Quote from: Justin Alexander;496969Under this logic, the book should really just have a couple paragraphs explaining that "monsters" are really scary.

If all of the monsters in said book only inflicted variations of say, fire damage, have minor variations in appearance, strength and habits, you might have had a point.

Same with hexes. If they were all marshland with the same sort of inhabitants, you really only need to point out what they are once and leave the GM to it.

QuoteBut it also tells you about the location of the Fanes of Hastur and the burial chambers of the serpent-men. Either might be worth checking out. In other words, they're serving the same function as old school treasure maps, but with a distinctly different flavor.

Something worthwhile in that, for sure.

QuoteSo what's your point? Other than the prudishness/outrage you claim isn't underlying your complaint, what's your rationale for objecting to this specific supplementary material?

See above.

There is an expurgated version floating around.  It's the old one, not the new, but it took out all the murder and rape.  I think there's a few sacrifices left, but not many, and certainly not of the "rape him to death" type.

Quote from: joewolz;496999There is an expurgated version floating around.  It's the old one, not the new, but it took out all the murder and rape.  I think there's a few sacrifices left, but not many, and certainly not of the "rape him to death" type.

Which pretty much vindicates my opinion. If the author is happy enough that they add so little to the game that he's willing to leave them out of another version, then they are of questionable utility.

It then follows that if they do add little to the game what was the point of including them in the first place?

Quote from: One Horse Town;497336It then follows that if they do add little to the game what was the point of including them in the first place?

Well, they pretty much guaranteed that people would talk about the book on the Internet right?  I'm almost convinced that the gross-out stuff is just savvy marketing.

Quote from: misterguignol;497337Well, they pretty much guaranteed that people would talk about the book on the Internet right?  I'm almost convinced that the gross-out stuff is just savvy marketing.

I suspect you're at least partly right. It's the Baker and Edwards school of design (strange that Ron had something to say about the expurgated version isn't it?). Put something contentious in to cover up a lack of talent and imagination.

That wasn't the case, though. Geoffrey was genuinely blindsided by the Internet outrage, and was not expecting to court controversy any more than M.A.R. Barker with The Book of Ebon Bindings.

It was his intention to depict capital-E evil as well; despite the lack of editorial commentary, the mathematical odds are that a practitioner of these horrific rituals will either be horribly slain by the entities they seek to control or die of premature old age. i.e. get what they deserve.

My reaction upon reading Carcosa was that only the most insane assholes would attempt this sorcery shit; considering it's pulp roots, it's doubtful that is a coincidence.

But if it makes you comfortable to believe thats Judas Priest made those kids kill themselves than by all means continue.

Quote from: Planet Algol;497343But if it makes you comfortable to believe thats Judas Priest made those kids kill themselves than by all means continue.

OHT has made his position pretty clear. I disagree with certain parts of it but it's hardly a hysterical reaction. I get what you're saying about the depiction of evil in Carcosa but surely you don't think that such depictions by their very nature (because of their author's intent) are exempt from any form of criticism ?

Regads,
David R

Aside from being too squeamish to watch Saw or Hostel movies, I don't care about the suffering of nonexistent people; nobody is being forced to read Carcosa.

So it's either says nice things or don't read it ? It's out there. People have opinions. Sometimes the discourse influences the way how the hobby evolves - I know this is one of the issues of transgressive play/games or whatever it's called that bothers gamers like OHT.  Obviously this (online feedback) matters to the designer if there really is a sanitized version floating around.

Regards,
David R

I'm not happy or comfortable with a lot of characterizations people have been making about Geoffrey.

I would never watch A Serbian Film, and wish that I had never read it's plot synopsis; regardless I do not slander the people who made, acted in, or watched that movie, or their motivations.

You are absolutely correct. I don't think it's fair to make negative comments about Geoffrey's character just because one has issues with his work.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Melan;497340That wasn't the case, though. Geoffrey was genuinely blindsided by the Internet outrage, and was not expecting to court controversy any more than M.A.R. Barker with The Book of Ebon Bindings.

Then my original point still stands. In fact it stands regardless of content.

Quote from: Planet Algol;497343But if it makes you comfortable to believe thats Judas Priest made those kids kill themselves than by all means continue.

Ah, one of the "youz prudes!" brigade i mentioned upthread.

The moment someone actually refutes my point (and i notice Justin has faded away rather than do so) maybe i'll start taking you seriously.

Quote from: CRKrueger;496947Maybe, but as far as gamers go, you're a pretty sophisticated specimen.

I'm not shooting at anyone in particular, I've just seen some games going on in this neck of the woods where I think you might need something like Carcosa to get someone to play a game other then ironically.  

I guess I'm saying the player realization for maybe the first time ever coming close to the character realization might be a way to get people into their character a little more and not always seeing things from that fourth-wall wink-wink-nudge-nudge distance from their characters.

In Cthulhu or Warhammer "Existential Threat" is not a buzzword.

I am with you on this - too many people forget that in most settings, a witch is REALLY a witch, a person who does other people harm by curses, not an outcast woman hated by peasants.

I have a rather odd stance on such topics as Carcossa in RPGs (having heard a lot of controversy about it, I got my hands on it from an old fanatic of AD&D). I hate movies like Saw, since I find them distasteful, as I find the sex parts of Apocalypse World a bit unnecessary and easily replaced. See, it all boils down to this.

I am good enough of a GM, that I can scare/get emotions out of my players with allusions and suggestions of brutal depictions, rather then going into detail. Just like actual Lovecraft was very Puritan in his writing style, really. To use such shockers would mean I am resorting to cheap tricks, rather then good GMing.

The main question is - would we even actually talk about Carcossa if rules on rape would be removed?

If yes, then it is a good game
If no, then...