Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 378427" data-attributes="member: 2013">I don't know if it's been enough time to broach this again, but I want to try to do so in the most non-inflammatory way I know how...I find it interesting that the Dragon 300 by Monte Cook article identified four styles of gaming:1.) Lighthearted2.) Standard3.) Mature4.) VileAnd you know, I think Monte's names were right on.&nbsp; I want to hit on the difference between &quot;Mature&quot; and &quot;Vile.&quot;I would suggest that the &quot;Mature&quot; alluded to in &quot;Mature Gaming&quot; is probably 3a/3b.&nbsp; In other words, a mature game is one &quot;suitable&quot; or &quot;intended for&quot; adults.What kinds of things are &quot;suitable&quot; for adults?&nbsp; I would suggest that this includes those things that are &quot;suitable&quot; for children, plus more stuff of course.In D&amp;D, we have stuff that is suitable for children - good vs. evil.&nbsp; Fantastic and whimsical creatures.&nbsp; Castles and heraldry and knights in shining armor.&nbsp; All of these are classic children's themes.I liken this to being a tourist of a country versus living there for a while - as a tourist, you tend to see (or be shown) all the pretty things - the &quot;highlights&quot; if you will - without catching a glimpse of the &quot;dirty underbelly&quot; of a city or nation.&nbsp; People try to focus your attention on the good stuff, glossing over the bad that you see in an attempt to divert your attention from it.&nbsp; This creates artificial highs and lows, I suppose.&nbsp; This, to me, represents &quot;light-hearted&quot; gaming.The stuff that starts being more suitable for adults than children are things like disease-ridden slums, prostitution and its attendant vices, morally corrupt governments, and so forth.&nbsp; If you look hard enough, or you live in the city for a while, you see these things.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's all stuff that is out in the open and visible - the difference is we tend to try to gloss over it for children and point out the highlights instead.&nbsp; This only shows the &quot;good side&quot; and not the warts.This is where the stuff &quot;suitable for and/or intended for&quot; adults starts coming into play, IMO.&nbsp; Instead of good and evil, you get shades of gray.&nbsp; Heroes aren't always heroic - sometimes they struggle with vices.&nbsp; Villains aren't always killing babies and stomping on kitties - they may have people they care for and love.&nbsp; Life is not quite so shiny.&nbsp; Some of the innocence *is* lost, but this is where we get to experience the true richness of life.&nbsp; We see it in the triumphs over self.&nbsp; We see it in the hope amid destitution.&nbsp; We see it in a good man allowing his vices to destroy him.&nbsp; This, to me, represents &quot;standard&quot; gaming.&nbsp; Again, though, there is some measure of restraint here, because this only depicts stuff that is done out in the open.&nbsp; This shows man in a light where both his warts and his best features are visible.&nbsp; We can do a lot of learning about ourselves here.When we start going behind closed doors, we start to see the &quot;mature&quot; side of gaming.&nbsp; Rather than seeing the prostitute on the street, we see her suffering physical violence at the hands of a pimp.&nbsp; Rather than seeing the leper huddled in his robes, begging for money while keeping himself hidden, we also see the skin falling off of him.&nbsp; We see the abuse of innocents.&nbsp; We start seeing some of the truly dark parts of human behavior.&nbsp; This starts to get into &quot;mature&quot; gaming - the realization that our private life is at best only as good as our public life - and usually worse.&nbsp; This is where those not emotionally ready for such realizations can be disturbed (or those who are RL victims can have their wounds opened).&nbsp; That's why we start treading carefully here - this is mankind at its worst, with very little of its best.&nbsp; The one worry about being here too long without exposing ourselves to &quot;standard&quot; or &quot;lighthearted&quot; is that we can forget man's nobility, since we rarely see it here - indeed, this is almost the opposite of &quot;light-hearted&quot; as we are glossing over the good and highlighting the bad.Where does &quot;vile&quot; come into this?My answer: it really doesn't.&nbsp; &quot;Vile&quot; is not &quot;super-mature&quot; - vile is &quot;gross, disgusting, contemptible, and/or depraved.&quot;&nbsp; There's a difference.&nbsp; While something mature may be disgusting, something disgusting may not be mature.&nbsp; And it's certainly not necessarily evil.The best evil, in fact, is not the vomitous mass (that's vile).&nbsp; The best evil has a nice three-piece suit, slicked-back hair, and a smile on its handsome face.&nbsp; True evil is not openly vile, because it knows that people are disgusted and repulsed by vileness.&nbsp; Instead of trying to appear vile, it attempts to appear desirable - so as to lure more people into its clutches.My gripe with Dragon #300 is the same as it is with Tracy - they have both lumped &quot;vile&quot; in with &quot;evil.&quot;&nbsp; Vile is not necessarily evil.&nbsp; Evil is not necessarily vile.&nbsp; Those who choose to do things that are vile are likely motivated by evil, but that's different entirely.&nbsp; Certainly &quot;vile&quot; does not indicate &quot;mature.