[The Secret Lives of Serial Killers] Ronnies feedback
Devon Oratz:
Wow. I just had a read through that Vampires game. Interesting stuff. I appreciated how subversive and dark it was but at the end I was pretty offended by its transparent, heavy handed preachiness and the incredible sexism of its underlying message. Anyway it is interesting seeing these concepts explored--the idea of abusive game design, for instance, or the idea that a roleplaying game in and of itself could be immoral or unethical--as I had not really thought about them before.
Quote
For what it's worth, I'd share Callan's concerns about promotion vs. satire if authorial intent weren't ultimately meaningless - people read texts according to their expectations, and I can totally see how certain segments of the rpg community will see nothing strange in this game. There are plenty of designers (larpers, especially) I've met who wouldn't blink an eye at the idea of introducing a game under false tenets, with the expectation that immersive discipline (what makes you a good roleplayer in certain circles) will ensure that the players will follow the internal logic of the fiction wherever it leads, no matter whether they'd personally choose to take the game to those directions or not. How this particular game is written right now, or might be written for a serious release, has much less to do with the way a person might interpret it than their own understanding of roleplaying has; there are vast communities of play that would condemn this type of game, just as there are those that would consider this level of GM control over the game's nature a necessity for really getting an appropriate level of immersion to emerge.
I'd be very curious to hear what, if anything, Willow believes the game to be satirizing.
In any case, I think that my group probably falls into the latter camp. Which doesn't mean that I don't think that Secret Lives is "abusive game design"--it definitely is. I'm just not sure I agree that it promotes or satirizes anything. I read the game as a fairly mean-spirited but definitely amusing prank, which was also how the game played out for us.
Moreno R.:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 10, 2011, 07:16:03 PM
You took the Big Model and made it your bitch, for the ultimate inside-out Narrativist gut-punch.
I humbly disagree. It's even more interesting than that.
First: not all the players in the game can really influence the fiction in any significant way, or address the premise. Second: there is no common agenda (creative or not) between the players (not all the players, at least). If this could be narrativism, or even any Creative Agenda, then even a Illusionist railroading GM could say that he play narrativist because he (and only he) can address a premise.
Third: playing with a common agenda would castrate this game.
In some of the previous posts people said that a game like this would not be "acceptable" to players. It's not true, it depends on the culture of the gaming environment: as an example, until some years ago the playing of games with final "surprises" was so widespread in the Italian "Artsy LARP conventions scene" that for some years, you did KNOW that the organizer was lying to you, because EVERY SINGLE GAME had the "final surprise". Even if that surprise ruined the game and did not make any sense (just to make an example: I played a LARP set in the "Lion in Winter" movie, with the characters from the movie and some new characters. At the and of the LARP it was "discovered" that the new characters were Cpt Kirk and Dr Spock and other "Star Trek" characters, going back in time to get a Romulanl fugitive... things like this were absolutely normal. Boresome, terrible, but normal. Luckily they went out of fashion after a while...
Thinking about that gaming culture... A game like this, in one of these con, would be completely acceptable. Losing the impact, and the reason to play it in the first place.
This game need a clash of different agendas. It's a game working BECAUSE is build around a CA Clash. It's game that need to be dysfunctional, to work.
Why not? After all, it's not made to have a satisfying game...
Kensan_Oni:
My only objection to the game is that it is a bad piratical joke. It makes no attempt at apology. It is specifically meant to distress a specific person in a emotinal way. It reminds me a lot of school ground bullying, from a mental point of view.
While the game itself accomplishes it's goals, as art, it is not something I feel people should subject others to. It should be admired from a safe distance. To actively subject people to this game would create trust issues even amongst the most forgiving people.
Ron Edwards:
Heya,
My take is that the game text acknowledges that very point up front in the first sentences. I don't think it advocates playing and thus perpetrating the things you're talking about. "Admiring from a safe distance" is about as close as I can get to it too.
Moreno, let's save the Narrativism-or-not point for when we re-unite just a matter of weeks from now. Don't let me forget.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Hey, I had an idea while riding the train home today. Could the game simply be called Sunshine Boulevard, for real - its actual title? I like that notion. The "Secret Lives" part could be the heading of the special section, if anything.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page