[The Secret Lives of Serial Killers] Playtest
Ron Edwards:
This is kind of a different game which may exist more as a thought-piece than as a game to be played.
For reference: [The Secret Lives of Serial Killers] Ronnies feedback, which includes a link to the text.
Devon is quite brave and/or ... well, I dunno and/or what, for playing it, and the experience is definitely interesting to read about. However, I think people reading this should know that the game text itself explicitly acknowledges that the game is not socially functional. Whether and how it might be, or whether the dysfunction can operate as its own productive form of satire, is currently under debate.
Best, Ron
Devon Oratz:
Quote
I kind of shudder at the fact that you seem to be happy that one of the players involved in the game "was upset" and "said he didn't like the game".
I'm not happy (I'm ambivalent, Rachid is a big boy, it is just a game, and I am sure he can and will get over it), but I thought Willow would be. I look forward to (her?) response. If I had written the game, with my own typical design goals, I would probably have been quite dissatisfied with that result. Basically, I tried to playtest the game entirely to the author's specifications as much as my situation would allow...ignoring that one sentence about how no one should ever play the game.
: )
Willow:
Hey Devon, I actually don't have too much to say, other than it sounds like you and your friends completely nailed it. I'm glad that 1) such a minimalistic text communicated my intent so effectively 2) you appreciated my idea enough to play it, warnings to the contrary and 3) that it had the intended emotional resonance, i.e. brutal betrayal and a stab in the gut.
Am I happy that (by writing this horrible game) I caused another human being emotional turmoil? No, but you can't make art without breaking a few eggs.
Callan S.:
There’s a time to ponder and there’s a time to communicate. So long as we don’t ask the what of the first, and the who of the second, we can pretend that art is the sum of their confusion.
A quote that comes to mind.
johnthedm7000:
You see, it's not that I'm upset simply because you caused a player to have an emotional reaction to a game-that's one of the hallmarks of good design whether it's the "I WIN!" feeling of a good gamist experience, a sense of "being" brought on by an amazing Sim game, or as a previous poster mentioned "ye old narrativist gut-punch". What I object to is the fact that you forced this experience on someone without their express consent and moreover you forced this experience on someone who considered you a friend and who trusted you (under the terms of you guy's social contract) to provide a certain play experience.
I also understand that to a great degree "Sunshine Boulevard" is intended as satire, both of Illusionist GM'ing techniques and of poorly written "boy meets girl" romantic comedies. I can appreciate the value of game as satire, I loved Donjon in great part because it was a homage to and parody of the hack and slash roleplaying that I was introduced to the hobby on, but the difference is that Donjon is also designed to be a functional game, whereas Sunshine Boulevard is not. One could easily bring up something like Violence: The Role-Playing Game of Egregious and Repulsive Bloodshed at this point and ask me if I have a problem with it too. And the answer is that I don't, just 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". While Sunshine Boulevard does warn individuals not to play this game, it simultaneously assumes that those who do play the game will fool and trick a third party into having their character viciously deprotagonized.
And violence makes it's point about the very antisocial and violent nature of most RPG character's activities (ie. breaking into creature's homes, murdering them and then taking their stuff) wonderfully. But you don't see a sidebar in Violence that says "So here's a great idea-take one of your friends (you do have friends don't you, you sniveling twit?) and ask him/her if he or she wants to play a new RPG you found. If he/she asks what it's like say "kinda like Shadowrun" and leave it at that. Then when they least expect it, bring out the torture-rape, drug abuse, and mutilation!" There's a good reason for that; because while the creator of Violence obviously wanted to make a (much needed) point about the unquestioning attitude of the average RPG character towards violence and what that reveals about the hobby's health, he didn't need to get people to violate their group's social contracts to do it.
One can always make the argument that true art is always upsetting, or that it always inspires strong emotions in the viewer. 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. Performance art is no exception-if someone sees a man flagellating himself in public as an expression of some sort of artistic principle (the human attraction to the suffering of others perhaps) then they can always look away or leave the area. 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.
It might be "just a game" and I'm certain your friend will get over it, but that doesn't mean that you should have done it-art may require breaking a few eggs, but that doesn't mean you need to reach into your friend's metaphorical basket and smash all of his.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page