BadWrongFun: how far is too far??

[Pickles JG]

The worst kind of game is when the GM is running Toon and one of the players thinks he's playing Call of Cthulhu.

It's very rare I find a Call of Cthulhu game does not turn into Toon, or at least Scooby Doo.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's very rare I find a Call of Cthulhu game does ont turn into Toon, or at least Scooby Doo.

Really gory Scooby-Doo, but yeah. I remember a game where I opened the door on a train and there was a tiger outside. So I closed the door. That was basically classic Shaggy right there. I practically said "ZOINKS!". Then it broke down the door, turned into a vampire and killed us all whilst ineffectually did stuff like shoot it at point-blank range in the head. It was very slapstick.

Baby Yaga's hut was pure slapstick too. Practically Three Stooges. We lived though!

So yeah, definitely that is pretty common, thinking about it.

 

[Celebrim]

Er, Celebrim, I know you've claimed not to have a sense of humour at all, but I'm surprised that you missed that his post was meant largely as a joke, given that he explained that it was in the post...

a) Largely is not a precise term. It's a qualifier meant to make a precise answer impossible.

b) Strictly speaking he did not state that the post was largely meant as a joke. He stated that a certain section of it was partially tongue in cheek.

c) It's not clear to me what the purpose of it being tongue in cheek was, since the examples don't fit the conventional definition of humorous. That is to say, 'they aren't funny'.

d) It's not clear to me that the underlying purpose of the post is entertainment or that entertainment was the primary agenda of the OP. I believe that underneath the protests of being tongue and cheek, the poster has an agenda to vent, voice, or discuss a serious issue. The humor, that is the juxtaposition of the ridiculous with the real, in the post is being used with the intention of producing a softer emotional response.

e) Exaggerated and as improbable as some of the examples are, they are nonetheless valid examples if you are trying to prove your point via reductio ad absurdum - which is what the poster seems to be doing.

f) I did successfully pick up that the last example was probably intended as a joke, based on the conventions of humor. It was however I think 'not funny'. Sometimes its very hard to tell whether something is not funny because of a failing on my part or a failing by the humorist. In this case, I think I 'get it', but I think the underlying humor fails because it fails the Homer test - 'It's funny because it is true.'

g) I believe that the serious issues raised by the poster are more worthy of response than his jokes.

h) I'm personally far more capable of responding to the serious issues he's raising in a thoughtful manner than I am capable of being funny.

I) Self-parody on the other hand, I'm pretty good at.

 

[Celebrim]

The worst kind of game is when the GM is running Toon and one of the players thinks he's playing Call of Cthulhu.

It took me till now to get that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your game involves actual satanic rituals. We spent most of the 80's trying to get past allegations of this crap. Now you're actually doing it??? Don't eff this up for everyone! Geez.

Hey!

Freedom of Religion.

 

[billd91]

It's very rare I find a Call of Cthulhu game does not turn into Toon, or at least Scooby Doo.

There are stats out there in CoC for the Scooby Gang. I'm just saying...

 

[Ichneumon]

It's bad, it's wrong, but it's fun!

 

[the Jester]

It's all a matter of taste, but to me, the game crosses the line into "doing it wrong" territory when the DM takes away the pcs' agency (excepting things like mind control, of course).

As for killing and eating endangered species, what if the goal of the campaign is to drive a species to extinction?

 

[Celebrim]

It's all a matter of taste, but to me, the game crosses the line into "doing it wrong" territory when the DM takes away the pcs' agency (excepting things like mind control, of course).

I agree... I think. Except, just as it isn't necessarily the case that a LG person would agree with a CN person about what constituted 'tyranny', I'd think that we'd find there is pretty broad disagreement over what constitutes actually taking away a player character agency.

I generally agree that it is a bad idea to take away player character agency, but its not an all or nothing proposition and without a real definition of player character agency, it's hard to know what you mean. When is enough agency enough? Certainly no agent in a world has unlimited agency, and if one did it would violate in the absurd case what I see as the fundamental rule of RPing - "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

When does agency begin? If you say you want to play a Minotaur Psionic Warrior, and I say "No.", am I taking away player character agency or player agency? And how much player agency can a player reasonably expect?

And this is where we tend to get into 'badwrongfun' claims where the meme is actually applicable.

 

[the Jester]

I agree... I think. Except, just as it isn't necessarily the case that a LG person would agree with a CN person about what constituted 'tyranny', I'd think that we'd find there is pretty broad disagreement over what constitutes actually taking away a player character agency.

I generally agree that it is a bad idea to take away player character agency, but its not an all or nothing proposition and without a real definition of player character agency, it's hard to know what you mean. When is enough agency enough? Certain no agent in a world has unlimited agency, and if one did it would violate in the absurd case what I see as the fundamental rule of RPing - "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

When does agency begin? If you say you want to play a Minotaur Psionic Warrior, and I say "No.", am I taking away player character agency or player agency? And how much player agency can a player reasonably suspect?

To me, the DM is well within his rights to set the boundaries for what you can play in terms of race, class, alignment, background, etc. I have no problem with "this game is Players Handbook only" or "the basic four classes and races only" or even "human only, and no spellcasting".

I don't find it problematic for the DM to say what you can play; it's when the DM asserts control over a pc, e.g. "Your character wouldn't do that" type things.

I'll agree that this isn't a simple binary by any means, but I usually can tell when a DM is on the wrong side of the line for my tastes. And, as always, this really is a matter of playstyle. There is no one answer to what makes a game badwrongfun that works for everyone, just one answer that works for me.