as one man urinating into the mouth of another or sticking his foot up another's backside.  I think those images would be something that many people would react badly to, even if they were heterosexual.

Quote from: KoltarOkay - for clarification and reminder; I was one of the people that was and is strongly against the game Poison'dand those actual play examples.

Of course.  That's why I'm wondering why you are making an excepting for one man actually urinating in another's mouth or actually sticking a foot up another man's backside and think that's art, while a fantasy where people did nothing but describe vile behavior is a a problem to you.  Obviously you believe that things people do that they call art can be vile and worthy of condemnation, so I'm curious where you draw the line and why.

Quote from: KoltarAlso - apparently I am NOT an "old lady" as referred to by one poster who accused those that didn't like Baker's game to be one of those.

I didn't think you were, or I wouldn't have sent you the links.

Quote from: KoltarMapplethorpe's photographs can be considered artwork.  He knew what he was doing and had actual skill and talent.  The game Poison'd cannot really make that claim.

Based on that standard, I disagree.  I think plenty of people consider Vincent Baker a talented role-playing game designer, even if he's considered just another Swine over here.  I've read Dogs in the Vineyard and while I don't have much use for the mechanics, myself, I do think that he's a talented writer and a creative rules designer.

Quote from: KoltarMapplethorpe died of AIDS, in his later years he knew he had the disease....I could see the sadness in his later stuff.

I'm sure.  And John Wayne Gacey produced some very talented paintings of clowns but it doesn't change or excuse the fact that he (unlike any of the other artists/"artists" we've been talking about) did actually sexually assault and kill boys.  That a person can produce beautiful art does not mean that they also can't have very ugly things going on inside of them or that they can't also produce very ugly and vile things.

Quote from: KoltarAs a sidenote: I took 3 years worth of Art School classes at the DAAP/University of Cincinnati. I have "some talent", but not enough practice....I'm a pretty fair sketch artist after all these years - but I never finished my classes. Ran out of money.

So, does that make you qualified to play Poison'd like the people did in those actual play threads and call it art?

Quote from: KoltarMapplethorpe never endorsed rape or corpse violating.

No, but he did apparently take pictures of men urinating into the mouths of other men, men sticking their foot up the backside of another man, and himself with a bullwhip up his backside to share with others.  Those weren't just fantasies but people actually doing those things.

Quote from: KoltarThe writer of Poison'd and the game itself seens to.

What those actual play examples seemed to endorse was people engaging in fantasies about rape and corpse violating, which is different from actually endorsing those activities in real life, unlike taking pictures of people actually engaged sadomasochistic activities, including a self-portrait.

Quote from: GrimGentOf course you are free to do so at any time, and detailed discussion of play like that should always be one of those situations in which discretion is advised.

There was little discretion used in the initial pitch for Poison'd on RPGnet.  Quote the opposite, I think.  Did you call for discretion anywhere in that thread?

Quote from: GrimGentHowever, keep in mind that when the APs talk about how those scenes were "right", what they mean is that it makes sense for them to have happened in the context of the story and from the perspective of dramatic appropriateness, not that such atrocities are in themselves something to be celebrated.

While that may be true of Vincent Baker's actual play example, it was not at all clear in the actual play examples described by others, which seemed to be more about "How gross can I get?" and "Look how vile my character was!" than anything with deeper artistic meaning.

Quote from: GrimGentIt's not a game about rape, beheading and defilement, only about unpleasant people who are sometimes willing to do horrible things if they think that it will help them to reach their goals.

If rape and so forth are common features of the game as played, then it's what the game produces.  By this standard, Dungeons and Dragons isn't really about exploring dungeons because you don't have to ever enter a dungeon when you play Dungeons and Dragons.  It's an argument that you could make, but I think it winds up missing the forest by looking at a few atypical trees.

Quote from: GrimGentIf it really endorsed those horrible things, it wouldn't go out of its way to remind you at every turn that they are sinful and unnatural and ultimately as harmful to you as they are to your victims.

Based on the descriptions of Acts of Evil on Story-Games.com, however, it does sound like that game encourages players to be vile.  Or are the fans inaccurately describing that game in that thread, too?

Quote from: Abyssal MawBottom line: The theories are bullshit, the games are lame, and the people are total fucking tools.

For such wise words, l'shanah tovah. :D








P.S. It can be "art" and still be vile shit. For example, from our friends at WAR (White Aryan Resistance) (http://www.resist.com/CARTOON%20GALLERY/CartoonIndex.htm), we have,


Now, this is vile shit. It's bigoted, and has a strong implication of mass murder being planned. As a purely technical thing, it's drawn as skillfully as a lot of early rpg illustrations. Were they art? Then this is, too.

But it's still vile shit.

So. Could an rpg session where there's rape, child murder and molesting of corpses be "art"? Well, probably not, but let's say it is. It can be art, and still be vile shit.

Quote from: Kyle AaronP.S. It can be "art" and still be vile shit. For example, from our friends at...

Now, this is vile shit. It's bigoted, and has a strong implication of mass murder being planned. As a purely technical thing, it's drawn as skillfully as a lot of early rpg illustrations. Were they art? Then this is, too.

But it's still vile shit.

May I respectfully suggest that posting examples of such "art" may lead to an unfortunate arms race of vileness.

I would ask you, and others, to abstain from making this worse than it has to be.


TGA

'Fraid not. Vincent Baker already topped out on the vileness charts.

In any case, the point is made: it can be "art", and yet still be vile.

The question is not whether something is or is not art, but whether it is vile and/or puerile. Whether it's "art" is utterly irrelevant, whatever Koltar or droog think.

"This is nasty stuff, and that is art and therefore good." Bollocks. It's good or bad, and whether it's art or not is an entirely separate question.

Quote from: John MorrowThere was little discretion used in the initial pitch for Poison'd on RPGnet.  Quote the opposite, I think.  Did you call for discretion anywhere in that thread?

I've been maintaining from the start that this public focus on atrocities is a disservice to the game. Something like the recent "Accurs'd" AP from Story Games would no doubt have proven more palatable.

QuoteWhile that may be true of Vincent Baker's actual play example, it was not at all clear in the actual play examples described by others, which seemed to be more about "How gross can I get?" and "Look how vile my character was!" than anything with deeper artistic meaning.

True enough, but as said, that is true in any game. Also, remember that in this one, "being gross" can be a challenge even to the PCs themselves, since no character can for instance assault someone helpless without first overcoming his own sense of empathy and common human decency. In mechanical terms, this calls for testing Brutality against the difficulty of Soul, and if that fails, the assailant simply cannot bring himself to do it. A player cannot decide that his character is capable of foul acts. That's why I used someone trying to prove his own callousness as an example earlier: it's the character's moral scruples which determine whether he can ever bear to hurt the defenceless, not the player's.

QuoteIf rape and so forth are common features of the game as played, then it's what the game produces.  By this standard, Dungeons and Dragons isn't really about exploring dungeons because you don't have to ever enter a dungeon when you play Dungeons and Dragons.  It's an argument that you could make, but I think it winds up missing the forest by looking at a few atypical trees.

That's not really an accurate comparison, though. Choosing whether or not to explore that dungeon in D&D doesn't inherently lead to equally meaningful consequences in both cases, since it's expected that the dungeon is the pivotal element in the setting and that the charaters will end up in there. In Poison'd, the sins and hardships are definitely present in the setting, but resisting them and keeping your soul intact is just as viable an option as giving in to the seedier side of a pirate's life. You really don't have to enter that dungeon, because that's just one way to play the game, and going there isn't something that you can do casually anyway since the damage that you suffer as the result is irreversible.

QuoteBased on the descriptions of Acts of Evil on Story-Games.com, however, it does sound like that game encourages players to be vile.  Or are the fans inaccurately describing that game in that thread, too?

Acts of Evil? I think I've seen that mentioned somewhere before, but haven't any idea how it actually works. What does it have in common with Poison'd?

Quote from: KoltarNo, I really don't.

Mapplethorpe never endorsed rape or corpse violating.
The writer of Poison'd and the game itself seens to.


- Ed C.

They don't.

Quote from: KoltarNo, I really don't.

Mapplethorpe never endorsed rape or corpse violating.
The writer of Poison'd and the game itself seens to.


- Ed C.

They don't.

QuoteNo "veering' at all . My Gut "art-meter" says that Mapplethorpe was an artist, and Vincent Baker is not one.

It's a reliable meter for you, because it's easy and you don't feel the need to qualify it for yourself. But for the rest of us, it's hardly science.

It's not like the rest of walk around all day waiting for you to weigh in on what's art and what's not.

If it seems like I'm picking on you, Koltar, it's because... I am, I guess. You irritate me. Nearly everything you say on these boards is a paeon to missing the point. I'd probably game with you, and I might buy you a drink, in person, so don't take it too personally, but frankly, you're opinion on this stuff is pretty unqualified and uneducated. (In terms of, for example, what you think of the designers. Did you ever talk to them or pay attention to what they wrote? Read the game? You make claims like, "It seems like the support corpse violating." with the internet version of straight face, and you're not exactly known for your cunning wit and sarcasm.

Really, all this talk is exhaustive without being revealing. It doesn't sound like a great game, but let's leave the rhetoric at home on this one. Nobody except me supports corpse violation anyhow.

Quote from: GrimGentI've been maintaining from the start that this public focus on atrocities is a disservice to the game.

Fair enough, though I think that could have been worded a bit strongly.  While it's fair to criticize people for stubbornly believing things that have been explained to not be true about the system, I think that a little more criticism of the people who gave them that impression in the first place was probably warranted.

Quote from: GrimGentTrue enough, but as said, that is true in any game.

The problem is that it represented not only a sizable amount of the actual play examples that people were seeing for this new game but advocates were claiming that they were good representations of what the game was like.  There was a fair bit of "Yeah, it's like that" commentary with those actual play examples.

Quote from: GrimGentAlso, remember that in this one, "being gross" can be a challenge even to the PCs themselves, since no character can for instance assault someone helpless without first overcoming his own sense of empathy and common human decency. In mechanical terms, this calls for testing Brutality against the difficulty of Soul, and if that fails, the assailant simply cannot bring himself to do it. A player cannot decide that his character is capable of foul acts. That's why I used someone trying to prove his own callousness as an example earlier: it's the character's moral scruples which determine whether he can ever bear to hurt the defenceless, not the player's.

Interesting.  Not sure why a player would want to sacrifice that control, but then I think we have some different opinions about what role-playing is all about.

Quote from: GrimGentThat's not really an accurate comparison, though. Choosing whether or not to explore that dungeon in D&D doesn't inherently lead to equally meaningful consequences in both cases, since it's expected that the dungeon is the pivotal element in the setting and that the charaters will end up in there. In Poison'd, the sins and hardships are definitely present in the setting, but resisting them and keeping your soul intact is just as viable an option as giving in to the seedier side of a pirate's life.

That may be true, but that's not how some of the advocates were presenting things.  In his initial pitch, Ian Noble claimed, "You will play a pirate (of which there is a large variety) and you will do fucked up things -- or refuse and deal with the consequences."  That strongly suggested to people that either your character will do vile things or will suffer for it, and I got that impression elsewhere, too.

So a key question for me was whether the game was pushing the events in the game in the direction that those actual play threads reported (because there did seem to be a bit of a pattern), either because of or despite the mechanics of the game, intentionally or not.  Part of my "agenda" was to get Vincent to consider how people were actually using his game, the system's contribution to that, and whether that was his intent or not.  And I do think that it's legitimate to bring up the implications with respect to "System Matters" and what that means with respect to actual play examples for a system like that.

Quote from: GrimGentYou really don't have to enter that dungeon, because that's just one way to play the game, and going there isn't something that you can do casually anyway since the damage that you suffer as the result is irreversible.

Correct.  Yet most games wind up in a dungeon.  Why is that?  And if most games of Poison'd (and perhaps it's too early to make that call -- right now people are working with limited evidence) wind up with the players paying rapists and doing vile things, why would that be?

Quote from: GrimGentActs of Evil? I think I've seen that mentioned somewhere before, but haven't any idea how it actually works. What does it have in common with Poison'd?

Based on this thread on Story-Games.com:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4208

...it sounds like it's pretty much what many of the critics of Poison'd claimed Poison'd is.  The advocates in the thread claim, for example, that the game demands that the players come up with awful stuff.

ADDED:

Also see that game's author Paul Czege's comments here:

http://attacksofopportunity.blogspot.com/2006/01/whats-your-most-dangerous-gaming-idea.html

Sounds like purposely "entering seriously transgressive territory" and pushing players there is the desired goal of at least some of these games.

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: GrimGentAlso, remember that in this one, "being gross" can be a challenge even to the PCs themselves, since no character can for instance assault someone helpless without first overcoming his own sense of empathy and common human decency. In mechanical terms, this calls for testing Brutality against the difficulty of Soul, and if that fails, the assailant simply cannot bring himself to do it. A player cannot decide that his character is capable of foul acts. That's why I used someone trying to prove his own callousness as an example earlier: it's the character's moral scruples which determine whether he can ever bear to hurt the defenceless, not the player's.

Interesting.  Not sure why a player would want to sacrifice that control, but then I think we have some different opinions about what role-playing is all about.

A nice point, Mr. Morrow.  I'm curious, too, GG.  Why is the player character assaulting someone helpless.  What happens if the character fails? Why were the players so driven to have their characters perform the acts discussed if they had a choice?

Here's my guess - and I'll be content to find out I'm wrong - because the game is designed to make them; they actually have little to no choice.

Which is why I think Mr. Morrow is right when he lays this out:

Quote from: Joyhn MorrowIn his initial pitch, Ian Noble claimed, "You will play a pirate (of which there is a large variety) and you will do fucked up things -- or refuse and deal with the consequences."  That strongly suggested to people that either your character will do vile things or will suffer for it, and I got that impression elsewhere, too.

Can someone tell me what the point of this thread is?  I thought you'd all done your bitching and moaning about Poison'd and were off complaining about DnD 4th ed.

People of the RPGSite if Poison'd bugs you - don't play it.  If threads about it bug you - DON'T START ANOTHER ONE.

See, heres me all on my lonesome, thinking up magic schools for Reign.  I'm not stressed, I'm not fed up with anyone and all because I ignore that which offends yet has no real impact on my life.

Is Poison'd for me?  No.  So I move on.  I don't hover over a keyboard bemoaning the state of the world because someone, somewhere wrote a game I don't like.

Storm, this is Teacup.  Teacup, have you met Storm?

Vincent has a Hate Mail page for his earlier game Kill Puppies for Satan: http://lumpley.com/games/hatemail.php

He seems to enjoy getting and responding to his hate mail.  However...

Quote from: VincentSometimes people ask me when I'm going to post new hate mail. The sad fact is that kill puppies for satan fell off the front page when you google "puppies," so I don't get hate mail any more.

From his comments on RPG.net he is quite enjoying reading everyone's negative comments about his new game.  I imagine he's hoping for lots of angry hate mail as well.

If I hadn't seen his photo I would have thought he was much, much younger. :)

Quote from: John MorrowIn his initial pitch, Ian Noble claimed, "You will play a pirate (of which there is a large variety) and you will do fucked up things -- or refuse and deal with the consequences."  That strongly suggested to people that either your character will do vile things or will suffer for it, and I got that impression elsewhere, too.

There are always consequences. I suspect that Noble was talking about the social dynamic on the ship and the bargains which you may have to strike in order to fulfill your goals.

Hm. Think of it like this... Let's say that your PC is the one decent pirate in a crew of evil bastards who have just captured some unlucky passengers from an merchant vessel. They've decided to have celebrate by having an orgy on the deck and are aggressively pressuring your character to join in. Now, you could try to start a fight or make a deal to get everyone to leave those poor folks alone for now; however, it's more likely that your choices will boil down to going along with the abuse or refusing to have anything to do with it.

In the first case, "attacking the helpless", you must roll Brutality vs Soul to overcome the sense of revulsion. Succeed, and your character can go through with the act of violence: he is now guilty of the sin of Rape, so his Devil will rise by one and he will lose a point from his Soul permanently.

In the second case, "enduring duress", you must roll Soul vs Devil for your character to hold on to his dignity. Since unpleasant peer pressure isn't an actual hardship in itself, there are no specific mechanical effects either way, but success will allow him to keep him head cool and likewise still keep the respect of the others afterwards.

In both cases, a successful roll with earn you an "X", the one genuine reward which you always earn from succeeding in whatever it is that you set out to do, and which can be spent to gain advantages during combat and other conflicts.

So... where exactly are those great benefits of sinning?

Quote from: StumpydavePeople of the RPGSite if Poison'd bugs you - don't play it.  If threads about it bug you - DON'T START ANOTHER ONE.

How about you follow your own advice?  If this thread bothers you - don't read it.

I'm totaly going to kill this thread by not posting in it. Wait- I....Shit.

Quote from: James J SkachWhy is the player character assaulting someone helpless.  What happens if the character fails? Why were the players so driven to have their characters perform the acts discussed if they had a choice?

The only real reason to choose any course of action in the game is to make a statement about the nature of your character: all the mechanics reflect that. Raising your Devil does make your character more reckless so that he can go into danger (not combat which is handled separately, but for instance diving for treasures from a sinking ship) without caring about his personal safety, and that might be important to a particular player, but in general the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

Quote from: John MorrowHow about you follow your own advice?  If this thread bothers you - don't read it.

I know that I tagged out of this round, but fuck it, I am willing to be hypocritical here to make a point.

John, don't be surprised that a lot of people here don't want to talk about this game.  You're going to have to deal with the fact that those people will express their displeasure that you are dragging this shit from RPG.net into our backyard, so don't be so touchy.  It's the whole heat - kitchen thing.

Frankly, at least you are courteous in keeping it largely to a thread in Off Topic, so I thank you for that small mercy.

Please feel free to continue your tilting at windmills (it seems that only Grim Gent is the only one here even half-heartedly defending the game), but don't be surprised if you get flak for it.


TGA

Quote from: GrimGentNow, you could try to start a fight or make a deal to get everyone to leave those poor folks alone for now; however, it's more likely that your choices will boil down to going along with the abuse or refusing to have anything to do with it.

Consider what you are saying here.  The player could do the decent thing and try to stop the atrocity but you say it's more likely that the character will either go along with the atrocity or let it happen but simply not get involved, right?  So doesn't that suggest that it's likely that atrocities are going to happen in the game and that players aren't going to be stopping them, either becoming accessories to the atrocities or secondary victims of them?

Quote from: GrimGentIn the first case, "attacking the helpless", you must roll Brutality vs Soul to overcome the sense of revulsion. Succeed, and your character can go through with the act of violence: he is now guilty of the sin of Rape, so his Devil will rise by one and he will lose a point from his Soul permanently.

In the second case, "enduring duress", you must roll Soul vs Devil for your character to hold on to his dignity. Since unpleasant peer pressure isn't an actual hardship in itself, there are no specific mechanical effects either way, but success will allow him to keep him head cool and likewise still keep the respect of the others afterwards.

And what about actually stopping the abuse of the helpless?  How does one do that in the game?

Quote from: GrimGentSo... where exactly are those great benefits of sinning?

So exactly how does one actually stop the sinning?  Or isn't that an option?  And if the players played the game that way, would they be playing it as intended?  Is it possible to start the game with a character without sins (as the game defines them) or without owing sinners debts?

I also just realized that Poison'd does also take liberties with conventional Christianity in that it seems to suggest that players are saved by their Works rather than by faith and Grace.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianJohn, don't be surprised that a lot of people here don't want to talk about this game.

