DM-therapy!

[Tomas HVM]

Yes, and leave the game, and that's it. No courage, no game, no fun.

[Mike Holmes]

I take it the field is unfamiliar to most roleplayers; discussing a game in relation to angst, sensuality, power, submission and death, and real life lessons related to this. It's all a part of Pervo I accepted when I found it there, and I want to keep it in the game. I consider the game a small gem, in all it's grotesque glory. I think this attitude, my frankness about it, and the provocative game-theme itself, makes it hard to discuss Pervo. But it also makes it worth our time to discuss it.

Have you ever seen Violence? . The subject of simple violent gore has been done a few times. Violence would be a sort of "anti-Pervo" if you will, in that the players are encouraged to be grotesquly violent with their characters. Vigilante is a less playable game (in fact it says that it's art, and not a game, though it's posed as one), that covers the same sort of territory. In Paranoia, the GM is exhorted to "kill the bastards" refering to the characters.

The point is that violent gore is a well established genre, and people address it all the time. But, the thing is that these games get little play, not because people are "unfamiliar" with the things you cite, but because they just don't like them. Heck, I'm a fan or more sanitized violence, but there's a point at which I wonder what the point is. For me it has no personal relevance. So I'm not interested.

So don't mistake disinterest for an inability to think about these things or inexperience (do I have to bring up FATAL?). We've checked it out, and it just doesn't say "play me" us. That doesn't mean others won't play, or enjoy it, but preference is preference.

The problem being that there is many games out there, leaving their GMs out in the cold on such things. I try not to do that in my games, and find it hard, so I'm not on a high horse here. It's a fact that the method given to GMs often is lacking. Pervo serve a purpose for GMs of such games, or in their predicament, but it's not a game that will "save" them as such.

OK, I can see that, I guess. If a D&D GM is having Incoherence problems, I suppose I could see Pervo setting him straight in some ways.

This really is more of a Theory discussion that a design discussion...

Really; it's not! The game is just a tad original in it's design, and so is the discussion on it.

No, really it is!

This forum is for discussing developing specific projects. It's not "how to design a RPG in general" it's "How do we design that RPG that you're making today?" The Theory forum is specifically for question of how to best design an RPG (and other matters), including discussion of other complete RPGs. For example, we recently discussed the RPGs on Greg Constickyan's list of 300 games people should know how to play. If your idea is that this game is a complete informative design, then it should be in Theory. That's not saying that your game is "theoretical" or anything, no moreso than D&D is theoretical and often discussed in Theory.

Mike

[Tomas HVM]

RPGs are based on social contract, so the players can just decide that the GM has no power over them...

Yes, and leave the game, and that's it. No courage, no game, no fun.

Seriously: why should you bother to leave a game that take so little of your time? I have seen some strong reactions to Pervo, but I haven't seen anyone walk out on it yet. To leave a game, any game, is something we seldom see. The social contract is strong, and as long as the players accept to play a game of death, they have no reason to complain when it happens.

I consider this group to be in agreement that the discussion of and theories on games are good. Clearly it is. I have fought many a battle to promote this stance. However; you should all bear in mind that when you are discussing an actual game, the only sure way to gain insight is to play it. If you have not played it, strong statements on how it functions (or not) are pure speculation. It must be allowed for any player or gamesmith to refute such speculation by referring to actual play.

In general the experiences of actual play must weight more than speculations on a game. Of course such experience is also debatable, and certainly must be questioned, but the experience of play will occationally tilt a debate towards the gamesmith or any other member who have participated in actual play. They've been dealt a stronger hand before the discussion starts. This may be considered "unfair" or annoying, but it has to be so.

Please consider this point the next time you discuss a game you haven't played.

Have you ever seen Violence? . The subject of simple violent gore has been done a few times. Violence would be a sort of "anti-Pervo" if you will, in that the players are encouraged to be grotesquly violent with their characters. Vigilante is a less playable game (in fact it says that it's art, and not a game, though it's posed as one), that covers the same sort of territory.

No, I've not seen Violence, and yes, I know violent gore has been given it's fair coverage in RPGs. Never seen much discussion on it, though, at least not serious discussion (mostly such games have no serious agenda, so that's no surprise).

I think of RPGs as a kind of artform. It's your attitude as a gamesmith which define your work with it as art, the craftmanship of entertainment, or some hobby you delve into. At the same time I consider that the use of any roleplaying game may create highly sophisticated drama, equal to any drama in any dramatic artform (storytelling, literature, theatre, film).

To create a "game" without the intent of making it playable, focusing on totally different criterias of design, is something I will recommend for any gamesmith of ambition. To highlight certain aspects of the artform you work with, in such a practical way, is very useful. Seems like the gamesmith of Violence has done so.