&quot;&nbsp; Little kids are used to dealing with vile things on a daily basis - after all, they're the ones digging in their own diapers.&nbsp; They're the ones eating worms.&nbsp; They're the ones watching the dog play with its vomit.&nbsp; Blood and maggots are not evil - just vile.&nbsp; And they're not really mature - they're &quot;standard&quot; - kids deal with blood every day (scrapes).It's when you get into &quot;acts of vile darkness&quot; where vile and evil intersect.&nbsp; IMO, Necrophilia fits the bill.&nbsp; Abusing children fits the bill.&nbsp; These things are what fall into the &quot;mature&quot; category - not because they're evil, and not because they're vile, but because they are done behind closed doors and are &quot;repulsive evil.&quot;I do NOT wish to bring up the whole Hickman issue again - but I want to point out that I think both Dragon and Hickman are missing the point.&nbsp; Hickman seemed upset that material he deems &quot;repulsive&quot; is coming into D&amp;D - and he branded it &quot;evil.&quot;&nbsp; Wilson, OTOH, calls evil without repulsive stuff &quot;mundane and unchallenging.&quot;&nbsp; Again, I feel that &quot;attractive evil&quot; is much more challenging than &quot;repulsive evil.&quot;&nbsp; That's just my opinion, but it seems interesting that Wilson immediately says, in effect, &quot;if it isn't repulsive, it's mundane.&quot;&nbsp; I don't know whether I agree with it or not.&nbsp; LOTR is far from mundane - and yet I find little repulsive in it.&nbsp; Les Miserables is far from mundane - and yet I find little repulsive in it.&nbsp; How does the little rhyme go?&quot;Sin is a monster of so frightful a mienThat to be hated needs but to be seenYet seen too oft, familiar with her faceWe first pity, then endure, then embrace?&quot;I suggest to Mr. Wilson that repeated exposure to &quot;repulsive&quot; material will eventually make IT mundane, too.&nbsp; Then where do we go?&nbsp; Do we publish ever-greater depravity in an attempt to keep ourselves from becoming &quot;mundane?&quot;&nbsp; That's a pretty weak strategy, IMO.&nbsp; Also, I could be wrong, but I thought the reason Dancey gave for the demise of D&amp;D was not a lack of &quot;edge&quot; but rather &quot;market fragmentation due to product oversaturation.&quot;&nbsp; Which is it?I guess I just don't accept that you have to put out &quot;vile&quot; content to avoid being &quot;mundane.&quot;&nbsp; Because I feel that if you continue to put out &quot;vile&quot; content, eventually you cause it to become mundane.You know, maybe I'm the only one, but I didn't leave D&amp;D because &quot;it wasn't edgy enough.&quot;&nbsp; I left D&amp;D because of power creep and because they pushed into product lines I had no interest in.&nbsp; I left D&amp;D not because, &quot;you know, this just isn't evil enough&quot; but because, &quot;you know, these rules are self-contradictory and silly - and why are they making FR NPCs demigods, anyway?&quot;&nbsp; I left because &quot;the game is becoming based on the novels, rather than vice versa.&quot;&nbsp; Never did it enter my mind that, &quot;you know what would be great?&nbsp; If D&amp;D were more vile like these other systems.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 378427, member: 2013"] I don't know if it's been enough time to broach this again, but I want to try to do so in the most non-inflammatory way I know how... I find it interesting that the Dragon 300 by Monte Cook article identified four styles of gaming: 1.) Lighthearted 2.) Standard 3.) Mature 4.) Vile And you know, I think Monte's names were right on. I want to hit on the difference between "Mature" and "Vile." I would suggest that the "Mature" alluded to in "Mature Gaming" is probably 3a/3b. In other words, a mature game is one "suitable" or "intended for" adults. What kinds of things are "suitable" for adults? I would suggest that this includes those things that are "suitable" for children, plus more stuff of course. In D&D, we have stuff that is suitable for children - good vs. evil. Fantastic and whimsical creatures. Castles and heraldry and knights in shining armor. All of these are classic children's themes. I liken this to being a tourist of a country versus living there for a while - as a tourist, you tend to see (or be shown) all the pretty things - the "highlights" if you will - without catching a glimpse of the "dirty underbelly" of a city or nation. People try to focus your attention on the good stuff, glossing over the bad that you see in an attempt to divert your attention from it. This creates artificial highs and lows, I suppose. This, to me, represents "light-hearted" gaming. The stuff that starts being more suitable for adults than children are things like disease-ridden slums, prostitution and its attendant vices, morally corrupt governments, and so forth. If you look hard enough, or you live in the city for a while, you see these things. It's all stuff that is out in the open and visible - the difference is we tend to try to gloss over it for children and point out the highlights instead. This only shows the "good side" and not the warts. This is where the stuff "suitable for and/or intended for" adults starts coming into play, IMO. Instead of good and evil, you get shades of gray. Heroes aren't always heroic - sometimes they struggle with vices. Villains aren't always killing babies and stomping on kitties - they may have people they care for and love. Life is