I'm not.  There are lots of things that get discussed on these boards that I don't want to talk about.  You don't see me endlessly whining in every thread that I don't like for people to talk about something else.  If your life is that boring, you need another hobby.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianYou're going to have to deal with the fact that those people will express their displeasure that you are dragging this shit from RPG.net into our backyard, so don't be so touchy.  It's the whole heat - kitchen thing.

I'm not touchy.  I just like pointing out hypocrisy when I see it.  If you think "ignore it" is good advice that's easy to follow, then you should follow your own advice.  And if you can't and can't let this go and want to keep talking about it, then you should be able to appreciate why other people don't want to let things go and want to endlessly talk about them.

I'll be happy to keep posting around your whining if you aren't done yet.  Really.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianFrankly, at least you are courteous in keeping it largely to a thread in Off Topic, so I thank you for that small mercy.

I haven't started any of these threads, have I?

Quote from: The Good AssyrianPlease feel free to continue your tilting at windmills (it seems that only Grim Gent is the only one here even half-heartedly defending the game), but don't be surprised if you get flak for it.

Seems like a pretty lively thread to me.

Quote from: John MorrowThe player could do the descent thing and try to stop the atrocity but you say it's more likely that the character will either go along with the atrocity or let it happen but simply not get involved, right?  So doesn't that suggest that it's likely that atrocities are going to happen in the game and that players aren't going to be stopping them, either becoming accessories to the atrocities or secondary victims of them?

In that example, one well-meaning PC is outnumbered by those who mean harm. That doesn't have to be case: the crew might scrupulously avoid injuring others because of some code of honour among thieves. Besides, remember that the sins do not necessarily involve violence of any kind since they also include consensual adultery and discreet idolatry. Again, what happens during play is up to the players.

QuoteAnd what about actually stopping the abuse of the helpless?  How does one do that in the game?

By not abusing the helpless, obviously. There are no other mechanics for interacting with the rest of the crew except for fighting, so if stopping the abuse really matters to your character and if he can't convince the others peacefully, he can always put his life on the life and draw his weapons.

QuoteSo exactly how does one actually stop the sinning?  Or isn't that an option?  And if the players played the game that way, would they be playing it as intended?  Is it possible to start the game with a character without sins (as the game defines them) or without owing sinners debts?

Every PC always starts out with the minimum Devil of 2 (which can be later reduced to 0 by seeking redemption), to represent various minor transgressions, but any actual past sins that a player chooses during chargen are completely optional. Your character can begin the game completely sinless, and he can remain that way to the end. Sinning always involves a choice by the player.

Quote from: GrimGentIn that example, one well-meaning PC is outnumbered by those who mean harm. That doesn't have to be case: the crew might scrupulously avoid injuring others because of some code of honour among thieves. Besides, remember that the sins do not necessarily involve violence of any kind since they also include consensual adultery and discreet idolatry. Again, what happens during play is up to the players.

So the players could, if they wanted to, sail off to a remote island like Fletcher Christian and The Bounty mutineers and never sin again?  Why haven't we seen anything like that in any of the actual play threads?

Quote from: GrimGentBy not abusing the helpless, obviously.  There are no other mechanics for interacting with the rest of the crew except for fighting, so if stopping the abuse really matters to your character and if he can't convince the others peacefully, he can always put his life on the life and draw his weapons.

OK.  Fair enough.

Quote from: GrimGentEvery PC always starts out with the minimum Devil of 2 (which can be later reduced to 0 by seeking redemption), to represent various minor transgressions, but any actual past sins that a player chooses during chargen are completely optional. Your character can begin the game completely sinless, and he can remain that way to the end. Sinning always involves a choice by the player.

OK.  Again, fair enough.  ADDED:  To clarify, are you saying that a character cannot sin unless the player chooses for them to sin?

Have you seen any actual play discussions where a player actually made that choice?

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not.  There are lots of things that get discussed on these boards that I don't want to talk about.  You don't see me endlessly whining in every thread that I don't like for people to talk about something else.  If your life is that boring, you need another hobby.

The other edge of the free expression sword is that people can and will make their opinions known.  This may include the opinion that they are sick of hearing about yours.  I seem to be the target of your ire, for example...

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not touchy.  I just like pointing out hypocrisy when I see it.  If you think "ignore it" is good advice that's easy to follow, then you should follow your own advice.  And if you can't and can't let this go and want to keep talking about it, then you should be able to appreciate why other people don't want to let things go and want to endlessly talk about them.

Again, fair point.  I actually don't particularly get worked up about Poison'd itself.  I don' think it is particularly deserving of the attention that it is getting, frankly.  What does concern me is the fact that these discussions have the potential to cause damage to the site.  I am concerned about community standards, and if it sucks up too much oxygen then I think that it is bad.

Again, entirely my opinion.

Quote from: John MorrowI'll be happy to keep posting around your whining if you aren't done yet.  Really.

Oh, I am done now.  Post away! ;)

Good luck and all that.

Quote from: John MorrowI haven't started any of these threads, have I?

Noted, and thank you.

Quote from: John MorrowSeems like a pretty lively thread to me.

You are correct, although it is mostly now a slogging match between you and Grim Gent.  


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianThe other edge of the free expression sword is that people can and will make their opinions known.  This may include the opinion that they are sick of hearing about yours.

Sure.  And that also may include the opinion that people who whine that others should just ignore something should practice what they preach.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI seem to be the target of your ire, for example...

You jumped in and responded to a reply I had directed at someone else.  If you want to step in to the line of fire, don't complain when you become a target. :p

Quote from: The Good AssyrianWhat does concern me is the fact that these discussions have the potential to cause damage to the site.  I am concerned about community standards, and if it sucks up too much oxygen then I think that it is bad.

As Kyle said, I think the best solution to that is to start threads that people are even more interested in spending time reading and replying to.

It lives, it thrives!   It's awesome that the kneejerk moralists on this board are the ones propagating discussion of the game they hate so much.

Just underlines how much your reactions are emotional and have nothing to do with actual right or wrong.

Quote from: John MorrowSo the players could, if they wanted to, sail off to a remote island like Fletcher Christian and The Bounty mutineers and never sin again?  Why haven't we seen anything like that in any of the actual play threads?

The game starts out from a situation in which the entire crew has been betrayed by the cook and a British warship is closing in on them. Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning, and you can't escape that. You could give yourselves in peacefully, but that wouldn't make for much of a game.

QuoteTo clarify, are you saying that a character cannot sin unless the player chooses for them to sin?

The PC cannot be forced to take any action against the will of the player. He can be humiliated or tortured or killed, but he cannot be forced to sin. Even if he has made an unsavoury bargain which might call on him to hurt others, whoever it is that he made that deal with can only withdraw dice from his pool as a punishment for not fulfilling the agreed terms: bargains can give others a hold on your soul, but never complete power over you.

QuoteHave you seen any actual play discussions where a player actually made that choice?

Not that I recall: then again, I haven't seen many APs at all, and none that are very extensive. But it's not really surprising, considering that by default at least most of the pirates in the game are unpleasant people doing unpleasant things.

Quote from: walkerpIt lives, it thrives!   It's awesome that the kneejerk moralists on this board are the ones propagating discussion of the game they hate so much.

Just underlines how much your reactions are emotional and have nothing to do with actual right or wrong.

The knee jerks both ways, my friend.

Quote from: John MorrowSure.  And that also may include the opinion that people who whine that others should just ignore something should practice what they preach.

I am only human... :p


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI am only human... :p


TGA

Your appreciation of bacon sets you apart and above.

Quote from: walkerpIt lives, it thrives!   It's awesome that the kneejerk moralists on this board are the ones propagating discussion of the game they hate so much.

So you prefer the ostrich school of dealing with things that you don't like?

Quote from: walkerpJust underlines how much your reactions are emotional and have nothing to do with actual right or wrong.

Ah, but what people consider write and wrong is all about reactions and emotions.  I'm going to guess that statement runs counter to how you think things work but here are a few good articles to start with:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save/article_view

//www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/web_material/LATimes_5-2-04.pdf

http://www.hum.utah.edu/philosophy/faculty/nichols/Papers/PsychopathsFinal.htm

And, yes, if you want the peer-reviewed research papers because articles directed at laymen are beneath you (as I've had others tell me), I can give you links to those, too.

Quote from: GrimGentThe game starts out from a situation in which the entire crew has been betrayed by the cook and a British warship is closing in on them. Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning, and you can't escape that. You could give yourselves in peacefully, but that wouldn't make for much of a game.

So does that mean that the game is unsuitable for that sort of play?  If not, how would you characterize it?

Quote from: GrimGentThe PC cannot be forced to take any action against the will of the player. He can be humiliated or tortured or killed, but he cannot be forced to sin. Even if he has made an unsavoury bargain which might call on him to hurt others, whoever it is that he made that deal with can only withdraw dice from his pool as a punishment for not fulfilling the agreed terms: bargains can give others a hold on your soul, but never complete power over you.

OK.  Thanks.

Quote from: GrimGentNot that I recall: then again, I haven't seen many APs at all, and none that are very extensive. But it's not really surprising, considering that by default at least most of the pirates in the game are unpleasant people doing unpleasant things.

Why is that the default?

Quote from: AosYour appreciation of bacon sets you apart and above.

Well that explains everything, then.  He's one of those Baconist Swine.
;)

Quote from: John MorrowWell that explains everything, then.  He's one of those Baconist Swine.
;)

Me too!

Quote from: John MorrowSo does that mean that the game is unsuitable for that sort of play?

The game comes with a very narrowly focused initial premise with specific events and conflicts set in motion. The PCs are pirates who have done at least some terrible things in the past and who are now about to face judgment for it: that never changes. You might be able to pull off a scenario like "The Loot of Bombasharna" with it, though, even if that might cause problems for the clashing personal goals which are supposed to drive play.

Quote from: GrimGentThe game comes with a very narrowly focused initial premise with specific events and conflicts set in motion. The PCs are pirates who have done at least some terrible things in the past and who are now about to face judgment for it: that never changes. You might be able to pull off a scenario like "The Loot of Bombasharna" with it, though, even if that might cause problems for the clashing personal goals which are supposed to drive play.

OK.  Fair enough.

Quote from: John MorrowSo you prefer the ostrich school of dealing with things that you don't like?

No I prefer not meddling in other people's affairs and telling them that what they do is morally right or wrong.  If they are doing something negative to society at large, then I will do my lowly, civic best to deal with it.  But as far as consumption of entertainment, it's really not my business.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  Fair enough.

"Things had grown too hot for Shard, captain of pirates, on all the seas that he knew. The ports of Spain were closed to him; they knew him in San Domingo; men winked in Syracuse when he went by; the two Kings of the Sicilies never smiled within an hour of speaking of him; there were huge rewards for his head in every capital city, with pictures of it for identification -- and all the pictures were unflattering."

Lord Dunsany, "The Loot of Bombasharna" (http://www.sff.net/people/DoyleMacdonald/d_loot.htm)

Hi folks,

I'm a new poster here, but I've been lurking on and off for the past two or three days and felt the need to say two or three things.


First, I want to say that this thread is great! I really mean that. It seems like most of the folks in the thread are really enjoying themselves, ratcheting up the rhetoric from time to time, and, in general, just having a blast gettin' their hate on over this game! Personally, I've no interest in going down that road with you all, but it appears--at least to this outsider--that the bus trip is full of diverting and pleasurable moments. And hey, gettin' your hate on over a game designed by a real person is surely a whole hell of a lot better than participating in a game where your character commits atrocities against imaginary people, right?



Second, I wanted to say thanks for the moments of pleasure you've given me while I've been reading this thread. I mean that too. I'm sure that some of my fellow Swine lurk here for crassly voyeuristic reasons--kind of like going to the zoo to watch the monkeys throw poo at each other--but I've derived some genuine and, I hope, slightly more defensible pleasure from some of the things that have been written here. Admittedly, it is usually not the ideas I find compelling so much as the manner in which they are expressed. I'm thinking particularly of some of the posts by Kyle Aaron which have a kind of coarse, bilious magnificence to them. I'm totally serious. As much as I disagree with the substance of the posts there is something deeply satisfying about seeing someone commit himself so totally to giving vent to his spleen, and doing so in such memorable phrases!

Sure there have been some complainers ("whingers," I think, is how Kyle A referred to them), but I think you all should ignore them and keep on truckin'. Frankly, I don't think they see the value that these threads have, which I will enumerate below:


1) They give the posters who contribute to them the chance to relieve themselves. Literally. They are kind of like  colostomy bags for your mind-piss. Stuff builds up in the system--thoughts about people getting their jollies in a roleplaying game where the characters do horrific shit, thoughts that could turn toxic if allowed to build up--and gets released into the internet in a steady yellow stream. Aristotelian catharsis of a sort. Add to this the satisfying schadenfreude of being the one doing the pissing rather than the one being pissed on, and you've got double-plus good fun!

2) They build esprit de corps. The gaming world is a lonely place and, with perverts like Vincent Baker out there, an increasingly scary one too! Collectively blowing off steam in threads like these is a way to create an important sense of community. I've often told my students who've complained about certain required, common first-year courses that they fail to see the way these courses give them an opportunity to bond by forging community around the act of collective complaint. The same holds here. All communities engage in this sort of thing and you all seem to be well on your way to building a cozy little community of your own around it here.

3) They have real-world value as well. They give people an excellent forum in which to hone their rhetorical chops before applying for positions with conservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation or with news organizations like Fox. Seriously, if you get good enough at this kind of stuff, you can really make it pay. I mean, big bucks folks! Of course, in order to do that you need to have worthy opponents to travesty and you need to perfect those rhetorical skills through regular and diligent exercise. Oh, and it helps to have strong models and a sense of the tradition. So to help that along I'll close by posting this little number from circa 1583 (but reprinted frequently). It's Philip Stubbes' Anatomie of Abuses which rails against Elizabethan playhouses, playwrights, and their audiences:


"...mark the flocking and running to Theaters and Curtains, daily and hourly, night and day, time and tide, to see Plays and Interludes, where such wanton gestures, such bawdy speeches, such laughing and flearing, such kissing...such winking and glancing of wanton eyes, and the like is used....Then these goodly Pageants being ended, every mate sorts to his other mate, every one brings another homeward of their way very friendly, and in their secret conclaves, covertly, they play the Sodomites, or worse."


All the best,

manny

Quote from: GrimGentIt's not a game about rape, beheading and defilement, only about unpleasant people who are sometimes willing to do horrible things if they think that it will help them to reach their goals.

Most of us don't believe that anything meaningful can be learned about such extreme traumas by playing them in a game. I'd guess most mental health professionals don't believe so either. Furthermore, the extreme, over-the-top brutality of the actions described in the APs suggests that on some level the people playing the game were revelling in the grotesque. The violent sado-sexual scenes depicted in the APs sure sound a lot like S&M fanfic to me.

So what concern of other roleplayers is this apparent S&M emo-tourism? Well, the designer of the game himself posted one of the APs, so it raises questions about the game and the intent of the design. Then there's the fact that this and some other games that carry the odour of sado-masichistic fetishism have come out of a very small indie RPG clique. Nobody in that scene has questioned or criticized the games, which suggests that the indie scene is at least tacitly comfortable with sado-sexual roleplaying and relishing topics for the sheer shock value. And frankly, a lot of us think the hobby is marginal enough as it is without being associated with jack-off artists and emotionally-warped fetishists. They should just come out and call their indie movement Dark Adult RPGs or S&M gaming. And if the non-extreme storytellers want to keep their movement from being sullied with the sick-fucks, then they should come out and denounce them.

Oh Manny, I love you.

(sits back and waits for the deluge)

Quote from: HaffrungMost of us don't believe that anything meaningful can be learned about such extreme traumas by playing them in a game.

Who has even suggested that "learning about extreme traumas" is the purpose of the game? I know I haven't. It's not meant for therapy sessions, after all.

Hey, manny!  Welcome to the board!  Did you come 'round just to be a flyby smug asshole, or do you plan on sticking around and actually engaging people?

Quote from: jrientsHey, manny!  Welcome to the board!  Did you come 'round just to be a flyby smug asshole, or do you plan on sticking around and actually engaging people?

If his rpg.net performance is any guide, his shtick is to hide behind drama queenery and pretentious name dropping. There's just nothing there.

Quote from: StumpydaveSee, heres me all on my lonesome, thinking up magic schools for Reign.  I'm not stressed, I'm not fed up with anyone and all because I ignore that which offends yet has no real impact on my life.

How's this part going? Reign sits woefully unloved on my shelf, since my current group has a couple players that don't like learning new rules.

Quote from: John MorrowSo the players could, if they wanted to, sail off to a remote island like Fletcher Christian and The Bounty mutineers and never sin again?  Why haven't we seen anything like that in any of the actual play threads?

Just wanted to say the Fletcher Christian reference made the fiancee grin. There's a Rasputina album that's kind of an alternate story about their settlement she adores.

manny is probably best served as IL fodder. TBP has got a full on hate boner for this place these days, and we're likely to see temporary infusions of cockwits and fucknuggets now that they've caught the scent again with this whole Fuck'd In The He'd debacle.

I'm going back to leaving this shitheap of a thread alone. I've got some 1e supplemental races to balance.

Quote from: GrimGentWho has even suggested that "learning about extreme traumas" is the purpose of the game? I know I haven't. It's not meant for therapy sessions, after all.

I sure got that impression from Baker's AP. But glad to know it's just sheer joy of revelling in extreme brutality that inspired the game.

There was a chapter in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead where three or four "artists" were sitting around getting drunk and playing a game of "Top this...".
 That where they try to think of the most obnoxious or stupid idea to present to the public and then tell them they have to accept it ... because its "Art".

 Thats what both Puppies in The Swineyard and Poison'd seem like to me.  Over-hyped jokes, except Vincent seems to really believe in them and the emo-tourism of them.

- Ed C.

Quote from: HaffrungI sure got that impression from Baker's AP. But glad to know it's just sheer joy of revelling in extreme brutality that inspired the game.

I'll be looking forward to seeing you denounce anyone who enjoys playing a loyal servant of the Inquisition out to crush every sign of tolerance in that upcoming WH40K RPG, then.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIf his rpg.net performance is any guide, his shtick is to hide behind drama queenery and pretentious name dropping. There's just nothing there.

That's very funny coming from you, Pierce, but actually your post exemplifies the very things I find so refreshing about this place! (and I sincerely mean that)

You're no Kyle Aaron, I'll give you that, but in your own way you too have perfected a kind of rhetorical shtick that is simply irresistable in its charms. It's that exquisite balance of high-toned disdain and simple name calling that sets you apart from the folks who are still mere apprentices at this sort of thing and that I find so appealing.

As for the "pretentious name dropping" comment, I'll let that pass and just apologize in advance if you feel like your status as the "critical theory" guy is being challenged by some interloper who's read the same stuff you have. If you're serious about landing tenure somewhere you'll need to get over that eventually, but I can understand how being able to swing it around here unchallenged might provide you with a self-satisfied feeling of superiority you're unlikely to receive in the academic world.

And to jreints: Sorry if I came across as smug. I was being completely sincere in my praise for this place. It does seem like people are really having a good time in this thread! I have also (honestly) enjoyed reading it. And I do think it has some real value, despite what my fellow Swine might think.


So, I just wanted to drop in and offer my thanks. Kind of like dropping a few bucks in the hat of the guy standing on the corner playing alto.

All the best,

manny

Quote from: mannydipressoThey give people an excellent forum in which to hone their rhetorical chops before applying for positions with conservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation or with news organizations like Fox.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I was, unfortunately, exposed to the trolling of manny before getting him in the IL, but I just want anyone who thinks the idea that "swine" are smug, pretentious assholes - there you have it.