However: Violence is not "anti-Pervo", as I see it. Pervo also has the theme of player characters bashing eachothers to death. In Pervo this bashing is expected to be done with religious fervor, and to create religious ecstasis. The murder of another character is expected to be performed as an act of religious beauty in Pervo.

... the thing is that these games get little play, not because people are "unfamiliar" with the things you cite, but because they just don't like them.

Such games are not mainstrem, thank God. However; they are played, and enjoyed, and that is no wonder. Pervo is no exception.

I don't say that they are not there. I say they are seldom discussed, and certainly not in any serious manner.

preference is preference.

Of course.

This forum is for discussing developing specific projects.

You may be right, and you may choose to look at this as a "pecific project". It's not a big point.

I'm a rascal, of course, posting threads that can be misunderstood to belong elsewhere! But sincerely: this thread is right on target for this forum, in my opinion.

[Mike Holmes]

When I say that Violence is a sort of Anti-Pervo, I mean that the GM isn't (AFAICT) encouraged to kill the PCs. Nor the PCs kill each other neccessarily. Rather the players are encouraged to do harm to the denizens of the PCs setting via the characters. The "Lesson" of Violence is that the violence of a game like D&D becomes absurd when put in the context of modern day. Which is, again not at all what it seems that Pervo is about. The similarity is only, IMO, in the subject matter.

Powerkill, has the same message as Violence, but does it without violence, interesingly. As someone said about the movie Rollerball recently, it's a game about violence, rather than a violent game. You play through a "normal" RPG, and then, when done, your character "wakes up" to find that it was all a psychotic episode and he now has to stand trial for the crimes he committed as a character. Very much a discussion of the tendency to violence in RPGs, and what that means.

And, again Tomas, we are all aware that play is the ultimate measure of a game. Your repeated insistance that we're ignoring that fact is inaccurate. Again, how do we respond if we don't have time to play it? I'm playing in no less than 5 RPGs right now (much more if you count games on hiatus). While I'd like to be able to play every game that I come across, in practice I can only play dozens. As opposed to the hundreds I see.

You'll have to take our word for it that we're keeping the fact that we've not played the game in mind when trying to assess it. In any case, I think you very much misread Failrates post. He's not saying that one should walk away from your game. He's saying that it's an option. Hence, if nobody has, then he's saying your game is good. In fact, he was trying to support your point about how the game is balanced on some level between players and the GM. Somehow you construed that as an attack, but I can't imagine why.

Mike

[Cemendur]

Still it seems sort of neo-Dada to me. It reminds me of Marcel Duchamp presenting a urinal as the artwork of M. R. Mutt.

http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/recent_acquisitions/ma_coll_duchamp.html

[Tomas HVM]

Mike, you're right about the post of "failrate"; it may be read as a sign of support, or just stating the obvious; players may leave. If I have misread him I'm sorry for it.

As for my "repeated insistance" that you're ignoring the improtance of play... I don't insist on it, but have pointed out this fact a couple of times. I believe the first time was when you labelled the game "unplayable", gving no argument for it. I hold it that people can discuss a game and it's philosophy, and make qualified statements on it, without ever playing it. You don't have to play a game to discuss it, but you could be a bit more vary in giving comments on playability, when talking about a game you haven't even tried to play.

When you describe Violence and Powerkill I recognise them as games I have heard of, but never played. I find the concept very interesting; treating Hack'n Slash as a part of our world, trying to play out the reaction it may create in a truly realistic setting. And you're right; these games has other aims than Pervo, and may be seen as "anti-Pervo".

But I hold Pervo to have a more direct and sounder approach to violence, than the average Hack'n Slash game. Pervo focus intensely on the physical and psychological effects of violence, make the players immerse in this theme, and tries to provoke both feelings and thoughts on it. The hack'n slash game makes violence the central thrill, and carefully avoid any deeper reflection on the subject. At this point in the discussion I think it would be politically correct of me to state that I enjoy a good hack'n slash as much as anyone, but sincerely; I actually find these games increasingly stupid and boring.

By the way, "Cemendur"; Duchamp did not present the urinal as any work of art. He simply hung the urinal on the wall, and signed it. His point being that is was NOT a work of art. But thank you anyhow; I like the fact that Marcel Duchamp is mentioned in a thread on Pervo!

Must be some way to make his name stick to the game, though...

[Cemendur]

By the way, "Cemendur"; Duchamp did not present the urinal as any work of art. He simply hung the urinal on the wall, and signed it. His point being that is was NOT a work of art.

Actually, Marcel Duchamp anonymously defended the "Fountain" as a "readymade" artwork of" R. Mutt" in a magazine after the initial scandal.

However, back to the topic. Would you consider the Fountain-Pervo analogy appropriate?

[Tomas HVM]

Actually, Marcel Duchamp anonymously defended the "Fountain" as a "readymade" artwork of" R. Mutt" in a magazine after the initial scandal.