not quite so shiny. Some of the innocence *is* lost, but this is where we get to experience the true richness of life. We see it in the triumphs over self. We see it in the hope amid destitution. We see it in a good man allowing his vices to destroy him. This, to me, represents "standard" gaming. Again, though, there is some measure of restraint here, because this only depicts stuff that is done out in the open. This shows man in a light where both his warts and his best features are visible. We can do a lot of learning about ourselves here. When we start going behind closed doors, we start to see the "mature" side of gaming. Rather than seeing the prostitute on the street, we see her suffering physical violence at the hands of a pimp. Rather than seeing the leper huddled in his robes, begging for money while keeping himself hidden, we also see the skin falling off of him. We see the abuse of innocents. We start seeing some of the truly dark parts of human behavior. This starts to get into "mature" gaming - the realization that our private life is at best only as good as our public life - and usually worse. This is where those not emotionally ready for such realizations can be disturbed (or those who are RL victims can have their wounds opened). That's why we start treading carefully here - this is mankind at its worst, with very little of its best. The one worry about being here too long without exposing ourselves to "standard" or "lighthearted" is that we can forget man's nobility, since we rarely see it here - indeed, this is almost the opposite of "light-hearted" as we are glossing over the good and highlighting the bad. Where does "vile" come into this? My answer: it really doesn't. "Vile" is not "super-mature" - vile is "gross, disgusting, contemptible, and/or depraved." There's a difference. While something mature may be disgusting, something disgusting may not be mature. And it's certainly not necessarily evil. The best evil, in fact, is not the vomitous mass (that's vile). The best evil has a nice three-piece suit, slicked-back hair, and a smile on its handsome face. True evil is not openly vile, because it knows that people are disgusted and repulsed by vileness. Instead of trying to appear vile, it attempts to appear desirable - so as to lure more people into its clutches. My gripe with Dragon #300 is the same as it is with Tracy - they have both lumped "vile" in with "evil." Vile is not necessarily evil. Evil is not necessarily vile. Those who choose to do things that are vile are likely motivated by evil, but that's different entirely. Certainly "vile" does not indicate "mature." Little kids are used to dealing with vile things on a daily basis - after all, they're the ones digging in their own diapers. They're the ones eating worms. They're the ones watching the dog play with its vomit. Blood and maggots are not evil - just vile. And they're not really mature - they're "standard" - kids deal with blood every day (scrapes). It's when you get into "acts of vile darkness" where vile and evil intersect. IMO, Necrophilia fits the bill. Abusing children fits the bill. These things are what fall into the "mature" category - not because they're evil, and not because they're vile, but because they are done behind closed doors and are "repulsive evil." I do NOT wish to bring up the whole Hickman issue again - but I want to point out that I think both Dragon and Hickman are missing the point. Hickman seemed upset that material he deems "repulsive" is coming into D&D - and he branded it "evil." Wilson, OTOH, calls evil without repulsive stuff "mundane and unchallenging." Again, I feel that "attractive evil" is much more challenging than "repulsive evil." That's just my opinion, but it seems interesting that Wilson immediately says, in effect, "if it isn't repulsive, it's mundane." I don't know whether I agree with it or not. LOTR is far from mundane - and yet I find little repulsive in it. Les Miserables is far from mundane - and yet I find little repulsive in it. How does the little rhyme go? "Sin is a monster of so frightful a mien That to be hated needs but to be seen Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face We first pity, then endure, then embrace?" I suggest to Mr. Wilson that repeated exposure to "repulsive" material will eventually make IT mundane, too. Then where do we go? Do we publish ever-greater depravity in an attempt to keep ourselves from becoming "mundane?" That's a pretty weak strategy, IMO. Also, I could be wrong, but I thought the reason Dancey gave for the demise of D&D was not a lack of "edge" but rather "market fragmentation due to product oversaturation." Which is it? I guess I just don't accept that you have to put out "vile" content to avoid being "mundane." Because I feel that if you continue to put out "vile" content, eventually you cause it to become mundane. You know, maybe I'm the only one, but I didn't leave D&D because "it wasn't edgy enough." I left D&D because of power creep and because they pushed into product lines I had no interest in. I left D&D not because, "you know, this just isn't evil enough" but because, "you know, these rules are self-contradictory and silly - and why are they making FR NPCs demigods, anyway?" I left because "the game is becoming based on the novels, rather than vice versa." Never did it enter my mind that, "you know what would be great? If D&D were more vile like these other systems." [/QUOTE]

Verification