And it's not like I'm calling him something ("swine") he didn't cop to.

So if you ever wonder why people think about these people in this way, just look at those posts.

I'm looking at you Tony.

-------

If you notice, John Morrow and GrimGent were rationally discussing the subject.  Instead of engaging in that level of discussion, we get walker calling everyone who would dare to judge the actions of another person a knee-jerk moralists. Apparently he makes the same mistake many people do in conflating judging someone's behavior as somehow interfering with that behavior. Or we get Stumpydave who admonishes us to stop talking about this and sets himself up as the example because he's thinking up magic schools. He does this, of course, by posting in the thread. So we get logic like this, "Is Poison'd for me? No. So I move on. I don't hover over a keyboard bemoaning the state of the world because someone, somewhere wrote a game I don't like." Apparently he does hover over a keyboard bemoaning the state of the world because someone, somewhere posted in a thread on an RPG forum about a game they didn't like.

I'm not complaining about the complaining about the co...oh hell.  The point is, there was an interesting discussion here for people who weren't so quick to leap to the "you can't judge other people" conclusion that they missed the forest for the trees.

"I'm not complaining about the complaining about the co...oh hell. The point is, there was an interesting discussion here for people who weren't so quick to leap to the "you can't judge other people" conclusion that they missed the forest for the trees."

Yeah, well buddy, let me tell you...them trees been awful quiet since they killed Sonny Bono and that Kennedy feller a while ago.  Them trees is missing our blood and they'll soon strike!  'Ware the pines! 'Ware the pines!

Danger....that was...um very "TWIN PEAKS" of you.
Have you been listening to that lady's  Log?


- Ed C.

Quote from: mannydipressoAs for the "pretentious name dropping" comment, I'll let that pass

I'm not.

What's the relation between Paul Klee and Vincent Baker, according to you?

Let's see what you've got.

Academic cage-fight!

Quote from: James J SkachOr we get Stumpydave who admonishes us to stop talking about this and sets himself up as the example because he's thinking up magic schools. He does this, of course, by posting in the thread. So we get logic like this, "Is Poison'd for me? No. So I move on. I don't hover over a keyboard bemoaning the state of the world because someone, somewhere wrote a game I don't like." Apparently he does hover over a keyboard bemoaning the state of the world because someone, somewhere posted in a thread on an RPG forum about a game they didn't like.

Oh gods I have created a monster and that monster is...ME!!!

Dude, all I was trying to say is don't stress over a game you don't like.  Simple as that.  

As to setting myself up as an example - well, why not.  I'm bloody perfect.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'm not.

What's the relation between Paul Klee and Vincent Baker, according to you?

Let's see what you've got.

Dear God, Pierce, are you serious?!?


This is easy.

None. No relation.

There, did I pass?



Howza 'bout, "What's the status of the utopian for Adorno as compared with Bloch, and could you trace its career through Jameson's thinking from pre-Seeds of Time to the present?" Give me a fucking challenge, at least!



Oh and I responded to this mainly because I wanted to showcase my new avatar. Hope y'all like it!

manny


P.S. I'm really not here to pee in your pool, folks. I sincerely have enjoyed reading this thread, hope it flourishes, and simply wanted to say "thanks" for the pleasure it has brought me. The graphics you all have come up with using Ron's head are super-duper. If you insist on reading more into my original post than I ever meant...well, that's on you.

Quote from: droogAcademic cage-fight!

Two theories enter.

One thesis leaves.

Quote from: James J SkachInstead of engaging in that level of discussion, we get walker calling everyone who would dare to judge the actions of another person a knee-jerk moralists. Apparently he makes the same mistake many people do in conflating judging someone's behavior as somehow interfering with that behavior.

Well they "Judged" about 800 posts ago.  I heard their fearful judgements and labeled them FALSE.  Then they continue to whine and rant about how this corrupt, decadent style of gaming is bringing down the industry and making us all look bad in the rest of the world's eyes.  As long as they keep judging, I'm going to keep calling them emotional moralists trying to impose their will and judgement on other people's playstyles.

Quote from: walkerpWell they "Judged" about 800 posts ago.  I heard their fearful judgements and labeled them FALSE.  Then they continue to whine and rant about how this corrupt, decadent style of gaming is bringing down the industry and making us all look bad in the rest of the world's eyes.  As long as they keep judging, I'm going to keep calling them emotional moralists trying to impose their will and judgement on other people's playstyles.

Walker,

I think rather that they are engaging in the slow process of acquiring a particular kind--and a particularly powerful kind--of linguistic habitus, a process which might, if they follow my suggestion, result in the acquisition of something more than just cultural capital.  Those think-tanks I mentioned are well-endowed.



manny

Quote from: mannydipressoThose think-tanks I mentioned are well-endowed.

Yes, I donate to them and get their literature. :p

Quote from: mannydipressoDear God, Pierce, are you serious?!?


This is easy.

None. No relation.

There, did I pass?



Howza 'bout, "What's the status of the utopian for Adorno as compared with Bloch, and could you trace its career through Jameson's thinking from pre-Seeds of Time to the present?" Give me a fucking challenge, at least!

That's it?

More posturing, more name dropping, more excuses.

You got nothing. QED.

Wow, mannydipresso. Nice to see you again. So trying to impress audience around here with your manners? No this is not just about the game, is it. It is some kind of personal quest. Like holy grail or something.

You know, you have lost your cause, coming here with that kind of posts. Especially after that high quality preaching about bullying and passive agressivness. And here we are. If you want to pretend you are just defending the game, you should stay in that thread on rpg.net. Here the motivation of you is different. Your emotional involvement fascinated me all the time... but now, this is to much for such cause.

So what is your true motivation, here? What are you trying to reach? What's your goal.

Quote from: mannydipressoThey give people an excellent forum in which to hone their rhetorical chops before applying for positions with conservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation or with news organizations like Fox.

Yeah, 'cuz if you're not cool with roleplaying the savage rape and mutilation of dead children, then you're an uptight puritan. Surely every liberal-minded person can see how a shared story about throat-fucking decapitated corpses and cutting off the cocks of pirates is really a meaningful exploration of child abuse and sin.

The storyteller movement will no doubt be vindicated when graphically-detailed stories about sexual grotesquery, savage sadism, and necrophelia involving children become mainstream outside the domain of teenage boys and trenchcoat-wearing misanthropes. Maybe the intimate ultra-violent-porn story sessions of Vince Baker and his clique will some day be hailed as serious works of dark imagination on a par with Burroughs or Ballard. Or maybe they'll be just a sordid footnote in the online history of a particularly creepy and pretentious offshoot of gaming/goth subculture. Who can say.

Quote from: HaffrungYeah, 'cuz if you're not cool with roleplaying the savage rape and mutilation of dead children, then you're an uptight puritan. Surely every liberal-minded person can see how a shared story about throat-fucking decapitated corpses and cutting off the cocks of pirates is really a meaningful exploration of child abuse and sin.

Awesome!  A criticism of the excluded middle in your first sentence and then a perfect example of the usage of same in the next.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat's it?

More posturing, more name dropping, more excuses.

You got nothing. QED.

Pierce,

The reason that's all you got is due more to the nature of your question than to any "posturing" or "excuses" on my part.

If one mark of an intelligent person is the ability to frame an interesting and provocative question, yours failed to measure up on both grounds.

Thus my brief reply.

I'll leave it to others here to reflect on the absurdity of you, of all people, accusing someone of name-dropping, you adorable little "hardcore Nietzschean," you! (or is it "Deleuzean"). QED yourself, big boy!

Kisses,

manny


Oh, and Alnag my purpose here was, as I said before, just to say how much I've enjoyed the conversation on the thread. You'll notice I haven't defended the game once here. I'm just spreading the love, man.

Quote from: mannydipressoSmoke and Mirrors

You were the one to bring up the connection between Klee and Baker, sonny. On rpg.net, remember? It's totally dumb, I'll give you that. That's why I asked you for an explanation in the first place.

Soooo... will you deliver one?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou were the one to bring up the connection between Klee and Baker, sonny. On rpg.net, remember? It's totally dumb, I'll give you that. That's why I asked you for an explanation in the first place.

Soooo... will you deliver one?

Actually, Pierce, the above is you standing in public and, like the "translated" Bottom, revealing yourself to be an ass-head while you attribute asinine thinking to others.

Go back to that rpg.net thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=7768150&postcount=598 (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=7768150&postcount=598)) and you'll see that the Klee quote was used as a response to what I perceived (wrongly, as it turns out) to be -E's insistence that art be beautiful.

It was, in other words, a shorthand objection to what I took to be an overly narrow aesthetic demand (again, wrongly as -E reminded me and I admitted) and not a statement of a "relation between Klee and Vincent Baker" as you would have it.


But to understand that, you would have to be capable of actually reading well, which you appear not to have done in this case. More importantly--and this is no doubt the more galling part for you--it would require admitting the possibility of your misreading.


Really, Pierce, this is a sad perfomance on your part. Did that bit about the hypocrisy of your "name-dropping" accusation get to you that deeply? Is that why you had to quote it as "Smoke and Mirrors?"


Be careful, I think they're on to you. This .sig is for you.

Manny D,

 Your responses would make more sense if you could keep the same margins that everybody else does.


- Ed C.

Quote from: walkerpWell they "Judged" about 800 posts ago.  I heard their fearful judgements and labeled them FALSE.  Then they continue to whine and rant about how this corrupt, decadent style of gaming is bringing down the industry and making us all look bad in the rest of the world's eyes.  As long as they keep judging, I'm going to keep calling them emotional moralists trying to impose their will and judgement on other people's playstyles.

As Aos referenced in his great retort "the knee jerks both ways," your reaction is just as judgmental as anything anyone else has said. Why is that you are so willing and ready to jump on someone for seeing this play as disgusting - passing judgement on them, but so hesitant and unwilling to judge the people who actually participated in these sessions?

Quote from: walkerpAwesome!  A criticism of the excluded middle in your first sentence and then a perfect example of the usage of same in the next.

I believe manny excluded the middle long ago - as have you.

Quote from: James J SkachWhy is that you are so willing and ready to jump on someone for seeing this play as disgusting - passing judgement on them, but so hesitant and unwilling to judge the people who actually participated in these sessions?

Because, of course, being judgmental has become the only sin.

Quote from: James J SkachAs Aos referenced in his great retort "the knee jerks both ways," your reaction is just as judgmental as anything anyone else has said. Why is that you are so willing and ready to jump on someone for seeing this play as disgusting - passing judgement on them, but so hesitant and unwilling to judge the people who actually participated in these sessions?

Because the people playing Poison'd are not trying to restrict the contents of my own games, nor the communication thereof.  But the moralists seem ready to throw free speech out the window in their horror and disgust.  Being a strong believer in the right to free speech, I have a problem with this.  These days, especially.  Generally, the inability to separate fiction from reality and to conflate the one with the other has been a staple of societies and segments of societies that want to suppress freedom.  

And it's just so fucking lame!  "Ohmigod!  Look how sick and depraved these people are!  I'm shocked and angry.  I hate them for thinking and saying those things.  They might touch our children.  Or try to rape their necks.  Must protect!  MUST DESTROY THE MORAL OTHER!"

It's so atavistic and primitive.  Just stop it.  Let them have their neck raping and special circle.  They aren't in your living room.

Quote from: John MorrowBecause, of course, being judgmental has become the only sin.

Being judgmental of content is the only sin.  Being judgemental of game system is fine.

But I'd rather judge the people.

I mean, the game didn't write a script for them. They decided to do sick shit.

Hell, the game didn't even have a Random Sick Shit Table. They had to come up with the details themselves.

Obviously they're cocksmocks.

Quote from: walkerpBecause the people playing Poison'd are not trying to restrict the contents of my own games, nor the communication thereof.  But the moralists seem ready to throw free speech out the window in their horror and disgust.  Being a strong believer in the right to free speech, I have a problem with this.

Okay, where in fuck in this whole thread have you seen anyone declare that Vince Baker shouldn't be allowed to wallow in the ugly products of his imagination? Look, this is how free speech works:

Vince Baker is free to say whatever the fuck he pleases, in a game or elsewhere.

Everybody else is free to criticize, judge, and heap scorn on anything Vince Baker says.

It's pretty fucking straightforward. Criticizing =/= censoring.

Quote from: HaffrungOkay, where in fuck in this whole thread have you seen anyone declare that Vince Baker shouldn't be allowed to wallow in the ugly products of his imagination? Look, this is how free speech works:

Vince Baker is free to say whatever the fuck he pleases, in a game or elsewhere.

Everybody else is free to criticize, judge, and heap scorn on anything Vince Baker says.

It's pretty fucking straightforward. Criticizing =/= censoring.

This is unfortunately a point that is often completely lost on the Internet.  

I'm surprised no one has started screeching about "PC" yet.

Quote from: HaffrungOkay, where in fuck in this whole thread have you seen anyone declare that Vince Baker shouldn't be allowed to wallow in the ugly products of his imagination? Look, this is how free speech works:

Vince Baker is free to say whatever the fuck he pleases, in a game or elsewhere.

Everybody else is free to criticize, judge, and heap scorn on anything Vince Baker says.

It's pretty fucking straightforward. Criticizing =/= censoring.

Agreed.  But the only reason it remains criticizing is that there is nothing they can do. But there has been a lot of talk about getting them out of "our" hobby and measures to ensure that others don't perceive them to represent the rest of the hobby.  That's what bothers me.

But also, it's just annoying.

Wow.

Mannydipresso, I'd like to thank you for showing up here and behaving exactly the way you have, its been informative.

Now, for everyone else reading, I'd like you to compare the behavior of Mannydipresso to that of GrimGent on this thread. Now I don't agree with GrimGent's stance on Poison'd and think he is dead wrong in his opinion. However, I do think he has been posting in an intelligent and adult manner that has enriched the discussion. Compared to MannyDipresso, who has obviously just joined theRPGsite to stir up shit with a big spoon.

So, a thank you goes out to GrimGent.

This thread now also has bearing on the discussion in the Help Desk section, since while we have agreed to discuss games that we consider to be unworthy and non-traditional, we still have some standards about the manner with which we discuss them. Its not a discussion if a poster's sole reason for posting is to be a troll and their intent on joining a forum is to piss people off. However, with Mannydipresso as an example, that is what we see happen.

Back to the debate on Poison'd, it has been said by Vincent Baker himself on RPGnet that the game that produced the AP report was not a game, but an artistic expression. OK, I'll buy that, but it seems that the actual game is the controversy that has come from reading and analyzing the Actual Play report.

As for being judgemental, if you do not want people reading your AP reports or judging the events described in them that came from a game you've written, then it is only logical to not post the fucking things on the internet. Its out there, its in the public domain of ideas now, and it is being raked over the coals as it should be.

Quote from: walkerpBut there has been a lot of talk about getting them out of "our" hobby and measures to ensure that others don't perceive them to represent the rest of the hobby.  That's what bothers me.

Walkerp, would you say that the play detailed in the Actual Play report that started all this debate is common and represents the majority of games in this hobby?

Would you print out the AP report and hand that to someone who was interested in RPGs and then tell them that it is an example of the majority of gameplay that happens?

If a reporter came up and said they were doing an article or a TV news report on gaming and wanted an example of common actual play, would you point them to the Poison'd AP report?

Quote from: walkerpBut the moralists seem ready to throw free speech out the window in their horror and disgust.  Being a strong believer in the right to free speech, I have a problem with this.

Those who practice their liberty without responsibility are bound to lose their liberty because the irresponsible use of liberty makes that liberty a liability to others.  So if you want to keep a liberty, it's in your best interest to encourage it to be used with responsibility rather than pushing its use to extremes that make other people want to take it away.

Quote from: walkerpThese days, especially.

So how has your right to free speech personally been curtailed lately, particularly in a way that it wouldn't have been 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

Quote from: walkerpGenerally, the inability to separate fiction from reality and to conflate the one with the other has been a staple of societies and segments of societies that want to suppress freedom.

A much larger threat to your liberty is the abuse of liberty.  Laws are passed as a reaction to the behavior of others more often than their passed as preemptive grabs for power.

Quote from: walkerpAnd it's just so fucking lame!  "Ohmigod!  Look how sick and depraved these people are!  I'm shocked and angry.  I hate them for thinking and saying those things.  They might touch our children.  Or try to rape their necks.  Must protect!  MUST DESTROY THE MORAL OTHER!"

Not lame at all.  It's a desire to live in a civil and pleasant society rather than to have to close one's doors and pull the curtains to avoid vileness.

Out of curiosity, do you have children or plan to?

Quote from: walkerpIt's so atavistic and primitive.  Just stop it.

Did you bother to read the links I posted on moral reasoning earlier?  Moral reasoning is inherently atavistic and primative.  The alternative, reason without emotion, is psychopathy.  Of course that should be obvious from the fact that people who value cold rational consideration of the world seem to come to the conclusion that one should only worry about themselves and not care about others.  Paging Kitty Genovese.  Paging Kitty Genovese.

Quote from: walkerpLet them have their neck raping and special circle.  They aren't in your living room.

No, but they are on a public message board.  Years ago, the standard of behavior in public spaces was to be more or less child friendly and adult behavior was kept in private.  The more vile public expression becomes, the more it drives away the nice people.  

RPGPundit has described the effect pretty well in his discussion of lawncrapping.  

Why should I care if my neighbor craps on his front lawn?  Beside the fact that I don't want to see that myself, it's going to drive my nice neighbors away until all that's left are the lawncrappers.  It's my business because it has an impact on the society and world I inhabit.

Quote from: jeff37923This thread now also has bearing on the discussion in the Help Desk section, since while we have agreed to discuss games that we consider to be unworthy and non-traditional, we still have some standards about the manner with which we discuss them. Its not a discussion if a poster's sole reason for posting is to be a troll and their intent on joining a forum is to piss people off. However, with Mannydipresso as an example, that is what we see happen.

And as I said, the fastest way to get people to talk about curtailing a liberty is to abuse it and make it a liability to others.

Quote from: John MorrowPaging Kitty Genovese.  Paging Kitty Genovese.

I first heard about her through reading Harlan Ellison. Very appropriate for this discussion.

This isn't an issue of the moral relativity of the subject, only the location they chose to discuss it in.  This place here isn't fucking church either.  We all have limits of what we're willing to discuss in certain circles.  I have friends that would say shit like that just to fuck with you.  For all the coarse language and bravado on these boards at times, you seem to be extremely sensitive when it fits whatever agenda your pursuing.

Quote from: KoltarJohn Morrow,
 
Many of those I've already seen - they were part of the exhibit.
 
There was also a seperate part of the exhibit called "The X,Y,Z, portfolios" I believe - it had a barrier partition wall....to view those photos you had to make a choice. That section contained the more graphic documentation of gay life of a certain time period. A time period that the artist knew was due to end. They were done in a more documentary style, but still had Mappletorpe's style and artistry.
 
Okay - for clarification and reminder; I was one of the people that was and is strongly against the game Poison'dand those actual play examples.
Also - apparently I am NOT an "old lady" as referred to by one poster who accused those that didn't like Baker's game to be one of those.
 
Mapplethorpe's photographs can be considered artwork. He knew what he was doing and had actual skill and talent. The game Poison'd cannot really make that claim.
 
Mapplethorpe died of AIDS, in his later years he knew he had the disease....I could see the sadness in his later stuff.
 
- Ed C.
 
(http://valedictory.chez-alice.fr/laurieanderson.jpg)
 
 
As a sidenote: I took 3 years worth of Art School classes at the DAAP/University of Cincinnati. I have "some talent", but not enough practice....I'm a pretty fair sketch artist after all these years - but I never finished my classes. Ran out of money.

