[The Secret Lives of Serial Killers] Playtest
Ron Edwards:
A tricky moderation moment.
John, you've stated your position and described your own reaction, and preferences, extremely clearly. What I'm stepping in about is your statement about what Devon should have done. That's Devon's business; he's a grown-up.
With that boundary brought forward in the conversation, it seems to me that now you've aired and explained your position, there's no need to get into should and shouldn't have except as it relates to yourself (which you've stated). and again, with that boundary brought forward by me, here, in the above paragraph, to Devon, I don't see a need for you to consider yourself attacked and preached to, or to defend.
I think I'm being fair about this and not shutting down anyone's actual judgments or views, merely laying a boundary in social terms about telling others what to do.
As a historical and comparative note, Power/Kill, the Tynes game I mentioned elsewhere, also plays a gotcha game on the players as it becomes revealed that they are really "playing" violent psychopaths all along, and the RPG they thought they were playing was actually a form of therapy.
Best, Ron
johnthedm7000:
I apologize for being rather heavy handed with my previous post, both to Ron and to Devon. It's a credit to the strength of Willow's satire that it's provoked this response in me, even if I disagree with how Devon utilized Willow's work. I definitely overstepped my bounds by saying what he "should" have done in that situation; we're all adults here and thus have the freedom to do as we like in all aspects of our lives, obviously including playing whatever RPGs we prefer. So once again, my apologies.
Bringing the conversation back on track somewhat, reading over the Sunshine Boulevard rules document, I was struck by how there might be a possibility of using a similar design in other games, just not as satire. Perhaps a rule designed to allow the GM Illusionism up to a point, whereupon the reveal (whatever that might be for the game in question) occurs and then a mad rush of Bangs that lead directly to the conclusion, firmly in the hands of the table as a group. If it could be kept in check somehow, limited Illusionism could allow these sorts of emotional reveals in a game without preventing the players from giving their creative input.
Devon Oratz:
I'm not sure what I'm "allowed" to say based on Ron's moderation. I will try not to "defend" but I do feel the need to give my perspective. As a personal observation: I do not feel encouraged to post future playtest reports here. This is the only time in my entire life that I have played another person's homebrew tabletop RPG and given feedback. I was rather surprised that some of the response I received was tantamount to calling me a bad person!
I was going to say something flippant to the effect of "Tabletop RPGs are serious business" but then I realized where I am. : )
In all seriousness, it is my opinion that if getting "pranked" by your friends "playing" "Sunshine Boulevard" "with" you is the worst thing that happens to you in any given day, week, or hour, you're living an incredibly charmed life. Repeat: I think that if playing "Sunshine Boulevard" registers on your scale of "bad stuff" that happened to you in any discrete block of time, you are a very fortunate person. The you here is the general you. I am not singling anyone out.
Goes without saying (so I'll say it anyway): everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I think even further than anything I've said before I would say that John and I have a fundamental disagreement on how and how much something that happens to your character in an RPG can effect you. The next time that I am angry at someone, I am totally going to threaten to viciously deprotagonize them because come on, what a great turn of phrase. : )
Quote
But that's the thing-with even the most controversial and inflammatory pieces of art on display in galleries, shows, museums etc people have a choice as to whether or not to view them, based on what they find appealing
I think that I did a poor job of contextualizing this playtest in the scope of myself, my friends, the types of games we usually play, and our "social contract". In the subject matter of our usual games, being brutally murdered by a serial killer is not even worth BATTING AN EYE. This is rather implicit in our "social contract". For years I've been running my homebrews alongside Call of Cthulhu (played straight to genre), World of Darkness (played straight to genre) and a Shadowrun that has more in common with the early works of William Gibson than it does with four color comics. The only thing our group dynamic has been surprised by, in a long time, is the fact that games like "Sunshine Boulevard" actually exist and are played. We find the subject matter of the games written by Emily Care Boss to be shocking. Brutal murder is passe. If we typically played games about "nice stuff" and I unleashed Secret Lives on a player out of the blue, I might feel an ounce of regret. As it is, getting carved up by a psycho is not even worthy of note in our standard play experience. One way or another, I'm pretty sure that the player of the Sunshine was expecting the other shoe to drop, and prepared for it when it did.
Quote
In no cases that I'm aware of, where people ever offered an opportunity to "look at some beautiful Landscape paintings" and then led into a room where they were greeted with a painting of Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster in a violent sadomasochistic orgy with Satan. This is hyperbole, but it works to make my point that while controversial art is important it's important to insure that either people can "opt out" of it, or that they know what they're getting into. It seems as if your friend didn't know what he was getting into, and felt obligated by the group's social contract to continue playing despite the fact that he was uncomfortable.
As an analogy (like your landscape paintings/satan gangrape analogy, it's not supposed to be perfect) we as a group spend 99% of our time "watching South Park". This one time, I told him it was Sesame Street, but surprise, it was really South Park again. This wouldn't have the same effect on him as it would on someone who was used to Sesame Street and had never seen an episode of South Park.
Quote
because Violence is obviously intended as satire, makes no pretensions to the contrary, outright states that no one in their right minds should play the game, and then goes forth assuming that everyone who does despite these warnings is "in on the joke".
I suppose I have a deconstructionist streak in me. Is that the right word? All I wanted to do, when I saw Violence, was to play it straight, completely ignoring the satirical elements of it. Its message struck me as very preachy and heavy handed (note that Sunshine Boulevard/Secret Lives, on the other hand, didn't strike me as being messagy at all) and my immediate response was: "screw your message, I'm going to play this game as written and enjoy it unironically, so there". Of course, then I saw that "Designer X" had done a good job of making the mechanics of the game LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE. End tangent.
I still want to know if Secret Lives was intended as Satire by the creator or not.
Ron Edwards:
You're all good, Devon. Presenting your POV is fine. A reader can look over all the posts and come to his or her own conclusions.
A possibly useful point: at the Forge, if you present the stronger argument, it doesn't matter if someone else gets in the last word and that last word is a weaker argument.* People read entire threads and they make their own judgments quite competently; you can tell by the way threads and posts are referenced later. So it's not like most internet sites where the ping-pong, ha-ha it's on your side again argument model is applied. Once you've made your case, then it stands, rather than being negated simply because someone replied.
I'm not saying that to say you shouldn't have posted. John presented his view in detail, and you presented yours; he's acknowledged and to his credit retracted the accusatory phrases, and you've stated your piece about the substantive issues. So I'm calling it a good day, myself.
Best, Ron
* Said here without reference to these specific arguments. As I say, that's the reader's choice now.
jburneko:
The more I read about this game the more I wonder where the various people commenting stand on pranks in general. I don't see anything worse here than what I've seen in some people "April Fool's Day" jokes. Or some Candid Camera style TV shows. Or those youtube videos where someone thinks they're playing a video game and then a scary face pops out. I think what makes this game functional is the simple fact that it's a short single session practical joke with one "gotcha!" moment and then it's over.
Where it becomes bad is when this becomes institutionalized, long term, repeated and expected behavior. I find the killer players reaction of having a really great time very telling. I'm reminded of all those old games where people were talking about how they didn't roll any dice the whole game and it was "Fantastic!" I have long suspected that in situations like that there is often this very dynamic in play. That player got everything they wanted and there is a silent "victim" who feels marginalized in the session but is afraid to say anything the face of everyone else's enthusiasm.
At least here there's the clean of honesty of, "Of yeah, dude, sorry we fucked you over but man you should have seen your face!" and the joke is over.
Jesse
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page