Marcel Duchamp continued to make art that was not art, while most of the dadaist followers of him made it into some kind of art, and killed the idea.

Would you consider the Fountain-Pervo analogy appropriate?

I like it. It is not appropriate in the way it relates to art; Pervo is not an anti-art statement. It may be appropriate in the sheer shittyness of it; Pervo is meant to be provocative and "stinking".

[Mike Holmes]

When you describe Violence and Powerkill I recognise them as games I have heard of, but never played. I find the concept very interesting; treating Hack'n Slash as a part of our world, trying to play out the reaction it may create in a truly realistic setting. And you're right; these games has other aims than Pervo, and may be seen as "anti-Pervo".

But I hold Pervo to have a more direct and sounder approach to violence, than the average Hack'n Slash game. Pervo focus intensely on the physical and psychological effects of violence, make the players immerse in this theme, and tries to provoke both feelings and thoughts on it. The hack'n slash game makes violence the central thrill, and carefully avoid any deeper reflection on the subject.

Violence, I think is actually presented more as a thought experiment, despite being playable. That is, I think its intent is specifically to get people thinking about violence thoug possibly not by playing. It's hard to say for sure what the motive is, or how successful it is. And I won't argue either or those points.

Powerkill, OTOH, is explicitly all about looking at violence in RPGs. It's specifically designed to question violence, not to enjoy it.

As such, these are both different than Pervo, to be sure in that they take a decidedly anti-violence approach, while Pervo apparently simply asks you to consider violence. My point here all along has been that RPG players have considered violence before from designs. Which was to counter your argument that we don't understand the game Pervo because we've never seen a game about violence before. Essentially I'm trying to counter your Ad Hominem attack.

In any case, I'm not sure what particular mechanism is supposed to provoke the thoughfulness in Pervo. The GM is exhorted to kill the characters. The characters are given no direction at all, other than the two steps to writing up their character. So, why is it that this exercise will provoke any more thoughtfulness on violence than any other game in which violence occurs?

I should note that there's a link at the bottom of the page that's supposed to go to a page on philosophy of the game (for GM's only). But the link seems broken. Is there something in there that's important to play and getting players to think about violence?

I'm also wondering if the translation loses something. For example:

An encounter is of course anything. The characters enters the world, and it is a pretty complicated place, full of unknown peril. Lets say they meet up with a little kitty outside the school gates, unsteady on it's legs, very cat-like, soft-fured... and with very sharp theeth. Puppy-theeths are sharper than anything else, and serrated. Serrated! Those theeth will puncture your skin using no force at all, and make blood dribble...

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Does it indicate that "encounters" should be with innocuous creatures so as to make it particularly "unfair" to the players when the kitty (puppy?) kills them? Am I missing something Dada about this?

It's the text that delivers the game, and I'm not seeing in the text where the thoughtfulness is produced in play.

On another note, how old is this game? If it does get played at Cons, etc. I wonder if it's the progenitor of the games that I've seen here.

Mike

[Tomas HVM]

... these are both different than Pervo, to be sure in that they take a decidedly anti-violence approach, while Pervo apparently simply asks you to consider violence.

Kind of correct. Pervo is a hilarious celebration of violent power and pain. Your consideration on violence, in relation to Pervo, is not so much an intellectual excercise, as it is a natural reaction to the unmitigated grotesqueries of it.

In "The Wyrm Era", a recently published module for the traditional fantasy RPG Fabula (my creation), I use some of the lessons from Pervo. It enabled me to make a serious investigation into realistic violence, and it's effects, in two civil war scenarios. Two players of these scenarios in Noways biggest game-convention this summer, stated: "This is the worst RPG I have ever played, and the very best". Several others stated that they "felt dirty" afterwards, but would not be without the experience. The experience was shared throughout the groups, not only limited to the group mastered by me.

And that is an important point, as the Pervo text is not very strong on GM-instruction. The ideal way to learn the game, is by participating in one of my sessions, and then setting it up yourself. I realise some of my arguments on this game pertains to my way of leading it. I've tried to reflect on this aspect here, but must admit that it is a heavy task I'd rather leave to the GM to discover of himself, in this special case. The vision and a few hints must suffice as direction for the GM of Pervo.

The example with the kitten is a typical hint; anything is lethal, seys the text, and the deadly kitten is given as an example of how this may be implied.

I believe I created Pervo in 1991. It's been played at conventions over the years (ideal for conventions), but was only published this year, on the net.

I've tried to access the game-page to verify the link problem, but have not gained access, so I'll have to look into that problem later. My web-program tells me it's alright, so it may be a temporary problem at the site.

Which was to counter your argument that we don't understand the game Pervo because we've never seen a game about violence before.

I made an argument on the difficulties on debating the game, due to it's provocative content. I still find the discussion both interesting and useful.