John Morrow, Koltar, this thread is worthy just for these posts of yours on Maplethorpe. Thanks for sharing :) I've discovered a new great artist.

Quote from: HaffrungThe storyteller movement will no doubt be vindicated when graphically-detailed stories about sexual grotesquery, savage sadism, and necrophelia involving children become mainstream outside the domain of teenage boys and trenchcoat-wearing misanthropes. Maybe the intimate ultra-violent-porn story sessions of Vince Baker and his clique will some day be hailed as serious works of dark imagination on a par with Burroughs or Ballard. Or maybe they'll be just a sordid footnote in the online history of a particularly creepy and pretentious offshoot of gaming/goth subculture. Who can say.

I object. I grew up as and remain a trenchcoat-wearing misanthrope, and I've never believed in lawncrappers so hard as I do after this fucking sideshow. Vincent Baker needs to get his fucking juvenile morality plays and rape fetish the fuck out of my hobby.

Quote from: jeff37923Walkerp, would you say that the play detailed in the Actual Play report that started all this debate is common and represents the majority of games in this hobby?

Obviously not.

Quote from: jeff37923Would you print out the AP report and hand that to someone who was interested in RPGs and then tell them that it is an example of the majority of gameplay that happens?

If they wanted to know what the majority were playing, no.  If they were looking for an example of interesting stuff going on in gaming, I just might (depends on how much info they wanted; that Poison'd AP is a very tiny fringe, but some might find it interesting)  Among the people I consider friends who aren't gamers, I'd be much more likely to show them the Poison'd AP then some Living Greyhawk-kill-the-monsters-and-get-the-magic-item atrocity.  

Quote from: jeff37923If a reporter came up and said they were doing an article or a TV news report on gaming and wanted an example of common actual play, would you point them to the Poison'd AP report?

Dude, obviously not.  I'm not arguing that it's common or popular.  If a reporter with any depth and brains (haven't met one yet) came and asked me what are some of the new interesting developments going on in our hobby, I might suggest Poison'd as one (among many others).  I wouldn't go out of my way to emphasize it as I consider it's impact to be fairly low, but I might throw it out there.

Quote from: Christmas ApeVincent Baker needs to get his fucking juvenile morality plays and rape fetish the fuck out of my hobby.

Here is an example, since I was too lazy and go back, of where you are moving beyond criticism and into prescribing action (albeit vague).  This is the kind of talk that raises alarm bells in me.  How do you propose we get him out of "your" hobby?  A publication ban?  A self-imposed ratings system?  An embargo?

Quote from: John MorrowThose who practice their liberty without responsibility are bound to lose their liberty because the irresponsible use of liberty makes that liberty a liability to others.  So if you want to keep a liberty, it's in your best interest to encourage it to be used with responsibility rather than pushing its use to extremes that make other people want to take it away.

How was the Poison'd AP an irresponsible use of a liberty?  Who did it harm?  How does it negatively affect society?  Because you find it morally unpleasant?

Quote from: John MorrowNot lame at all.  It's a desire to live in a civil and pleasant society rather than to have to close one's doors and pull the curtains to avoid vileness.

Oh I see, so Vincent Baker came up to your front window with his group and started playing their vile game in a loud voice where you and your children were forced to close the curtains and retire to the back room or suffer the vileness?

I think what you want is to be able to live in a civil and pleasant society where you and your little morality cronies can run around to every dark corner and find out what people are doing, report it back to one another in righteous horrified tones, rail against it endlessly until... what?  I don't know, what do you think should be done to gamers who run games like that Poison'd crew?

Quote from: walkerpHere is an example, since I was too lazy and go back, of where you are moving beyond criticism and into prescribing action (albeit vague).  This is the kind of talk that raises alarm bells in me.  How do you propose we get him out of "your" hobby?  A publication ban?  A self-imposed ratings system?  An embargo?

Embargo sounds good.  You have a problem with that?  A self-imposed rating system is, by it's definition, not imposed from the outside. You have a problem with that? The only one that comes close to being oppressive is if publishers got together and banned it, and even then it doesn't stop it as he can publish on his own (which this group does).  And I've yet to see anyone say the government should step in - which would be the only real oppressive step as the government is the only one with the real power to enforce any kind of outside action.

Not even Christmas Ape has said Mr. Baker be forcibly removed from the hobby - only that he'd prefer if this shit wasn't in the hobby.  I doubt CA believes that he could make Mr. Baker ger out of the hobby. Don't you see?  You are the one who has made the leap from judgment to censorship. And as Haffrung points out, the two are not the same.

Quote from: walkerpI'd be much more likely to show them the Poison'd AP then some Living Greyhawk-kill-the-monsters-and-get-the-magic-item atrocity.

First - MORALIST! HOW DARE YOU JUDGE LIVING GREYHAWK!  See how that works, walker?  Why is it OK for you to judge LG AP, but not OK for any of us to judge this AP? I don't have any problem with you judging LG AP if you feel it's an atrocity.  I don't agree with you in general, but if you have a specific AP example that you'd like to discuss, I'd be willing to listen.  Regardless, you have a right to that opinion.  Why don't we?

Second - this just makes it obvious that this is all about your hard-on against d20 players cause you can't get a game of DitV in your area. Your hate of anything d20 related has driven you to accept this kind of perversion. Go find a game of MLwM and leave us the fuck alone, will you?

Quote from: walkerpI think what you want is to be able to live in a civil and pleasant society where you and your little morality cronies can run around to every dark corner and find out what people are doing, report it back to one another in righteous horrified tones, rail against it endlessly until... what?  I don't know, what do you think should be done to gamers who run games like that Poison'd crew?

Wow....and you think people here are paranoid?

Oh - they should be voluntarily shunned by those who find it morally repugnant.  If you don't, feel free to associate and purchase.  If you do, make it known by expressing your disgust, not aasociating aith those involved, and not purchasing their goods.  Is that not acceptable?  Do I have to associate with those folks?  Do I have to buy their games.  Am I not allowed to express my disgust?  Who's the oppressor again, walker?

Quote from: walkerpObviously not.


If they wanted to know what the majority were playing, no.  If they were looking for an example of interesting stuff going on in gaming, I just might (depends on how much info they wanted; that Poison'd AP is a very tiny fringe, but some might find it interesting)  Among the people I consider friends who aren't gamers, I'd be much more likely to show them the Poison'd AP then some Living Greyhawk-kill-the-monsters-and-get-the-magic-item atrocity.  

Dude, obviously not.  I'm not arguing that it's common or popular.  If a reporter with any depth and brains (haven't met one yet) came and asked me what are some of the new interesting developments going on in our hobby, I might suggest Poison'd as one (among many others).  I wouldn't go out of my way to emphasize it as I consider it's impact to be fairly low, but I might throw it out there.

So I'm now confused here by your answers. You agree that Vincent Baker and Poison'd do not represent what is common or popular in gaming (your exact words being that they are a very tiny fringe), yet you disagree with measures that ensure that others don't percieve them to represent the rest of the hobby. You also say that this very tiny fringe group of gamers be represented while you claim that a Living Greyhawk (DnD) game which is closer to what is common and popular in the hobby be shunned.

Biased much? What The Fuck? How can you justify this very questionable position?

Quote from: walkerpHere is an example, since I was too lazy and go back, of where you are moving beyond criticism and into prescribing action (albeit vague).  This is the kind of talk that raises alarm bells in me.  How do you propose we get him out of "your" hobby?  A publication ban?  A self-imposed ratings system?  An embargo?

What, I've got to be your fucking idea man, too? My personal favorites are "moves to those pencil-drawn homebound comics you find in the lower class of sex shops", "is driven from cons with stones like a moral leper", "recognition from the public that it in fact has shit all to do with the non-lifestyle hobby" and "fire, and lots of it".

In principle it's like discovering the guy who lives on your block does sex junkets in SE Asia just for the pubescent types. Maybe you don't know exactly how it should happen, but you really don't want him on your street - more likely, in your town - any more.

Jerk that knee harder, you weaselly little ass, I'm still laughing.

Quote from: James J SkachNot even Christmas Ape has said Mr. Baker be forcibly removed from the hobby - only that he'd prefer if this shit wasn't in the hobby.  I doubt CA believes that he could make Mr. Baker ger out of the hobby. Don't you see?  You are the one who has made the leap from judgment to censorship. And as Haffrung points out, the two are not the same.

I don't advocate it*, no, and I'm certain I couldn't force him out.

It's not like I'd shed a tear if it happened, though. Except maybe in the "Boo hoo. A single tear rolls down my cheek." sarcastic style.


* I mean "advocate" in the way one can be legally held to have "advocated violence". I think it should happen, but I can ignore him and his pointless self-indulgent games with much greater ease than I can expel him from the hobby.

Quote from: walkerpHow was the Poison'd AP an irresponsible use of a liberty?  Who did it harm?  How does it negatively affect society?  Because you find it morally unpleasant?

As with many things (including everything from walking on the grass to environmental damage), the harm is negligible on the individual level but can be significant if it becomes the norm.  What harm is it for me to take a short-cut across the grass instead of walking on the sidewalk?  Probably none or nearly none.  The grass can take it.  Now if I combine that attitude across hundreds of people, what happens to the grass and who is responsible for it?

And I was hardly the only person to find it morally unpleasant.

Quote from: walkerpOh I see, so Vincent Baker came up to your front window with his group and started playing their vile game in a loud voice where you and your children were forced to close the curtains and retire to the back room or suffer the vileness?

No, but the guy did put his AP report on the internet. So that makes this all fair game for discussion.

Quote from: walkerpOh I see, so Vincent Baker came up to your front window with his group and started playing their vile game in a loud voice where you and your children were forced to close the curtains and retire to the back room or suffer the vileness?

No.  But if the shelves if the message boards, game stores, and game conventions increasingly and openly feature games like that and stories like that, this hobby will be no place for children, and that's a bit of a shame since I started role-playing as a child.  I asked a relative for D&D in the 1970s and got a copy.  

But suppose a child asked their parent for a role-playing game and the parent knew their child liked Pirates of the Caribbean, and the parent Googled those things and found that thread (PotC is mentioned in that thread) and started reading.  Do you think that child would be given a role-playing game or do you think the parent would tell them to find another hobby?  Do you think many parents would want to bring their child to GenCon if they thought they might run into a game like that (that's where at least some of those actual play reports were coming from)?

Quote from: walkerpI think what you want is to be able to live in a civil and pleasant society where you and your little morality cronies can run around to every dark corner and find out what people are doing, report it back to one another in righteous horrified tones, rail against it endlessly until... what?  I don't know, what do you think should be done to gamers who run games like that Poison'd crew?

If the people involved in those actual play threads had kept their games in dark corners instead of describing them (and apparently the most vulgar parts of them) in detail on a public message board and hadn't run them in potentially public places in GenCon, nobody would know about them, would they?  In fact, there are private forums on Story-Games.com where they could post these threads and the unregistered masses couldn't see them.  We aren't talking about people playing in the privacy of their own home and keeping it to themselves.  At least one of those actual play examples seems to have taken place in a public space at GenCon and they accounts were posted to public message boards (in the case of RPGnet, with no sort of warning in the title about the sort of game that was going to be discussed).

To make it very clear, we're not talking about people being morally offended by entertainment media you'd be able to legally purchase anywhere in North America in a bookstore or videostore.  It's not about sexually explicit material, even graphic pornography, or  violent material in the vein (heh) of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Saw.  We're talking about content that's beyond X and XXX and illegal to publish.  If the original AP on RPG.net had been an .mp3 recording, they may have been subject to arrest and prison time.  

Whatever you think about an idealized version of freedom of speech, in the real world societies have all made compromises of some of those freedoms in order to create a better society for the majority of it's citizens.  That includes the US.  That includes Canada.

As for actual censorship of any specific game, as opposed to people expressing their own freedom of speech about it, all of the services we use to communicate online and buy / sell materials have terms of use.  Your ISP, the Hosting company and DNS company for the website you're on, the ISP of the people viewing and uploading content.  The terms for PayPal, EBay, or a POD company like Lulu.com.

Vincent sells Kill Puppies for Satan through Lulu.com.  However their terms of use are pretty standard:

Quote from: Lulu.comBy uploading Content to the Site you represent and warrant, at all times during the term of this Agreement, that the Content:
...
# Does not contain material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, pornographic, indecent, lewd, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, or otherwise objectionable;

So I'm pretty sure he won't be able to have Poison'd published through them.

Quote from: StuartSo I'm pretty sure he won't be able to have Poison'd published through them.

*cough* (http://www.lulu.com/content/113758)

I don't know that game.  Satanism isn't illegal. I could buy The Satanic Bible in lots of book stores.

Are you suggesting this RPG violates Lulu's terms of use?  If so, how?

Edit: The Author rated it "teen"

Quote from: Lulu.comTeen: Content will be available to people ages 13 and older. May contain mild or strong language, mild violence, and/or suggestive themes.

Adult: Content will be *available only* to registered users who have set their preference to ages 17 and older. May include intense violence and language, and mature sexual themes.

Not even "adult"...

Quote from: StuartI don't know that game.  Satanism isn't illegal.

Let's just say that it's a game in which raping nuns and eating babies is considered a typical pasttime for the PCs. The book really does read like some teenager trying to sound Evil, though.

Hmm. Like folk have said quite a bit recently, it really depends on the context, how the material is presented, what is described vs what is inferred, what does the game play involve and what actions are required,  encouraged, or rewarded as part of that game play.

Since I haven't read the book and you have, do YOU GrimGent, think it violates Lulu.com's terms of use?

Quote from: walkerpHere is an example, since I was too lazy and go back, of where you are moving beyond criticism and into prescribing action (albeit vague).  This is the kind of talk that raises alarm bells in me.  How do you propose we get him out of "your" hobby?  A publication ban?  A self-imposed ratings system?  An embargo?

I'd be happy enough tarring the storyteller movement with the sado-masochistic/fetish/psycho-therapy brush until the non-creepy storytellers eject the creeps from their movement. Let them form their own sub-hobby of extreme-kink roleplaying and call it Abuse Storytelling Therapy  or S&M Gaming.

However, the more I look into it the more I'm having my doubts that the storyteller movement is just about a certain mechanical approach to gaming, and isn't in fact dominated by flakey losers who want to 'bravely explore' themes of extreme sexual, emotional, and violent abuse with a clique of like-minded fetishists. We'll see.

Quote from: StuartSince I haven't read the book and you have, do YOU GrimGent, think it violates Lulu.com's terms of use?

Well, EoS is certainly objectionable in the sense that it's a freakin' awful piece of garbage for an RPG. For other reasons... That depends on how harshly someone would want to interpret those terms. But it is a game that quite explicitly encourages your characters to be as obscene and monstrous as they can: that's the whole point of playing it. According to the author, it's not only an RPG but also a Satanic ritual designed to corrupt the world by its very existence. (Then again, this is the same guy who claims that the Church of Satan kicked him out for "being too evil.")

I can't see how Poison'd could possibly be regarded as somehow more morally reprehensible, frankly.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, EoS is certainly objectionable in the sense that it's a freakin' awful piece of garbage for an RPG.

So if the designer notes added a few comments that the game is meant to explore the issue of evil in a deep and meaningful way, and the author posted an AP of the most vile shit imaginable and said it was a deeply moving and horrific experience, then it would be cool and sophisticated. Because the theoretical jargon you surround a game with determines its artistic value, right?

Quote from: HaffrungSo if the designer notes added a few comments that the game is meant to explore the issue of evil in a deep and meaningful way, and the author posted an AP of the most vile shit imaginable and said it was a deeply moving and horrific experience, then it would be cool and sophisticated.

Most of those comments are in the companion volume, if memory serves me correctly. I can't in all honesty say that they did anything to enhance the reading experience.

Quote from: John MorrowAs with many things (including everything from walking on the grass to environmental damage), the harm is negligible on the individual level but can be significant if it becomes the norm.  What harm is it for me to take a short-cut across the grass instead of walking on the sidewalk?  Probably none or nearly none.  The grass can take it.  Now if I combine that attitude across hundreds of people, what happens to the grass and who is responsible for it?

Walking on the grass != talking about walking on the grass

Quote from: GrimGentI can't see how Poison'd could possibly be regarded as somehow more morally reprehensible, frankly.

The game, no (I'd have to agree on that even though they have similar designs that appear to reward objectionable behavior). The players and game author in the AP report though, yes.

QuoteVincent Baker said that he had been trained as a Sex Educator and that the rest of the AP group consisted of a psych nurse, someone who works with at-risk teenagers, and a woman's advocacy activist (all professions which you'd think would have a very negative view of rape and abuse).

Also we can't ignore that Vincent Baker has himself said that the rules of Poison'd may encourage monstrous and objectionable behavior.

Quote from: walkerpHow was the Poison'd AP an irresponsible use of a liberty?  Who did it harm?  How does it negatively affect society?  Because you find it morally unpleasant?

The fact that one of those took place at GenCon - which is a place where Newbies or the uninitiated first encounter our hobby for the first time is what makes it irresponsible.

The fact that the designer practically brags about wallowing in the sickness and vileness of it - that makes him irresponsible.

 My god this thread has had a lot of postings since 7am....

- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923Also we can't ignore that Vincent Baker has himself said that the rules of Poison'd may encourage monstrous and objectionable behavior.

which means the roleplaying of monstrous and objectionable behavior.

Quote from: jeff37923Also we can't ignore that Vincent Baker has himself said that the rules of Poison'd may encourage monstrous and objectionable behavior.

The game is designed to have "an atmosphere of brutality" which influences the choices made during play, true; but as I've mentioned before recently, those rules contain nothing that you couldn't find in more popular mainstream games, including the alleged "rewards for objectionable behaviour." Remember that in any of the nWoD games, a PC with the Vice of Lust can gain Willpower through rape, at the risk of moral degeneration.

Quote from: GrimGentit is a game that quite explicitly encourages your characters to be as obscene and monstrous as they can: that's the whole point of playing it. According to the author, it's not only an RPG but also a Satanic ritual designed to corrupt the world by its very existence. (Then again, this is the same guy who claims that the Church of Satan kicked him out for "being too evil.")

I can't see how Poison'd could possibly be regarded as somehow more morally reprehensible, frankly.

Hmm.  Again, without having read the book...

I think it's one thing for a game to say:  "Try and be as obscene and monstrous as you can" because what that means is up to the reader.  A kid might read that and have their character say a lot of obscenities, and attack the "good guys" through the game's combat system.  That's different from a game that encourages you to narrate a rape scene, and awards you what you might see as a mechanical bonus in the game for doing so.  

I have no idea where this particular game falls on that spectrum.

The Fluff text that accompanies all of this, as well as any notes on intent from the author/designer would have a lot of impact on how it's received as well.

Asides:
In Austin Power II, Fat Bastard tells us he "ate a baby".
In Agnes of God, the main character is a nun who has been raped.
It really is more about HOW and WHY material is presented...

C'mon walkerp, aren't you going to respond to the questions posed to you in post #145?

Here, I'll ask them again.

QuoteSo I'm now confused here by your answers. You agree that Vincent Baker and Poison'd do not represent what is common or popular in gaming (your exact words being that they are a very tiny fringe), yet you disagree with measures that ensure that others don't percieve them to represent the rest of the hobby. You also say that this very tiny fringe group of gamers be represented while you claim that a Living Greyhawk (DnD) game which is closer to what is common and popular in the hobby be shunned.

Biased much? What The Fuck? How can you justify this very questionable position?

