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.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.
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.
Whose 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.
all on the strength of a snippet from a session.
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.
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.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.
You 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.
I disbelieve in this thread.
Poof!
The illusion vanishes.
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.
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.
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.
A 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?
"One of our ongoing players had to bow out after a few sessions. [...] the game is really going to sing."
it's quite possibly the most masterfully-designed game of all time.
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'm still disbelieving in this thread- and the eighty others just like it.
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.
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.
seconded! you could amend the thread title with [baker'ed].
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?
That would make my job of ignoring this shit easier.
Yes, but every time you look at one, then you fail to disbelieve, thus bringing the thread back.
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?
Not 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.Well, you don't kill topics by posting about them, you kill them by posting about other stuff. I started two (http://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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
No "veering' at all . My Gut "art-meter" says that Mapplethorpe was an artist, and Vincent Baker is not one.
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.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.
Okay, but some might just consider them gay porn.
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.
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.
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.
Mapplethorpe never endorsed rape or corpse violating.
The writer of Poison'd and the game itself seens to.
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.
Bottom 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...
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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?
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.
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.
No "veering' at all . My Gut "art-meter" says that Mapplethorpe was an artist, and Vincent Baker is not one.
I've been maintaining from the start that this public focus on atrocities is a disservice to the game.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
Sometimes 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.
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.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.
People of the RPGSite if Poison'd bugs you - don't play it. If threads about it bug you - DON'T START ANOTHER ONE.
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?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.
How about you follow your own advice? If this thread bothers you - don't read it.
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.
So... where exactly are those great benefits of sinning?
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.
The 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.
And 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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I haven't started any of these threads, have I?
Seems like a pretty lively thread to me.
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...
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.
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?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.
To 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.
Have 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.
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.
Sure. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your appreciation of bacon sets you apart and above.
Well that explains everything, then. He's one of those Baconist Swine.
;)
So 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.
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.
So you prefer the ostrich school of dealing with things that you don't like?
OK. Fair enough.
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.
Most 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?
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.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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
As for the "pretentious name dropping" comment, I'll let that pass
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.
What's the relation between Paul Klee and Vincent Baker, according to you?
Let's see what you've got.
Academic cage-fight!
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.
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.
Those think-tanks I mentioned are well-endowed.
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!
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.
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.
That's it?
More posturing, more name dropping, more excuses.
You got nothing. QED.
Smoke 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?
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.
Awesome! A criticism of the excluded middle in your first sentence and then a perfect example of the usage of same in the next.
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?
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?
Because, of course, being judgmental has become the only sin.
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.
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:This is unfortunately a point that is often completely lost on the Internet.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Paging Kitty Genovese. Paging Kitty Genovese.
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.
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.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.
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?
Vincent Baker needs to get his fucking juvenile morality plays and rape fetish the fuck out of my hobby.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Obviously 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.
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?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".
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.I don't advocate it*, no, and I'm certain I couldn't force him out.
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?
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?
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?
By 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.
Teen: 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.
I 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.
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?
Since 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.")
Well, 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.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.
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?
I can't see how Poison'd could possibly be regarded as somehow more morally reprehensible, frankly.
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).
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?
Also we can't ignore that Vincent Baker has himself said that the rules of Poison'd may encourage monstrous and objectionable behavior.
Also 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
which means the roleplaying of monstrous and objectionable behavior.
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.
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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?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."
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.
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.
People looking at them funny? Who gives a shit about people looking at them funny?
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".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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Walking on the grass != talking about walking on the grass
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
"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.
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.
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.
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.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.
What 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.
If 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."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."
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.
Drama 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 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.
"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.
"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.
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.While he's not specifically talking about rape, it's one of the most repeated words in that statement.
WTF is wrong with this guy?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.
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.
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.Isn't "the GM is just another player!" one of the fucking Forgery warcries?
Adult young adult fiction.
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..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.
Isn'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.
The action which made the session stand out was that for the first time a PC raped another PConscreen. It would behoove you to read all of a statement you intend to defend.
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.A) For certain values of success.
Blaming 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...
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.
Right. 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.
onscreen. 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.
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.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.
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.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?
...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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.Yes. And they didn't.
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.
Why 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.
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.
Yes. And they didn't.
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.
Grimgent: 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."
The 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.
WalkerP: Whats YOUR main argument?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
After 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.
The 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
snipped - an intelligent adult response
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.
Jesus, walker, you are an empty suit...forget any questions I asked....
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.
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.
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?
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.
No 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.
2. 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.
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:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Consenting 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.
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.
Why do we have an ass-to-mouth emote?
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.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?
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?
Why do we have an ass-to-mouth emote?
Proabably the mods like a bit of that sort of action.
That ass-to-mouth emoticon has now revealed what a bunch of hypocrites you all are. This place is sick!
That 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.I'm still wondering why the hell he is here.
I'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.
Because now I see that you punk bitches are in the minority. You're just louder than everyone else.
Rimshot.
Money shot.
I would have gone with rimjob, myself.I think we all knew you would.
I think we all knew you would.
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...
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...
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...
Because now I see that you punk bitches are in the minority. You're just louder than everyone else.
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 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.---------
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.
The 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. ...
I've seen it, and while you don'