Quote from: GrimGentThe game is designed to have "an atmosphere of brutality" which influences the choices made during play, true; but as I've mentioned before recently, those rules contain nothing that you couldn't find in more popular mainstream games, including the alleged "rewards for objectionable behaviour." Remember that in any of the nWoD games, a PC with the Vice of Lust can gain Willpower through rape, at the risk of moral degeneration.

OK, and I would be having just as big an objection if those games had an AP report blasted around the internet by the game's author celebrating the rape and abuse which the game encourages in play.

Quote from: StuartThat's different from a game that encourages you to narrate a rape scene, and awards you what you might see as a mechanical bonus in the game for doing so.

There's an alternative diceless system which grants a bonus for every gruesome or obscene detail which the players work into the description, if that helps. I'm not particularly keen on downloading the book again just to refresh my memory on how that works.

Quote from: walkerpwhich means the roleplaying of monstrous and objectionable behavior.

What I'm curious about is why you think making that 'roleplaying of' is so fucking important?

I mean, first of all everyone gets that, yes, it is roleplaying the decapitation and throat raping, and not actual decapitation and throat raping.

And second, why does it actually matter if they are roleplaying it out vs just dreaming it up in their heads over a coffee somewhere and expounding on it with their like minded buddies?

Its still something that is going to get people looking at them funny, and probably means they need to reexamine their idea about 'fun'.

Quote from: GrimGentThere's an alternative diceless system which grants a bonus for every gruesome or obscene detail which the players work into the description, if that helps. I'm not particularly keen on downloading the book again just to refresh my memory on how that works.

Does it leave it up to the reader to decide what is gruesome and / or obscene?  Some people would consider MAD magazine gruesome and obscene.  Does it have specific examples of gruesome / obscene material?

Quote from: jeff37923So I'm now confused here by your answers. You agree that Vincent Baker and Poison'd do not represent what is common or popular in gaming (your exact words being that they are a very tiny fringe), yet you disagree with measures that ensure that others don't percieve them to represent the rest of the hobby. You also say that this very tiny fringe group of gamers be represented while you claim that a Living Greyhawk (DnD) game which is closer to what is common and popular in the hobby be shunned.

Biased much? What The Fuck? How can you justify this very questionable position?

Sorry, I wasn't dodging the question.  It's just very difficult for me to answer it because it is based on all kinds of false (and alarmist) presumptions.

I'll try to break it down so that I can figure out where you are coming from and respond.

1)  Poison'd and the people who play/support it are a tiny minority of the hobby.  The people who will take it to such violent extremes probably an even tinier subset thereof.  Agreed.

2)  Therefore they do not represent what is common or popular in gaming.  Agreed.

3)  "Measures to ensure that others don't perceive them to represent the hobby."  Okay, here is where I disagree with you on many levels.  First of all, it would be almost impossible for anyone outside of the hobby to even hear about Poison'd.  If they did, they would either not get it or not care or be intelligent enough (crucial point in a free society) to recognize that this was a  particular and tiny subset of the hobby.  If they see this and freak out and paint the whole hobby as a bunch of neck-raping touchy-feely weirdos, then they are idiots and I don't want them in the hobby anyways.

But let's say that somehow Poison'd got really popular or made some news somewhere (because of some journalists encouraging people to freak out about stupid stuff as they love to do).  Do I think we should then act to censor and limit the distribution of information about the game and AP sessions?  Absolutely not.  It exists. It's a part of the hobby.  It's existence is the truth.  All this crap happened with video games, heavy metal, women being allowed to vote, this shocking movie of the week. And in every case, the content in question has eventually made it into our society and all those industries truck along just fine.  Has society gotten any worse because of it?  I don't know.  That's a much bigger can of worms that I don't want to open now. (to veer off any arguments in this direction, I think we should fix our education system before we start worrying about what not to show children).

When I said that Living Greyhawk was an atrocity, I didn't mean a moral atrocity, but an aesthetic one.  While I like the idea of a Living Campaign and the competitions that can be structured around that, all the LG games I've seen have been painfully boring affairs where everybody basically scours the dungeon to get whatever new magic item has been released in that module.  Even the players openly treat the module with disdain, reading the flavour text as fast as possible in a bored, contemptuous voice.  I really would not want to show an outsider those games as an example of our hobby.

Quote from: SpikeWhat I'm curious about is why you think making that 'roleplaying of' is so fucking important?

I mean, first of all everyone gets that, yes, it is roleplaying the decapitation and throat raping, and not actual decapitation and throat raping.

And second, why does it actually matter if they are roleplaying it out vs just dreaming it up in their heads over a coffee somewhere and expounding on it with their like minded buddies?

It doesn't.  What matters is if they are roleplaying vs. actually doing it.  My point is that I couldn't care less what people think, fantasize or talk about. It's what people do that counts.  Usually people yelling and screaming about other people's behaviour tend to be the ones that do the least actual positive things for society.

So, for example, I am actively involved in encouraging the growth of our hobby in a positive way.  For me, the work I have done is far more real and impactful in a positive way than any whining and screaming you all are doing, freaking out about games that don't fit your moral template.

Quote from: SpikeIts still something that is going to get people looking at them funny, and probably means they need to reexamine their idea about 'fun'.

People looking at them funny?  Who gives a shit about people looking at them funny?

Quote from: walkerpWhat matters is if they are roleplaying vs. actually doing it.  My point is that I couldn't care less what people think, fantasize or talk about. It's what people do that counts.

To reiterate a point I was trying to make earlier: it's not just doing certain things that's illegal.  Publishing and/or performing material about certain things is also illegal.

Quote from: walkerpUsually people yelling and screaming about other people's behaviour tend to be the ones that do the least actual positive things for society.

I'm not sure we'd be in a very good place without any government, police, social workers, social advocacy groups, or other groups concerned with other people's behavior.

Quote from: walkerpSo, for example, I am actively involved in encouraging the growth of our hobby in a positive way.  For me, the work I have done is far more real and impactful in a positive way than any whining and screaming you all are doing, freaking out about games that don't fit your moral template.

That moral template you mentioned is the generally accepted one for the society we all live in, based on the existing laws and behavioral norms of our society.

It's great that you believe that you're involved in encouraging the growth of our hobby in a positive way, and that for you this is far more real and impactful in a positive way than what you believe some other people in this thread are doing.  

I bet most people posting here would say the exact same thing. :)

Quote from: StuartThe Fluff text that accompanies all of this, as well as any notes on intent from the author/designer would have a lot of impact on how it's received as well.

As will an AP by the designer showing how he plays his game.

Quote from: StuartDoes it leave it up to the reader to decide what is gruesome and / or obscene?  Some people would consider MAD magazine gruesome and obscene.  Does it have specific examples of gruesome / obscene material?

Hmm. A slight correction: apparently the rules for "Forging the Razor's Edge" do apply to the usual diced version of the game as well. There are four "Satanis Qualities", each of which will yield a bonus when it's included in the description: "Darkness/Evil/Horror", "Blasphemy/Sacrilege", "Weird/Bizarre/Strange", and "Inappropriate Sexuality."

That last one shouldn't prove too difficult since all PCs are male, and they hunt women for "entertainment and breeding." "After a Fiend has finished defiling a woman, his ejaculate slowly pours from the vessel's orifices. For the next few hours, a putrid, bright green slime oozes from all the female's orifices. A Fiend's cum is the same color and consistency as his blood. It drips from her pussy, drools out of her mouth, eyes, ears, nose, and her ass." Uplifting, eh?

(By the way, the book also includes at least one picture of a decapitated and dismembered female body.)

QuoteTo reiterate a point I was trying to make earlier: it's not just doing certain things that's illegal. Publishing and/or performing material about certain things is also illegal.

Good thing RPG groups are not performing to an audience.
I really don't see the point of your analogy.

Quote from: walkerpFirst of all, it would be almost impossible for anyone outside of the hobby to even hear about Poison'd.

Actually, as Mr. Morrow points out, they could google Pirate of the Carribean, since it was mentioned in that thread.  Or happen to be walking by the game in progress at GenCon; as a vendor, or just a person interested in seeing what this convention is about - ya know, the people you want to bring into the hobby (at least there seems to be a big kick on marketing the right game to the right people).

Quote from: walkerpIf they did, they would either not get it or not care or be intelligent enough (crucial point in a free society) to recognize that this was a  particular and tiny subset of the hobby.  If they see this and freak out and paint the whole hobby as a bunch of neck-raping touchy-feely weirdos, then they are idiots and I don't want them in the hobby anyways.

Ahhh..the "only stupid people would be upset by this and see it as a problem and they are the ones, not the people reveling in decapitation and esophageal rape, who should be driven from the hobby," approach. And do you see, yet again, how you are able to judge while calling the rest of us knee-jerk moralists for exercising the same faculty? Hypocrite.

Quote from: walkerpBut let's say that somehow Poison'd got really popular or made some news somewhere (because of some journalists encouraging people to freak out about stupid stuff as they love to do).  Do I think we should then act to censor and limit the distribution of information about the game and AP sessions?  Absolutely not.

Can you please point ot someone who advocated actual censorship. Other than Stuart who is pointing out the laws that already exist and which may or may not have been violated (while GrimGent sidetracks him with yet another vile game), I can't think of anyone who has advocated the government ban these books - have you? So please stop with that straw man.

Quote from: walkerpIt exists. It's a part of the hobby.  It's existence is the truth.

Who has doubted it's existence?  I've seen Aos try to disbelieve this thread - but that's about it. I don't, however, believe it is part of the hobby. I've yet to be able to put my belief into a coherent structure, but if you're playing a game that encourages this kind of behavior so you can have a meaningful understanding about the behavior - you're into completely different territory than role-playing games. Hell, I wouldn't even put them in the Thematic Games structure that Sett likes - that's insulting all of the people who want to focus on story above emulation. You're into Therapy Games with this stuff - and that's not the hobby. It's like saying Model Train is part of the RC Racing hobby because...ya know...both are moving vehicles.

Quote from: walkerpAll this crap happened with video games, heavy metal, women being allowed to vote, this shocking movie of the week.

Women voting?  You've got to be kidding.  You're comparing the right of women to vote with the behavior these playes had their characters commit?  You're kidding, right?

Quote from: walkerpAnd in every case, the content in question has eventually made it into our society and all those industries truck along just fine.

Really?  Just fine? Hmmm...

Quote from: walkerpHas society gotten any worse because of it?  I don't know.

Of course not.  It's just fine.  You said so right up above.

Quote from: walkerpThat's a much bigger can of worms that I don't want to open now. (to veer off any arguments in this direction, I think we should fix our education system before we start worrying about what not to show children).

No walker, that's the discussion we're having, to some extent.  Welcome.  It's nice of you to shed your knee-jerk reaction so you could join us. If you'd like to talk about the education system, you could start a thread about it in the OT forum. To use education problems as an excuse to ignore this issue does not do justice to either.

Quote from: walkerpWhen I said that Living Greyhawk was an atrocity, I didn't mean a moral atrocity, but an aesthetic one.  While I like the idea of a Living Campaign and the competitions that can be structured around that, all the LG games I've seen have been painfully boring affairs where everybody basically scours the dungeon to get whatever new magic item has been released in that module.  Even the players openly treat the module with disdain, reading the flavour text as fast as possible in a bored, contemptuous voice.  I really would not want to show an outsider those games as an example of our hobby.

This just goes to show you how little you know of the system that you are so willing to condemn. Abyssal Maw could tell you differently, I'm sure. Maybe I'll dig up the thread over on the WotC site when there was a huge eruption over the morals of an adventure that included the question of whether or not to kill Orc children in a final battle scene and the consequences of the choices (some people, IIRC, adopted the children). Or the one I played in where we were constantly having to determine if we were doing the right thing and what that meant to each character (which was, of course, different and made agreement difficult). This is common, actually, in LG games.

Oh...didn't play those? Then I'm guessing you don't really know that much about Living Greyhawk.

So we can safely say EoS is sick shit too.

But it's juvenile sick shit, like a couple of fifteen year olds who do hentai and Saw marathons and masturbate furtively got together to write a stupid-ass RPG. And it's being sold as "a Satanic ritual" in RPG form. Are you telling me you've never met someone in the RPG hobby who's one of those faux-satanic metalhead knife fetishists who by now only shock old ladies and Baptists? I know I have. Played Necromunda with some. They were stupid, but the weed was good and free and they had some kick-ass modified mutant figs.

I can safely say, however, that I never before even imagined I'd meet or hear of someone in the hobby who is jaded by the number of rapes that occur in his games being held up as a leader or symbol in some kind of fucking "artistic movement". Don't we normally shun these flaws to their basement lairs?

Quote from: walkerpPeople looking at them funny?  Who gives a shit about people looking at them funny?

For a guy whose main style of debate seems to be pointing out other peoples shorthand mistakes (exclusion of the middle... I've seen that from you about a dozen times in two threads today...not saying you posted them each today, just that every post I've seen from you seems to include it...)

In other words, you willfully missed the fucking point. Its not about funny looks.

If the only thing wrong with pedophilia was that it got you funny looks, does that make it okay to be a pedophile? This is particularly relevant because in that AP thread you have what appears to be pedophilia fantasy porn with a dash of necromancy tossed in for good measure (the victim being described as a 'boy').  Yeah, funny looks are a part of it, Walkerp, but thats only because dwelling in depth on each part of what is wrong with using that sort of thing as entertainment in detail would take most of the fucking day.

But please, feel free to concentrate on the terminology employed.  Or, if you like, with your 'moral outrage is just wrong' attitude, feel free to defend murderous pedophilia fantasy.

No skin off my nose either way.  I'm not in here decrying the moral outrage of the situation. Bakers games and his AP don't appeal to me. At best I want to avoid the possibility of gaming (my hobby) being tarred with the 'pedophiliac hobby' just like it used to be the 'satanic hobby'.  If for no other reason than I understand that my place within a greater culture is very intimately tied to peoples perception of me. If they think I am a closet pedophile, than gosh darn it! they won't hire me for that new job... but they might put me on a 'watch list' and force me to tell my neighbors that I'm a filthy roleplayer.







And in case you missed it: pedophilia, which does occur in the AP report, is being used as shorthand for all the other bad behavior that goes on in the game play as intended by the designer.  Which is on very public display on the largest gaming forum out there.   No, I don't give a shit if that is what those players enjoy. I do give a shit when by doing it publicly they might just make me look bad by association.  You have heard of guilt by association, haven't you?  Its not some made up paranoid fantasy giving me an excuse to moralize.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI can safely say, however, that I never before even imagined I'd meet or hear of someone in the hobby who is jaded by the number of rapes that occur in his games being held up as a leader or symbol in some kind of fucking "artistic movement".

If you are talking about Baker, "jaded" isn't the word that comes to mind. It's obvious that for his group those scenes held emotional significance to the point where they were pivotal to the entire game, which seems to support what he said elsewhere about actual sins or hardships usually occurring only once or twice during any given session. There was nothing casual or routine about them.

I'd have to go digging through that rpg.net clusterfuck to find his comment about his Dogs games, which sounded pretty fucking jaded to me. But I'm not going to do that, and we're really all just jumping up and down yelling at each other at this point anyway. Maybe I should go seed the other threads with mentions of Nobilis - you know, throw you off the scent - because at least that was 'God bless him he's trying' funny, rather than 'train wreck of humanity' funny.

Quote from: SpikeAnd in case you missed it: pedophilia, which does occur in the AP report, is being used as shorthand for all the other bad behavior that goes on in the game play as intended by the designer.

In which AP report? If you are talking about "the boy" mentioned by Hollian, it was only ever established that he was a young sailor on the merchant ship, not that he was actually underage.

QuoteWhen I said that Living Greyhawk was an atrocity, I didn't mean a moral atrocity, but an aesthetic one. While I like the idea of a Living Campaign and the competitions that can be structured around that, all the LG games I've seen have been painfully boring affairs where everybody basically scours the dungeon to get whatever new magic item has been released in that module.

Very few LG adventures take place in a dungeon, and you can't actually keep anything you find on an adventure anyhow. You only get access to buy it.

Which makes me think you have never actually seen any LG ever.

And hilariously, nearly every Living Greyhawk game is pretty much chock-fucking full of story. In fact, that's whats wrong with Living Greyhawk. More often than not-- your characters stand around trying to figure out how to get Grand Duchess Calisse to dance with the Shade of Duke Owen* or tracking down which members of the Opera troupe is trying to poison the others**-- instead of going out and slaying some monsters. Thank you, ONCE AGAIN, for your utter fucking ignorance!

LG was a storified version of D&D more than the other way around. Far more.   You practically had to do Core Specials to get to do some real adventuring at times.


This is also one of the reasons I'm not too upset about the end of LG. (Although I will miss it slightly.  I had some great times and met some interesting people)

Ok, here's the rest:

Anyhow, the likening of F.A.T.A.L. to Vincent Baker's work is not that outrageous. Both of these "games" have the same goal-which is to sort of experience an intense vicarious thrill --onanistic emo-tourism was the phrase used for the proposed holocaust game which almost certainly would have been similar. Although instead of raped orifices, the holocaust game probably would have had the players successively informing on each other and having their families descriptively ravaged for the emotional and leftist edification of the participants. Then they would gush about how they were "rocking out" as their characters lives were descriptively destroyed and how much they wanted to do it again and again.  

What do these games (FATAL, Poison'd, all the rest of them...) really have in common?

They're all experiments for vicariously experiencing intense personal fantasies. This is bound up in the mission statement: "we want to empower every player to be able to tell exactly what story they want to tell."

But the trick is-- they definitely aren't telling stories. They certainly aren't games. These are psychodrama exercises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama).

No seriously. Read the link. There's playing a game, and then there's performing an improvised fantasy. This falls under that second thing.

Compare and contrast the psychodrama exercises to actual playable games where you only get to control your character and not the universe. Where the players act as part of a team and not against each other. Where there is a GM and a set of rules that says what is and isn't ok, and who acts as a natural moderator so that people aren't just trying to outdo each other in brutality... where there's a goal like "levelling up" or "completing a mission", or "collecting wealth" or "solving the mystery".

Yeah, Roleplaying tends to confuse things like a "win state", and act a abit fuzzy. "There's no winner or loser!"  was a popular thing people used to say about RPGs. But there was. There always was. It took the emo-tourists to prove that, but there it is.

I think +1 swords and gold pieces are tame indeed compared to this monstrous behavior. While I am willing to accept that this isn't all like that, I don't think they really belong in the category of gaming anymore. I beleive that if they even take a moment to self-reflect on this they will see it too.

 I also submit that many of these people are particularly fucking lame.  







* From an actual LG adventure.  
** Another actual LG adventure.

Quote from: Christmas ApeBut I'm not going to do that, and we're really all just jumping up and down yelling at each other at this point anyway.

Well, hate doesn't come naturally to me, and I don't like to argue for the sake of arguing. It's just that misinformation and vigorously leaping to conclusions tick me off.

Quote from: SpikeNo, I don't give a shit if that is what those players enjoy. I do give a shit when by doing it publicly they might just make me look bad by association.  You have heard of guilt by association, haven't you?  Its not some made up paranoid fantasy giving me an excuse to moralize.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Walkerp, guilt by association may be a logical fallacy, but a lot of political campaigns are built up around the fact that it works just fine in swaying public opinion.

Also, I agree with Abyssal Maw.

Quote from: walkerpRead this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

That doesn't apply outside of "therefore Socrates is a cat" type verbal arguments.

People who are associated with you really can make you look bad. This is common sense.

Quote from: walkerpWalking on the grass != talking about walking on the grass

Talking about things, especially in public, does not always have zero effect on the people who do the talking or those who hear it.  

In fact, there is ample evidence that the authors and players of these games believe that they have an impact on their thinking and behavior and the thinking and behavior of others, even if you don't believe it.

Consider thse two sets of coments consider from story gamers, that I posted earlier, the first from Paul Czege and the second about another game that he has in development called "Acts of Evil".  Please feel free to click on the links and read the full comments and threads:

http://attacksofopportunity.blogspot.com/2006/01/whats-your-most-dangerous-gaming-idea.html

   "[...] The activity of playing the game puts programming into your brain. (Thank god I have your best interests at heart.) [...] Have you read Meg Baker's ideas about using ritual in roleplaying games? Her concurrent suggestion to me was that Bacchanal players might benefit from Polaris-style ritual phrases. But the thing about ritual is that it taps way into the human reptilian brain, and makes you feel comfortable when you're not. If I ritualized Bacchanal I could temporarily make players feel comfortable about entering seriously transgressive territory. But they'd wake from it the next day, and regret having revealed their innermost secrets, or of betraying illicit desires. [...]"

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4208

   "Several years ago I read A Simple Plan. Good book. Good movie too, but the book is different. You know how people say they did this and that and afterwards they 'felt dirty'. That's how I felt after reading that book...but not in some cliched way, but really, really dirty. I loved the book, but at the same time, I felt less good about myself for having participated in it."

   "One of our ongoing players had to bow out after a few sessions. They didn't like that they could come up with the really awful stuff the game demands, or that they could do it over and over again, or that it seemed to get easier over time. [...]"

Your opinions about these comments?  All good, clean, safe fun?

Quote from: walkerpRead this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

So its called a fallacy; that doesn't change the fact that millions of people do it every day. It doesn't change the fact that it crops up in legal cases all the time.  Sadly, in the real world (as compared to internet debates) simply labeling something a fallacy does not, in fact, make it any less real.


As for the refutation of the pedophilia claim: Cabin boys (and the term is used at least once) were generally very young, very often minors (hence the term 'boy'), though not always.  While that leaves some abiguity into to the specifics of this 'case'... quite frankly, I don't give a damn.  The entire scene is laughable 'evil for the sake of appearing evil' and entirely reminicent of a scene in a spoof 'teaser' for a spoof horror movie in the 'Grindhouse' film, where a slasher, in front of horrified captive family members, fucks either the dinner turkey or the decapitated head of one of the victims... either way its more stupid and silly than believable.

Its still not a group of people I want to be assosiated with, fallacious or not.

Quote from: John Morrow"One of our ongoing players had to bow out after a few sessions. They didn't like that they could come up with the really awful stuff the game demands, or that they could do it over and over again, or that it seemed to get easier over time. [...]"

Isn't learning to understand how it might over time become easier to accept and adjust to awful circumstances a fundamentally positive quality? RPGs may have their flaws when it comes to gaining insight into anything external, but they certainly can tell you something about yourself.

Quote from: GrimGentIsn't learning to understand how it might over time become easier to accept and adjust to awful circumstances a fundamentally positive quality? RPGs may have their flaws when it comes to gaining insight into anything external, but they certainly can tell you something about yourself.

It depends. If the awful circumstance you are adjusting to is "being tolerant about corpose mutilation followed by necrophilia" than I have to say "no".

Quote from: GrimGentIsn't learning to understand how it might over time become easier to accept and adjust to awful circumstances a fundamentally positive quality?

The problem is that that's not what the quote says that they were adjusting to.  The quote says that they were finding it easier to come up with the awful stuff that play demanded.  In other words, they were finding it easier and easier to fantasize about sick stuff.  The player who had to bow out had what I think is the normal and healthy reaction.  They were disgusted by it and what the game was doing to them so they stopped playing.  Those feelings that they dismiss so lightly -- feeling dirty, feeling less good about themselves, finding it easier to be vile -- those are examples of a person's conscious telling them that they are doing something wrong.  Learning to ignore your conscience isn't a good thing.  It's learning to think like a psychopath.  So, no, I'm not going to look for a diamond in the cesspool.

Quote from: GrimGentRPGs may have their flaws when it comes to gaining insight into anything external, but they certainly can tell you something about yourself.

What do you think about Paul Czege's comments?

If there really is a war, I formally request transfer to Abyssal Maw's command. I appreciate laser-like precision and unblinking intensity in my war leaders.

Quote from: John MorrowThe quote says that they were finding it easier to come up with the awful stuff that play demanded.  In other words, they were finding it easier and easier to fantasize about sick stuff.  The player who had to bow out had what I think is the normal and healthy reaction.  They were disgusted by it and what the game was doing to them so they stopped playing.

Learning what you can unexpectedly come up under the suitable stimulus is exactly what I'd view as worthwhile in that scenario. Even if the results ultimately disgust you, at least you have learned something new about yourself, and the fact that your imaginings in that situation do disgust you is yet another little revelation which might still prove useful. I can't really see self-awareness as a bad thing.

QuoteWhat do you think about Paul Czege's comments?

He's probably giving a little too much credence to the influence that gaming can have on the subconscious of the players. Rituals can be used to enforce neurological effects, though, no matter how minor those might be: that's how I gained a degree of control over my dreams back in the old days. Still, by the sound of it, he's exaggerating somewhat.

Quote from: GrimGentIf you are talking about Baker, "jaded" isn't the word that comes to mind.

"Jaded" is precisely the word Baker used in the preface to his AP. He said he had become so jaded from so many rapes in other games he played, that he was surprised and pleased that the ones in Poison'd could still have an impact.

Have you even read the AP and Baker's comments about it? The way he cheerfully ticks off the different kinds of fucks featured in his session of Poison'd?

It may be disappointing for you to hear about someone you respect and feel some affiliation with, but brutal rape isn't a one-off for this guy. It's something he seems to roleplay in a lot of his storytelling sessions.

Quote from: Haffrung"Jaded" is precisely the word Baker used in the preface to his AP. He said he had become so jaded from so many rapes in other games he played, that he was surprised and pleased that the ones in Poison'd could still have an impact.

"It wasn't that I'd never played a game with rape in it before. Far from it - I've run towns in Dogs in the Vineyard that would curl your hair. It wasn't that I'd never played a game where a player character committed rape onscreen, not that either. Running kill puppies for satan all those times means that I've gotten pretty jaded about what PCs will do. By coincidence, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen, but it wasn't even that. What it was was, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen and everyone at the table liked it."

He's the GM. In those cases, the characters of the players are the ones guilty of rape. And in this one, it doesn't sound to me like anyone was "jaded" about what happened.

Quote from: GrimGentLearning what you can unexpectedly come up under the suitable stimulus is exactly what I'd view as worthwhile in that scenario. Even if the results ultimately disgust you, at least you have learned something new about yourself, and the fact that your imaginings in that situation do disgust you is yet another little revelation which might still prove useful. I can't really see self-awareness as a bad thing.

Building on Abyssal Maw's excellent observation:

Quote from: WikipediaDrama therapy, also known as the single word Dramatherapy outside the US, is the intentional use of theater techniques to facilitate personal growth and promote health. Drama therapy is an expressive therapy modality used in a wide variety of settings, including hospitals, schools, mental health centers, prisons, and businesses. Drama therapy exists in many forms and can be applicable to individuals, couples, families, and various groups.

The use of dramatic process and theater as a therapeutic intervention began with Psychodrama. The field has expanded to allow many forms of theatrical interventions as therapy including role-play, theater games, group-dynamic games, mime, puppetry, and other improvisational techniques. Often, drama therapy is utilized to help a client:

    * Solve a problem
    * Achieve a catharsis
    * Delve into truths about self
    * Understand the meaning of personally resonate images
    * Explore and transcend unhealthy patterns of interaction

Drama therapy is extremely varied in its use, based on the practitioner, the setting and the client. From fully-fledged performances to empty chair role-play, the sessions may involve many variables including the use of a troupe of actors.

I think there's a significant difference between a role-playing GAME and Drama Therapy / Psychodrama, as well as Performance Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art).

I think some people need to delve into truths about what kind of hobbies they're actually engaging in, and what in fact is drawing them to those hobbies in the first place.

Quote from: StuartI think some people need to delve into truths about what kind of hobbies they're actually engaging in, and what in fact is drawing them to those hobbies in the first place.

I'd say the same about any activity with the potential to break old patterns of thought and trigger new ideas, you know. RPGs are not a special case in that respect.

Quote from: GrimGent"It wasn't that I'd never played a game with rape in it before. Far from it - I've run towns in Dogs in the Vineyard that would curl your hair. It wasn't that I'd never played a game where a player character committed rape onscreen, not that either. Running kill puppies for satan all those times means that I've gotten pretty jaded about what PCs will do. By coincidence, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen, but it wasn't even that.What it was was, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen and everyone at the table liked it."

He's the GM. In those cases, the characters of the players are the ones guilty of rape. And in this one, it doesn't sound to me like anyone was "jaded" about what happened.

Perhaps you understand gaming differently from me, but isn't the GM a player in the game? Also, you're talking about a guy who has written games, admittedly, to drive this kind of result.

To try now to parse words to think there's some other conclusion to draw is sheer partisanship. He's been jaded by player-character actions but this stood out because the people at the table liked the rape.  Think about what that's saying - not the characters, the people at the table..

Quote from: Haffrung"Jaded" is precisely the word Baker used in the preface to his AP. He said he had become so jaded from so many rapes in other games he played, that he was surprised and pleased that the ones in Poison'd could still have an impact.

So I went looking for the quote specifically, because as I thought about it I was fairly sure that it actually happened on the Forge. Here's the specific paragraph, bolded for emphasis.

Quote from: Vincent Baker @ the ForgeIt wasn't that I'd never played a game with rape in it before. Far from it - I've run towns in Dogs in the Vineyard that would curl your hair. It wasn't that I'd never played a game where a player character committed rape onscreen, not that either. Running kill puppies for satan all those times means that I've gotten pretty jaded about what PCs will do. By coincidence, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen, but it wasn't even that. What it was was, it was the first game I've ever played where one PC raped another onscreen and everyone at the table liked it.

While he's not specifically talking about rape, it's one of the most repeated words in that statement.

It's also the first time I've ever seen one actually suggest that kill puppies for satan was considered a playable RPG, let alone playable more than once.

What strikes me as chilling, however, is later in the thread. Note that the quote from V.B. here is from his reason for writing The Pirate Rape RPG, which I'll C&P if someone would like.

Quote from: Emily

Quote from: Vincent BakerSo, that's why. Given that I was going to make a pirate game, it was always going to be a game where rape and torture were on the table, available as elements in the fiction whether you choose to include them directly or leave them implicit.

This was one of your explicit goals for the Dragon Killer, Vincent, as I recall. Rape at least. Adult young adult fiction.

WTF is wrong with this guy?

Quote from: GrimGentHe's the GM. In those cases, the characters of the players are the ones guilty of rape. And in this one, it doesn't sound to me like anyone was "jaded" about what happened.

Sophistry. Look, the dude is jaded about the kind of sick shit players do in storytelling sessions he participates in. That means things like rape happen so much, that they have less and less of an impact on him. The rapes he describes in his AP are so over-the-top that he clearly needs ever more graphic and grotesque sitautions to feel the horror-thrill he likes in his storytelling. It's psychodrama porn, pure and simple. And dressing it up as artistry makes it pretentious psychodrama porn.

The guy deserves every bit of contempt that airing his sordid fantasies has earned him. Frankly, it seems as though he enjoys being the object of shock and contempt. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts wiping his ass on each copy of the next game he ships, to elicit a serious examination among his readers of their attitudes towards feces.

Alright, scooped, but that later gem I found is a doozy.

Quote from: GrimGentHe's the GM. In those cases, the characters of the players are the ones guilty of rape. And in this one, it doesn't sound to me like anyone was "jaded" about what happened.

Isn't "the GM is just another player!" one of the fucking Forgery warcries?

QuoteAdult young adult fiction.

Adult young adult fiction.

Nothing to see here, folks. Just some gamers looking for mechanics to support storytelling in games. Oh, the subject matter of those games? Really, no more kinky or sordid than the stuff that goes on in your typical game of Dungeons and Dragons. Seriously. Now move along.

Quote from: James J SkachHe's been jaded by player-character actions but this stood out because the people at the table liked the rape.  Think about what that's saying - not the characters, the people at the table..

The action which made the session stand out was that for the first time a PC raped another PC. That everyone at the table enjoyed the scene made the game particularly successful, yes, but Baker himself didn't have anything to do with that action in itself. All those "questionable" scenes in the AP had been initiated by someone else. In fact, with the possible exception of DitV, those past experiences which left him without any delusions about what the players might get into their heads had all been caused by others. Blaming them on some sort of a fetish on Baker's part doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Christmas ApeIsn't "the GM is just another player!" one of the fucking Forgery warcries?

By the same measure, in the majority of Forge games the GM cannot exert rigid control over the decisions made by PCs. He most definitely cannot force those characters into raping someone.

Quote from: GrimGentThe action which made the session stand out was that for the first time a PC raped another PC

onscreen. It would behoove you to read all of a statement you intend to defend.

QuoteThat everyone at the table enjoyed the scene made the game particularly successful, yes, but Baker himself didn't have anything to do with that action in itself. All those "questionable" scenes in the AP had been initiated by someone else. In fact, with the possible exception of DitV, those past experiences which left him without any delusions about what the players might get into their heads had all been caused by others.

A) For certain values of success.
B) So the fact that these play experiences all occurred in games he himself wrote, with rules designed to evoke a particular atmosphere and style of play, is somehow not applicable?

QuoteBlaming them on some sort of a fetish on Baker's part doesn't make any sense.

When all other possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how implausible...

Quote from: GrimGentThe action which made the session stand out was that for the first time a PC raped another PC. That everyone at the table enjoyed the scene made the game particularly successful, yes, but Baker himself didn't have anything to do with that action in itself. All those "questionable" scenes in the AP had been initiated by someone else. In fact, with the possible exception of DitV, those past experiences which left him without any delusions about what the players might get into their heads had all been caused by others. Blaming them on some sort of a fetish on Baker's part doesn't make any sense.

Right. Baker isn't a rape fantasist, he's a voyueristic rape fantasist. That makes it all better.

Quote from: SpikeRight. Baker isn't a rape fantasist, he's a voyueristic rape fantasist. That makes it all better.

And for certain values of GMing - i.e., representing the NPCs - a bit of a masochist about it, apparently.

Quote from: Christmas Apeonscreen. It would behoove you to read all of a statement you intend to defend.

But that doesn't change anything, does it? Except by loosely outlining potential courses of action, the GM cannot be responsible for the decisions made by the players or the crimes committed by the PCs. To claim otherwise flies in the face of how roleplaying games function in the first place.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, hate doesn't come naturally to me, and I don't like to argue for the sake of arguing. It's just that misinformation and vigorously leaping to conclusions tick me off.

And yet over the course of multiple threads, you seem to be doing nothing more than trying to muddy the waters as much as you can with backpedals, ham-haws, and flatly irrelevent shit like your mention of EoS, while still refusing to directly acknowledge the importance of very simple fucking facts like, you know, the fact that the designer came flat out and himself admitted that this kind of shit was what he intended the game to produce.  

Frankly your yammerings throughout this whole fiasco remind me of nothing so much as a smokescreen.

Quote from: GrimGentBut that doesn't change anything, does it? Except by loosely outlining potential courses of action, the GM cannot be responsible for the decisions made by the players or the crimes committed by the PCs. To claim otherwise flies in the face of how roleplaying games function in the first place.

The distinction between "Fade to black, guys. This is a little bit much" and "Yeah! This is great story! Pound his hams!" is that fucking lost on you, then?

I think we're done here. If Nobilis non-sequiturs and Poison'd apologetics is the extent of your presence - and I'm hard pressed to remember anything else, though I'll confess I'm not a regular reader - I think I can safely file you with Nox.

Quote from: J Arcane...flatly irrelevent shit like your mention of EoS...

Stuart suggested that Lulu would refuse to publish Poison'd on the basis of its "objectionable" content. I merely pointed out that their selection already includes material that would be considered much more objectionable than anything out of the Forge has ever been.

Quote from: GrimGentBut that doesn't change anything, does it? Except by loosely outlining potential courses of action, the GM cannot be responsible for the decisions made by the players or the crimes committed by the PCs. To claim otherwise flies in the face of how roleplaying games function in the first place.

Smiling. Nodding.  Making a comment. Looking disgusted.  Leaving.

Each and every player, including the GM, has the power to encourage the other players at the table, bring the narrative to a pause, or even stop the game.

That's how all tabletop games work.

Quote from: Christmas ApeThe distinction between "Fade to black, guys. This is a little bit much" and "Yeah! This is great story! Pound his hams!" is that fucking lost on you, then?

And yet the consensual play contract is another element common to Forge games. That distinction has already been decided on before play: the scene will fade to black if the players want it to, and not if they don't.

Quote from: GrimGentStuart suggested that Lulu would refuse to publish Poison'd on the basis of its "objectionable" content. I merely pointed out that their selection already includes material that would be considered much more objectionable than anything out of the Forge has ever been.

It's still irrelevant, nothing more than the "But Timmy did it too!" defense that wasn't applicable the first time any of us tried it in elementary school.

Illegal shit manages to be sold on eBay all the time without getting caught.  Does that make it any less illegal, or any less against policy?  No.  Because that's not how things work in the real world.

It's more smokescreen.

Quote from: StuartEach and every player, including the GM, has the power to encourage the other players at the table, bring the narrative to a pause, or even stop the game.

Yes. And they didn't.

Quote from: GrimGentI'd say the same about any activity with the potential to break old patterns of thought and trigger new ideas, you know. RPGs are not a special case in that respect.

Why not just call what the storytellers proponents do Drama Therapy? It's a perfectly legitimate term, and one that matches their activites much closer than traditional roleplaying games. Why do storytellers cling to the label of 'RPGs', and try to sell their products and theories on gaming sites, when what they're doing isn't even gaming?

Quote from: HaffrungWhy not just call what the storytellers proponents do Drama Therapy?

What if someone deliberately uses D&D for that very same purpose? This focus on "therapeutic" uses has next to nothing to do with the games themselves, only the way in which they are played.

Oh Gawd....

 Just woke up from a nap and waded through the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread.

 Grimgent: Are you defending the game  or against it ? What exactly are you arguing for ?  

 WalkerP: Whats YOUR main argument?


 MannyDipso: Why are you on here?

 Me ? : I think Poison'd is a sick joke pawned off as a game. Claiming its "art" will not work as a defense of it for me. And YES, there were 2 or 3 Rpg.net thread that tried that angle....even some on here that tried to compare it to certain movies. Doesn't work  - they're different things. An RPG is not a "movie" or TV show, there are similiarities - but thats it.

 This whole 3 or 4 thread discussion has made my dislike/hate of forge style-think even stronger.

- Ed C.

Quote from: GrimGentStuart suggested that Lulu would refuse to publish Poison'd on the basis of its "objectionable" content. I merely pointed out that their selection already includes material that would be considered much more objectionable than anything out of the Forge has ever been.

Again, I haven't read that other game... and honestly, I don't feel like wasting my time doing so... but if it does violate Lulu's terms of use, I'm sure someone will report the abuse (http://www.lulu.com/support/form_help_request.php?fReportAbuse=1).

Quote from: GrimGentYes. And they didn't.

Indeed.

Quote from: GrimGentWhat if someone deliberately uses D&D for that very same purpose? This focus on "therapeutic" uses has next to nothing to do with the games themselves, only the way in which they are played.

If most people who played D&D, including the designer, played it for S&M kink value, then D&D would be a game of kink. The rules are just squiggles on a page.

The way in which a game is played is the game. Poison'd is the AP described by Baker. That session in the AP is exactly what he intended the 'game' to foster. You can plug your ears and hum to yourself all you like, but he loved that session. It fulfilled all of his hopes for the design.

You're either remarkably obtuse, or you've just decided you're going to defend Baker and the Forge come what may. Either way, I'm done here.

Quote from: KoltarGrimgent: Are you defending the game  or against it ? What exactly are you arguing for ?

As far as I'm concerned, Poison'd in itself shouldn't need more defending than any other RPG that deals with possibly disturbing themes and matters. To summarize: "It's not the game, it's the players."

Quote from: HaffrungThe way in which a game is played is the game. Poison'd is the AP described by Baker.

...And this AP (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4215&page=1#Item_0) which you'll find remarkably free of any perversion whatsoever, and any AP produced by players who choose to avoid sinning altogether. Remember that even Baker's account described a mere handful of moments from four hours of gameplay.

Quote from: KoltarWalkerP: Whats YOUR main argument?

1) Game and let game.  2) Excessive moral censure about other people's consensual behaviour is a bad thing in a democracy.  3) 3rd Edition D&D Sucks.

I think I've been pretty consistently clear about that.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI think we're done here. If Nobilis non-sequiturs and Poison'd apologetics is the extent of your presence - and I'm hard pressed to remember anything else, though I'll confess I'm not a regular reader - I think I can safely file you with Nox.

Well, since it's true that I dislike pointless bickering and the sheer hostility around here has been weighing rather heavily on me lately, I suppose that now it really is the time to take my leave and remove this site from the old bookmarks. Have a nice life, folks.

Don't worry.  All we have to do is mention...well...you know...that game.

It's a shame.  I had a few responses and questions of GrimGent.
--------------------------------

What's excessive, walker?  Is your defense of the game excessive? I'm still bummed because the original thread that Mr. Gleichman started had very little to do with moral censure (except that it implied a taking it for granted that some sick shit happened in the game) - it had to do with the defense of the game on RPGNet and how it was hypocrisy because it blamed players.

Mr. Baker came out and said he wrote the game to drive this kind of play.  This is enough to keep him from being a hypocrite as he's keeping relatively consistent with the Forgery that is SDM.

But that, in no way, alleviates him from the question of whether or not games like that should be written, played in public, and then publicly discussed on web sites. That's a decision each of us has to make and act upon individually. The fact that you don't have a problem with it is no more or less a moral judgment than is the fact that I do, or Mr. Morrow does, or anyone else here does.

The question of excessiveness is only apropos if the moral censure exceeds the nature of the thing being criticized. If you claim we are being excessive in our censure, then surely your defense can be called excessively permissive, no? You are saying that anyone can do anything they want in any game and nobody should be able to pass judgment on them, right? You don't think that's extreme?

The problem you've yet to address with your entire yap, walker, is this: Why is it OK for you to sit in judgment of our moral censure, but not OK for us to sit in moral judgment of their perversion?

Your last point is about the only thing that seems to matter.  If this game is not d20/D&D, it can't be criticized; no judgment can be passed upon it. d20 players are narrow-minded, but heaven forbid anyone judge players of this game!

Quote from: GrimGentLearning what you can unexpectedly come up under the suitable stimulus is exactly what I'd view as worthwhile in that scenario.

We're not talking about how many breeds of dogs a person can name in 60 seconds or whether they can create a haiku about oak trees in spring on the fly here.  We're talking about stuff like the actual play thread on RPGnet.  What exactly is worthwhile about seeing how crude you can get?  To prove that you can blow past your own discomfort and not feel anything?  Like I said, that's practicing to think like a psychopath.

Quote from: GrimGentEven if the results ultimately disgust you, at least you have learned something new about yourself, and the fact that your imaginings in that situation do disgust you is yet another little revelation which might still prove useful.

But that's not what's going on there.  The point doesn't seem to be to find the point at which you are disgusted and then stop.  The point seems to be to push past the point where you are disgusted and see if you can suppress or unlearn the disgust.  Again, that's practicing to think like a psychopath.

Quote from: GrimGentI can't really see self-awareness as a bad thing.

It can be quite bad, especially if it's false self-awareness combined with encouraging people to push past their discomfort, ignore their conscience, and get a kick out of the excitement of doing something that feels wrong.  Plenty of people have ruined their lives that way.  Take a look at what things like EST and PSI do/did to people.

Quote from: GrimGentHe's probably giving a little too much credence to the influence that gaming can have on the subconscious of the players. Rituals can be used to enforce neurological effects, though, no matter how minor those might be: that's how I gained a degree of control over my dreams back in the old days. Still, by the sound of it, he's exaggerating somewhat.

How much is he exagerrating and how much truth is there to it?  And what do you think of a game designer having an agenda like that?

Quote from: GrimGentStuart suggested that Lulu would refuse to publish Poison'd on the basis of its "objectionable" content. I merely pointed out that their selection already includes material that would be considered much more objectionable than anything out of the Forge has ever been.

Has anyone bothered to actually lodge a complaint with Lulu about EoS?

Quote from: GrimGentAnd yet the consensual play contract is another element common to Forge games. That distinction has already been decided on before play: the scene will fade to black if the players want it to, and not if they don't.

As I've mentioned, more than a few players are reluctant to get up from the table until the ordeal is over and will even put up with abuse in some cases.  I've heard plenty of stories of young adult women whose first role-playing game consisted of sitting down with a group of young adult men who proceeded to rape and humiliate her character.  In most cases, it seemed as if the young woman stayed at the table until the game was over, even though this was a clearly abusive situation.  Why?  Because they are convinced that this is normal and that there is something wrong with them if they leave.  It's the basic human desire, very strong in young adults but lots of people have it, to want to fit in.  

In the quotes I posted above, one of the players did finally stop playing because of how playing AoE made them feel and what they could see the game doing to them.  But do you think they left at the first sign of discomfort or mid-game?  I doubt it.

Quote from: jeff37923Wow.

Mannydipresso, I'd like to thank you for showing up here and behaving exactly the way you have, its been informative.

Now, for everyone else reading, I'd like you to compare the behavior of Mannydipresso to that of GrimGent on this thread. Now I don't agree with GrimGent's stance on Poison'd and think he is dead wrong in his opinion. However, I do think he has been posting in an intelligent and adult manner that has enriched the discussion. Compared to MannyDipresso, who has obviously just joined theRPGsite to stir up shit with a big spoon.

Jeff,

I'm going to treat your quote above as a "Cease and Desist" order and honor it in just a sceond, but first I want to be clear about my reasons for joining theRPGsite.

It was not just to "stir shit up," although I doubt very much that you'll believe that. I joined because I wanted to post and thank you all for providing me with some real enjoyment.

I am dead serious about finding some of the comments in this thread hilarious. And I don't mean that in just a smug, dickheaded way either. Some of the comments have been--purely at the level of the writing itself--wonderful to read! Here's a good example, one from Haffrung about Vincent Baker:

QuoteThe guy deserves every bit of contempt that airing his sordid fantasies has earned him. Frankly, it seems as though he enjoys being the object of shock and contempt. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts wiping his ass on each copy of the next game he ships, to elicit a serious examination among his readers of their attitudes towards feces.

When I read that I seriously laughed my ass off! If for no other reason, for that image alone this site has justified its existence.

Now, do I think that Haffrung's comment is fair to Vincent? Not at all. But it is so fucking funny that it mitigates (and, in fact, trumps) the whole unfairness issue.

Here's another one that I like, this time from Pundy himself in a review of Keith S's Conspiracy of Shadows game:

QuoteAfter this we get a section on "GM advice" about running a campaign, with lots of Forgey stuff about "themes" and "screen presence", and how CoS "is built around the idea of collaborative play with both the players and Game Master constructing the shared imaginary space". Fuck that. Fuck shared imaginary space. Also, Keith, I think you're lying: Too much of what I read from this game hints to me that it started as a bog-standard decent RPG that got a bunch of Forge crap about "shared imaginary space" tacked onto it at the end because you wanted to suck Ron Edward's cock.

I think it was Luke Crane (of Burning Wheel and Burning Empires fame) who responded to this in a comment in which he expresses indignation at Pundy's insinuation that Keith is a Friend of Dorothy, etc., and while I'm sure he had good reasons for doing this (being Keith's friend and all that) I think that he misses something important here. Yes this is vile. Yes this is abusive. But it is also fucking hilarious (again, just at the level of the writing). I read this review this morning and had to literally hold my ribs after reading that last sentence. It is a magnificent piece of spleen.

So, my whole reason for joining was to express the pleasure I've received from comments like these. Whether you believe it or not, some of the Forgeite swine have a sense of humor about themselves...at least I think the 2008 models they're rolling out will!?! And some of us actually get a kick out of seeing people whose games we know travestied in such an outrageous--and outrageously funny--manner.

And yes, I used the occasion of delivering this praise as an occasion to poke a little fun at some of you too, but I never intended it to go further than that. That changed a bit when Pierce showed up and talked some smack and I took an opportunity to rib him a bit, but in all honesty I'd include Pierce in that same group of people whose posts I enjoy reading, even if his chosen idiom is quite different. Here's one of his I really like from a thread called "Notes toward a critique of embedded themes in Forge narrativist games":

QuoteThe very foundational question of that game, "How far blah blah blah...," emerges from the background of a specifically postwar North-American, ballpark libertarian obsession with bourgeois subjectivity and the adequate realization thereof in face of an adversarial world (known to us--but not to its proponents--as consumer capitalism) that marks it as dated humanism circa 1955.

In short, kitsch.

This is Pierce talking about Ron Edwards' Sorcerer. Now, I think that game holds up really well as a design and could quarrel with Pierce about his assessment of it, but here's the thing: it is an exemplary piece of writing. As a an example of the genre I call "the withering review," it's brilliant. It shows off an acquaintance with philosophical movements and possesses an awareness of history, all while being both understatedly funny and fiercely dismissive--the adjectival "ballpark" feels tossed off and jokey but it has real teeth to it too.

It's great stuff. I mean that sincerely, Pierce, so don't be a douche. Just take the compliment.

But having said all that, I suspect that there are probably some of you thinking that ole Manny is just fuckin' with your heads. That I'm really here to act out that larger swinish agenda to bring this site down.

I don't know how to respond to that other than to say, "I'm not." I haven't the least interest in wrecking this place, even if I could. I'm not that kind of asshole.

I'm a different kind of asshole, if you like. I want this place to go on and on, and for all of you to go on and on, driving each other to new heights of rhetorical excess and pushing your imaginations to ever more lurid fantasies of what the Forgeish swine do. Seriously, ladies and gentlemen, I want more of the stuff I quoted above.

Why? Because it is amusing. It cracks me up. And it isn't just amusing in the "look, mommy, at the funny monkeys" way, it's amusing because some of you have a real flair for comic writing or just writing in general, and that's something I've always taken pleasure in.

So I hope to assure you that I have no ill-will towards this place and would hate to see it close by agreeing to abide by Jeff's unstated request to "Cease and Desist" and by giving my fellow swine the following (unsolicited) advice:

If you are here in order to try to poison this place, don't do it. It's not only a mean thing to do, it's actually not in your best interests. If you can't content yourself with lurking (as I will go back to doing) and find the humor in some of the shit that is said here, you should think about why that is. I've been a member of the Forge for a long time and I like lots of the games that have been produced there, but you've got to have a sense of humor about yourself and these folks are ensuring that we do. And they're doing it in a way that gets a laugh.

Sure there's plenty of inaccurate crap that gets said, but no one here is doing anyone any harm, so don't come here trying to wreck other folks' fun.

If you do, you'll actually be fucking with my fun, and I won't be happy and might track you down and light a bag of poop on fire and leave it on your dooorstep. If I can find you, which is doubtful.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Back to lurking.

Carry on!

manny




P.S. Oops! I forgot to add one thing. I don't just read for amusement. As I said to Kyle Aaron in his thread about "Giving Players Choices," I think that there are some cool game ideas being vetted here (his is one of them) and I hope I'll eventually see Kyle A.'s game out there and be able to give it a try.

But really, what is going on with your margins?  Are you embedding some javascript or something in your posts?

Quote from: John MorrowAs I've mentioned, more than a few players are reluctant to get up from the table until the ordeal is over and will even put up with abuse in some cases.  I've heard plenty of stories of young adult women whose first role-playing game consisted of sitting down with a group of young adult men who proceeded to rape and humiliate her character.  In most cases, it seemed as if the young woman stayed at the table until the game was over, even though this was a clearly abusive situation.  Why?  Because they are convinced that this is normal and that there is something wrong with them if they leave.  It's the basic human desire, very strong in young adults but lots of people have it, to want to fit in.  

See now here is a situation with which I would have a problem and would consider action.  A game being played where an individual player was targeted and made to feel humiliated or bad due to their gender, inexperience, age or whatever, is a bad thing and if I heard about it happening at my con or at a table near me, I would take the time to talk to the people involved about it.  If it seemed that the situation wasn't going to improve or the players weren't going to change their behaviour, I'd boot them out if I had the power or I'd say something to someone who was in charge if I didn't.

But that is a very different situation then consensual adults doing the same thing together.  I do agree that it can be a tricky line if someone starts feeling uncomfortable, but if they knew what they were getting into going and made that choice, then I would leave it up to them to regulate themselves.

Quote from: James J SkachYour last point is about the only thing that seems to matter.  If this game is not d20/D&D, it can't be criticized; no judgment can be passed upon it. d20 players are narrow-minded, but heaven forbid anyone judge players of this game!

You have read me wrong.  It has nothing to do with the system.  It's about content.  I'm totally comfortable with the criticisms that the game is a bunch of touchy-feely new age psychobabble or that the mechanics are lame.  By the same token, if a bunch of D20 Modern players (how, god, how?) were playing a game of modern neck-raping spies (do they take the feat of neck-raping?  How does that work in D20?), I wouldn't have a problem with the subject matter, as long as everyone in the game joined it with knowledge aforehand.  Now the fact that their characters can't learn a new skill that falls outside of their class, well that is a ridiculousness that should probably be weeded out and eventually banned from the hobby altogether.

Quote from: walkerpBut that is a very different situation then consensual adults doing the same thing together.  I do agree that it can be a tricky line if someone starts feeling uncomfortable, but if they knew what they were getting into going and made that choice, then I would leave it up to them to regulate themselves.

The problem is that I think the line of what is or isn't consent is often fairly ambiguous.  While I do believe Vincent Baker when he says that everyone in his actual play example consensually participated and knew what they were doing, I think that's less clear in the example I quoted above, where a player ultimately felt so disturbed by what the game was encouraging them to do that they stopped playing.  Did they stop playing the moment that they felt uncomfortable?  I doubt it.  And if game designers are purposely designing games to make players feel dirty, feel regret, and feel uncomfortable playing the game, then I think they are putting themselves in a role not unlike that of the experienced players who play with a new player to see how far they can push her before she breaks.

Quote from: walkerpYou have read me wrong.  It has nothing to do with the system.  It's about content.  I'm totally comfortable with the criticisms that the game is a bunch of touchy-feely new age psychobabble or that the mechanics are lame.  By the same token, if a bunch of D20 Modern players (how, god, how?) were playing a game of modern neck-raping spies (do they take the feat of neck-raping?  How does that work in D20?), I wouldn't have a problem with the subject matter, as long as everyone in the game joined it with knowledge aforehand.  Now the fact that their characters can't learn a new skill that falls outside of their class, well that is a ridiculousness that should probably be weeded out and eventually banned from the hobby altogether.

This?  This almost facetious, off-hand mention of your stupid d20 hatred; this is what you answer?  Not one fucking word yet on answering the assertion that you are a hypopcrite for judging those of us with the nerve to judge these play posts as disgusting? Not a word on how you can run around screaming "oppression" and "censorship" without nothing to back it up, but we're horrible for judging actual fucking play posts as morally reprehensible? Not one comment one whether or not those who believe in Forgery accept that there was something disturbing about the play but blame the players so they can leave a favored son from taking the hit - even when, ironically, he deisgned the game to do what it did?

Jesus, walker, you are an empty suit...forget any questions I asked....

Quote from: walkerp3)  "Measures to ensure that others don't perceive them to represent the hobby."  Okay, here is where I disagree with you on many levels.  First of all, it would be almost impossible for anyone outside of the hobby to even hear about Poison'd.  If they did, they would either not get it or not care or be intelligent enough (crucial point in a free society) to recognize that this was a  particular and tiny subset of the hobby.  If they see this and freak out and paint the whole hobby as a bunch of neck-raping touchy-feely weirdos, then they are idiots and I don't want them in the hobby anyways.

But let's say that somehow Poison'd got really popular or made some news somewhere (because of some journalists encouraging people to freak out about stupid stuff as they love to do).  Do I think we should then act to censor and limit the distribution of information about the game and AP sessions?  Absolutely not.  It exists. It's a part of the hobby.  It's existence is the truth.  All this crap happened with video games, heavy metal, women being allowed to vote, this shocking movie of the week. And in every case, the content in question has eventually made it into our society and all those industries truck along just fine.  Has society gotten any worse because of it?  I don't know.  That's a much bigger can of worms that I don't want to open now. (to veer off any arguments in this direction, I think we should fix our education system before we start worrying about what not to show children).

Couple of things in response here.

Poison'd can be found on the internet by a simple Google search. That alone means that it is not hard to find the game or the Actual Play report. Considering that a lot of reaction to that AP report has been negative, then its important for the reputation of the hobby to make the distinction that AP like what has occured in Poison'd only represents a "very tiny fringe" group of gamers.

Now, you have acknowledged that this debate and the reactions remind you of the anti-gaming hysteria of the 80's. The important distinction between the two events is that while back then you had people condemning the hobby who had no experience or knowledge of the hobby, now the negative reactions to Poison'd are from people who have had decades of experience and are very knowledgeable about the hobby. Before the opponents to gaming didn't know what they were opposing, now the opponents to Poison'd know exactly what they are opposing and are discussing it rationally.

I have yet to see anyone say that the game should be banned or censured (Hell, by all accounts the damn thing is just an ashcan anyways), but I have seen many who are repulsed by the AP content and a game that would encourage such content. So I thinks it behooves us to let people know that the AP report only represents a "very tiny fringe" (your words) group of gamers and not the majority in the gaming hobby. That is not hysteria.

Now, if you and any others reading this would like to entertain what hysteria could be, imagine the fallout if this game and its AP report became the subject of a segment on 60 Minutes, The O'reilley Factor, or Geraldo.

Quote from: mannydipressosnipped - an intelligent adult response

Mannydipresso, if you want to join in the conversation, then do so and don't lurk. There's a huge difference between a vigorous debate and smug trolling, the former is acceptable here while the latter isn't.

Quote from: jeff37923Now, if you and any others reading this would like to entertain what hysteria could be, imagine the fallout if this game and its AP report became the subject of a segment on 60 Minutes, The O'reilley Factor, or Geraldo.

There would be no fallout.  It would actually probably help the hobby. There would be some outraged parents talking heads, interviews with game store owers and hobbyists who would present counter opinions and ultimately it would probably end up generating more awareness of gaming than 4e will.

However, it's not going to happen. Why?  Because it's not a story and even the most controversy-seeking shock jock will see that in a second.  There's nothing there.

Quote from: James J SkachJesus, walker, you are an empty suit...forget any questions I asked....

I already did.

Quote from: walkerpThere would be no fallout.  It would actually probably help the hobby. There would be some outraged parents talking heads, interviews with game store owers and hobbyists who would present counter opinions and ultimately it would probably end up generating more awareness of gaming than 4e will.

However, it's not going to happen. Why?  Because it's not a story and even the most controversy-seeking shock jock will see that in a second.  There's nothing there.

Damned if you don't cherry-pick your answers. Its like you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the conversation here.

Any comment on the rest of the post?

You know, this part:

QuoteCouple of things in response here.

Poison'd can be found on the internet by a simple Google search. That alone means that it is not hard to find the game or the Actual Play report. Considering that a lot of reaction to that AP report has been negative, then its important for the reputation of the hobby to make the distinction that AP like what has occured in Poison'd only represents a "very tiny fringe" group of gamers.

Now, you have acknowledged that this debate and the reactions remind you of the anti-gaming hysteria of the 80's. The important distinction between the two events is that while back then you had people condemning the hobby who had no experience or knowledge of the hobby, now the negative reactions to Poison'd are from people who have had decades of experience and are very knowledgeable about the hobby. Before the opponents to gaming didn't know what they were opposing, now the opponents to Poison'd know exactly what they are opposing and are discussing it rationally.

I have yet to see anyone say that the game should be banned or censured (Hell, by all accounts the damn thing is just an ashcan anyways), but I have seen many who are repulsed by the AP content and a game that would encourage such content. So I thinks it behooves us to let people know that the AP report only represents a "very tiny fringe" (your words) group of gamers and not the majority in the gaming hobby. That is not hysteria.

Quote from: jeff37923Damned if you don't cherry-pick your answers. Its like you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the conversation here.

Any comment on the rest of the post?

No.

Quote from: wakerpThere would be no fallout. It would actually probably help the hobby. There would be some outraged parents talking heads, interviews with game store owers and hobbyists who would present counter opinions and ultimately it would probably end up generating more awareness of gaming than 4e will.

If by "the hobby" you mean storygames / dramatherapy targeted at an adult audience then you might be right.  This just supports the idea that we are in fact talking about separate hobbies.  

That scenario would not help bring a new generation of gamers into the "traditional" RPG hobby.  No normal adult would see that kind of news coverage and be more inclined to buy Timmy a roleplaying game for his 9th birthday.

It reminds me of what happened to the North American comic industry.  In the drive to prove that comics were "not just for kids!" they ended up creating an industry where they *weren't* for kids, and were surprised that they had an aging and shrinking audience.  Marvel and DC comics now run their publishing divisions at a loss, and only turn a profit through the secondary merchandise and movie deals.

So what you see as helping the hobby, I see as hurting it... because we're talking about different hobbies with alternate goals, audiences, and activities.

When people decide they want to sell their "adult" game or run a demo of it at GenCon, do they normally let the Event Management know their intentions?  I was surprised that the GenCon admin staff would be cool with this... and it turns out they probably wouldn't be:

Quote from: General Rules and RegulationsNo exhibitor or member of an exhibit may promote, display, or behave in a manner considered offensive to decency or good taste as determined by Event Management.

Now, I haven't been to GenCon before... so I'm not 100% sure of what they would consider offensive to decency and good taste, but their general standards for behaviour suggest that the management wouldn't be cool with any of this:

Quote from: Standards for GenCon2. Violence and Gore—Products depicting lurid scenes of excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, filth, sadism, or masochism, presented editorially or graphically, are unacceptable. Products featuring depictions of unnecessary violence, brutality, physical agony, and gore, including but not limited to, extreme graphic or descriptive scenes presenting cannibalism, decapitation, evisceration, amputation, or other gory injuries, may not be advertised, displayed, or sold.

3. Sexual Themes—Displays containing items and/or sexual themes are not permitted. Products depicting rape and graphic lust may not be advertised or sold. Products featuring sexual perversion and/or sexual abnormalities are unacceptable for advertising, display, or sale.

Good to see that the people running GenCon have thought about all of this, and have made some good policies around it already!

Quote from: StuartWhen people decide they want to sell their "adult" game or run a demo of it at GenCon, do they normally let the Event Management know their intentions?  I was surprised that the GenCon admin staff would be cool with this... and it turns out they probably wouldn't be:



Now, I haven't been to GenCon before... so I'm not 100% sure of what they would consider offensive to decency and good taste, but their general standards for behaviour suggest that the management wouldn't be cool with any of this:



Good to see that the people running GenCon have thought about all of this, and have made some good policies around it already!

Hopefully the GenCon Staff is aware of the Poison'd game and Actual Play that has happened there.

Quote from: StuartIt reminds me of what happened to the North American comic industry.  In the drive to prove that comics were "not just for kids!" they ended up creating an industry where they *weren't* for kids, and were surprised that they had an aging and shrinking audience.  Marvel and DC comics now run their publishing divisions at a loss, and only turn a profit through the secondary merchandise and movie deals.

Not sure where I got this link recently (maybe another thread here) but it's related to what you are saying and what's being discussed here:

http://www.tvparty.com/comics/toth20.html

Quote from: StuartGood to see that the people running GenCon have thought about all of this, and have made some good policies around it already!

Those policies should probably apply to some games out there already, including some Tribe 8 books and Little Fears.

(ADDED:  I suppose that I should add, as a matter of full disclosure, that my only RPG industry writing credits were for two essays that I wrote that were included in the Tribe 8 Companion.)

Quote from: jeff37923Hopefully the GenCon Staff is aware of the Poison'd game and Actual Play that has happened there.

Well, there was a discussion on TBP about another actual play example that someone thought sounded pretty much exactly like the one posted there as an example of what the game was like, that sounded like it was a different game session, and it sounded like it was played in a public space.

Quote from: StuartSo what you see as helping the hobby, I see as hurting it... because we're talking about different hobbies with alternate goals, audiences, and activities.

No, I am talking about the mainstream hobby.

And your analysis of what happened to the comics industry is reductive at best (rise of television, videogames, computers, etc. may have been a teeny factor in driving down sales) and ignores its current growth and massively succesful expansion into movies.  

It sounds to me like you all are still quaking in fear from the Satanic scare that happened in the '80s and did not harm the industry one bit.  I think we should have a bit more confidence and pride in our pasttime and not think that one example of extreme play made public could bring the whole thing crashing down.  I mean for christ's sake, take a look at the videogame industry.  Every election there is a major outcry by assholes like Lieberman about violence in videogames that never do anything to their economic success.  And in between constant little freakouts about this game and that.  Videogame industry, still doing quite fine thank you.

Quote from: walkerpNo, I am talking about the mainstream hobby.

Then you're mistaken.  Associating a hobby or product with something negative will not help bring kids into that hobby or buy that product.  It can help with an older demographic, which is why I'm saying it depends on the specific hobby you're talking about.

Quote from: walkerpAnd your analysis of what happened to the comics industry is reductive at best (rise of television, videogames, computers, etc. may have been a teeny factor in driving down sales) and ignores its current growth and massively succesful expansion into movies.

I mentioned the expansion into movies.  I'm talking about the comics themselves. There's been some recent success based on the sale of trade paperbacks as well as new titles seeking to emulate the success of Manga, but overall it's not a healthy industry.  

What are you basing your analysis on?  What would you say the target audience is for the average marvel or dc comic?  Let's say: Captain America.  Do you think that's the same as it was 30 or 40 years ago?

I'm basing my comments on comic industry publications, discussion lists, and conversation with my friends in the comic industry.

Quote from: walkerpIt sounds to me like you all are still quaking in fear from the Satanic scare that happened in the '80s and did not harm the industry one bit.

Are you old enough to have been playing RPGs in the '80s?  It didn't destroy the industry, but saying it had no effect is ridiculous.  

Quote from: walkerpI think we should have a bit more confidence and pride in our pasttime and not think that one example of extreme play made public could bring the whole thing crashing down.

I agree, and think we should feel confident in saying that those examples of extreme play are part of a fringe element of "the hobby", or possibly an entirely seperate pasttime.

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is...  that nobody should comment on content they find offensive?

Didn't harm the industry?

You are aware that D&D 2nd Edition took out Demons and Devils because of that "scare," right?

You are aware that it was one of the moves that damaged the sales of that venerable title, so much so that it was returned in 3rd Edition, right?

Quote from: StuartThen you're mistaken.  Associating a hobby or product with something negative will not help bring kids into that hobby or buy that product.  It can help with an older demographic, which is why I'm saying it depends on the specific hobby you're talking about.

I'm not saying it's going to attract anybody.  I'm saying the few people that it turns away (which may well happen) will be so marginal that it won't matter.

Quote from: StuartAre you old enough to have been playing RPGs in the '80s?  It didn't destroy the industry, but saying it had no effect is ridiculous.  

I was right in the middle of it in my town.  It was being held as an after school program and these two freaked out born again christians went after it for being part of a municipal program.  The news picked it up.  My mom, who was the psychologist in the hospital was interviewed about it and me* and all my friends wrote letters to the editor.  It became a bit of a civic debate going back and forth in the Letters section.  The majority of the people in the town wrote in defense of D&D  In the end, the program continued and everybody was fine.  


*For my birthday a couple years ago, my mom collected all the clippings and made a little book out of them.  Pretty cool, but boy was my letter ever embarrassing.  I had a line about how if my players ever went into a brothel, they would certainly end up robbed and in the gutter, if not dead.  I was a bit of a moralist back then and a huge railroader.

To review, and I hope this is straightforward enough that we can get general agreement.

• Consenting adults, in private, should be free to express themselves however they want or engage in whatever activities they want.


• People should be free to express themselves in public within limits.  Hate speech, lying in court, and libel are examples of limitations to freedom of speech.


• Performances and publications that involve some types of content are illegal in most places.  Content of a sexual or violent nature involving minors is an example of illegal content.


• Private companies, such as Lulu and GenCon are free to add further restrictions on the type of performances and publications they will allow.  Since you are not required to use their services, this is not an infringement of your freedom of speech.

This is how the real world works, and most people will agree that it's a good system.  You might not, but that would put you in the minority.  

Therefore:

• It is reasonable to expect that people will be somehow prevented from disregarding laws and or codes of conduct.
  
  
• It is reasonable for people to be surprised and/or offended by content which laws and codes of conduct were designed to prevent appearing.
  
  
• It is unreasonable to expect that the appearance of content that is prohibited by laws or codes of conduct is found normal and acceptable.
  
  
• It is reasonable to expect that people will not use private companies if they do not agree with their codes of conduct.
  
  
• It is reasonable to expect that some people may want to have laws changed, or move to a place with different laws that they find more agreeable.
  

Quote from: StuartConsenting adults, in private, should be free to express themselves however they want or engage in whatever activities they want.

That's not actually always true in practice (e.g., you cannot consent to sell yourself to someone else, either as a prostitute or a slave, nor can you conspire to commit crimes, nor can you use illegal substances, and so on in many places).  You can argue that people should be able to do these things in all cases, but in practice they are often not.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's not actually always true in practice (e.g., you cannot consent to sell yourself to someone else, either as a prostitute or a slave, nor can you conspire to commit crimes, nor can you use illegal substances, and so on in many places).  You can argue that people should be able to do these things in all cases, but in practice they are often not.

Fair enough.  I was thinking more in terms of saying things, and playing types of games. :)  You're absolutely correct though.

Quote from: walkerpI was right in the middle of it in my town.  It was being held as an after school program and these two freaked out born again christians went after it for being part of a municipal program.  The news picked it up.  My mom, who was the psychologist in the hospital was interviewed about it and me and all my friends wrote letters to the editor.  It became a bit of a civic debate going back and forth in the Letters section.  The majority of the people in the town wrote in defense of D&D  In the end, the program continued and everybody was fine.  

Do you believe that the happy ending this situation had would have come to pass if the people had been playing Poison'd and had the Vincent Baker AP report to refer to?

Okay, I really thought "This is great story! Pound his hams!" was funnier than I'm being given credit for. What, should I have tossed in a :5416: or a :fap: just to get the cheap laugh?

I give you people gold and I get squat! I'll be in the car. :grumpy:

I'm a little more distrubed that we have an ass-to-mouth emote on the boards then I am that people played a creepy game. I mean, no judgement, Christmas Ape, I'm just surprised.

Why do we have an ass-to-mouth emote?

Quote from: Thanatos02Why do we have an ass-to-mouth emote?

Yeah, that's my thought, too.

Quote from: Thanatos02I'm a little more distrubed that we have an ass-to-mouth emote on the boards then I am that people played a creepy game. I mean, no judgement, Christmas Ape, I'm just surprised.

Why do we have an ass-to-mouth emote?

It's not like I added it to the, so I don't know how you'd judge me for it. It was the only sodomy-related emote I could find. Which sort of begs the question....are there more?

Quote from: Christmas ApeIt's not like I added it to the, so I don't know how you'd judge me for it. It was the only sodomy-related emote I could find. Which sort of begs the question....are there more?

I know you didn't add it; I mean, I did say I wasn't judging you. ^_^; I wasn't being sarcastic.

It's just odd. Like, it's so specific.
I mean, what the fuck is this? :sleep2:

Quote from: Thanatos02Why do we have an ass-to-mouth emote?

Proabably the mods like a bit of that sort of action.

Quote from: droogProabably the mods like a bit of that sort of action.

Rimshot.

Christmas Ape, I found the pound his hams comment hilarious, but I was at a con all weekend and planning for it beforehand so I didn't have the cycles to post such.  

That ass-to-mouth emoticon has now revealed what a bunch of hypocrites you all are.  This place is sick!

What's next, Pundit's Forward to Ass-to-mouth!?

Quote from: walkerpThat ass-to-mouth emoticon has now revealed what a bunch of hypocrites you all are.  This place is sick!

I agree the emoticon certainly is and would be quite happy if the moderators removed it.  In fact, I think I'll start a Help Desk thread about that now...

(ADDED:  Request to delete the obscene emoticons posted here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7576))

Where's the Dirty Sanchez smiley? That's what I want to know.

Quote from: walkerpThat ass-to-mouth emoticon has now revealed what a bunch of hypocrites you all are.  This place is sick!

Nobody is forcing you to stay here, walkerp.

Quote from: jeff37923Nobody is forcing you to stay here, walkerp.

I'm still wondering why the hell he is here.

Likes a bit of coprophilia, I suppose.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'm still wondering why the hell he is here.

Because now I see that you punk bitches are in the minority.  You're just louder than everyone else.

Quote from: walkerpBecause now I see that you punk bitches are in the minority.  You're just louder than everyone else.

I'm used to that. The high school I went to was 80% black kids. It was fun being in the minority.


- Ed C.

Quote from: walkerpBecause now I see that you punk bitches are in the minority.  You're just louder than everyone else.

People who don't use RPGs as drama therapy are in the minority? Or did you mean people who aren't into extreme sadism and necrophelia in their games are in the minority?

Quote from: jeff37923Rimshot.

Money shot.

Quote from: Thanatos02Money shot.

I would have gone with rimjob, myself.

Quote from: BrantaiI would have gone with rimjob, myself.

I think we all knew you would.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI think we all knew you would.

We don't even have an emoticon for that.

Y'know... there is something insightful to be said about Walkerp's moral outrage over our lack of moral outrage over two apparently consenting emoticons doing something found in more or less mainstream film...of a sort... when contrasted with his lack of moral outrage over people broadcasting pedo-necro-sado murder/rape fantasies.

Hmm... I wonder what it could be...

Quote from: SpikeY'know... there is something insightful to be said about Walkerp's moral outrage over our lack of moral outrage over two apparently consenting emoticons doing something found in more or less mainstream film...of a sort... when contrasted with his lack of moral outrage over people broadcasting pedo-necro-sado murder/rape fantasies.

Hmm... I wonder what it could be...

Hey, man, dead people and dead people - but poop in the mouth is just gross.

Quote from: SpikeY'know... there is something insightful to be said about Walkerp's moral outrage over our lack of moral outrage over two apparently consenting emoticons doing something found in more or less mainstream film...of a sort... when contrasted with his lack of moral outrage over people broadcasting pedo-necro-sado murder/rape fantasies.

Hmm... I wonder what it could be...

That moral outrage relativism is about as fucked up as a soup sandwich?

Or is it just homophobic racism since the acts were between two consenting adult emoticons?  Gay sex between humans is fine, but you've just got to keep those damn emoticons on the plantation!

I mean, "Good God, Man!"

Quote from: SpikeY'know... there is something insightful to be said about Walkerp's moral outrage over our lack of moral outrage over two apparently consenting emoticons doing something found in more or less mainstream film...of a sort... when contrasted with his lack of moral outrage over people broadcasting pedo-necro-sado murder/rape fantasies.

Hmm... I wonder what it could be...

I was pretty sure it was all a joke.

Quote from: walkerpBecause now I see that you punk bitches are in the minority. You're just louder than everyone else.

As far as age goes, or as far as being angry goes?
Or maybe as far as being female punks go?
Like, when you use the plurl form, who are you talking to?

Quote from: jeff37923Or is it just homophobic racism since the acts were between two consenting adult emoticons?  Gay sex between humans is fine, but you've just got to keep those damn emoticons on the plantation!

I would find the act depicted in that emoticon objectionable regardless of the perceived sex of the smileys.  In fact, we don't know for certain what the sex of the receiving smiley is and I don't think it matters all that much.  It the smileys depict an act that would get a movie an NC-17 rating or a court to call it "obscene".

Quote from: John MorrowI would find the act depicted in that emoticon objectionable regardless of the perceived sex of the smileys.  In fact, we don't know for certain what the sex of the receiving smiley is and I don't think it matters all that much.  It the smileys depict an act that would get a movie an NC-17 rating or a court to call it "obscene".

I hope you didn´t vote for Clinton.

Quote from: SettembriniI hope you didn´t vote for Clinton.

---------

Of course not.  And I'm well aware of how his administration gutted the anti-obscenity enforcement at the Federal level leading to a large increase in brutal torture and humiliation pornography, which is why some pornographers were so enthusiastic in their support of him.  PBS Frontline did a pretty good overview of what happened and what changed.  You can watch it online and read related material here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/

And I would appreciate it if the inevitable free speech enthusiast watched the program before blasting it.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd I'm well aware of how his administration gutted the anti-obscenity enforcement at the Federal level leading to a large increase in brutal torture and humiliation pornography, which is why some pornographers were so enthusiastic in their support of him.  PBS Frontline did a pretty good overview of what happened and what changed.  You can watch it online and read related material here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/

And I would appreciate it if the inevitable free speech enthusiast watched the program before blasting it.

I've seen it, and while you don't actually say it, you're implying that the pre-Clinton anti-obscenity enforcement went after "brutal torture and humiliation pornography".  However, the interview with Bruce Taylor that has a problem with the Clinton administration makes clear that he was prosecuting any pornography, and that's what he said was gutted.  

QuoteThe department was very effective in toning down the kind of material you saw because they were indicting the big shots. Everybody else in the industry said, "If they can get to the boss, they can get to us." And we were prosecuting not the worst kind of pornography. When we found the torture and the bestiality and the sadomasochistic and excretory materials, that was indicted, too. But we also were indicting the main type of product, their regular hardcore heterosexual material. ... That put a damper on the industry's willingness to distribute -- at least openly -- the more extreme stuff.

I think the biggest message that was sent is, "This is a crime, and we can get to you. The federal grand juries will indict you, and the FBI and postal inspectors will do the investigations. They will do searches with judges' authorizations, take your records and make you pay your taxes, and they'll make you go to jail. So that put the fear of the law back into the industry until maybe 1994-1995, when the prosecutions pretty much stopped. ...

Quote from: jhkimI've seen it, and while you don'