Dimestore Katanas
Kill Puppies for Satan

I'm sure there's others...

Am I the only one that feels a little... squicked by this?

I mean, if playing heroes invokes our aspirations for nobility, and playing monsters (a la Vampire, Sorceror, etc) mirrors our inner battles to remain clean in a dirty, dirty world, what does it say about us to play sociopathic little losers in a tailspin of violence and betrayal?

My Life With Master.

It says that we are willing to confront the fact that weakness is part of the human condition, and to broaden our ability to offer sympathy, pity and mercy.

I suspect (and perhaps people can back me up or contradict me) that those who have played these games are less offended by them than those who just look at the games from the outside.

You may want to read this post from the RPG Theory forum: Why people find it fun to be sick...

I'm guessing that the theory or actual play forum would be better for this topic since there isn't a specific game under development being discussed.

Julie

"confront the fact that weakness is part of the human condition", I like that.

I think the desire to play games like these speaks to those looking at the RPG as a tool to generate an interesting experience. I mean once you have played the hero to your content, and played monsters galore, what is left? What other experiences can an RPG convey? These 'loser' rpgs offer another view on roleplaying, something players tired of the same molds offered over and over are sure to jump at. The offense they may convey at first glance simply acts to make them stand out and identify themselves as something different, attracting this type of player even more.

I don't think it says much on a deeper level, but then again I'm not that deep of a player.

I don't know about you all, but I'm a loser.

I could play Vampire all the time, I'd be like, hah! now they're scared of ME! That's fun. That'd take my mind off it.

Is taking my mind off it what's best?

-Vincent

Vaxalon wrote: If playing heroes invokes our aspirations for nobility, and playing monsters (a la Vampire, Sorceror, etc) mirrors our inner battles to remain clean in a dirty, dirty world, what does it say about us to play sociopathic little losers in a tailspin of violence and betrayal?

Heck, I just like to feel superior to my PC's once in a while.

My superhero and vampire PC's think I'm a geek.

Substantial reply coming up if /when we get this topic moved to theory...

The game concept I have for Dime-Store Katanas is to take a hard look at violence, not necessarily on the physical ramifications but on how it spirals out of control and how it works as a lever for solving problems in one's life.

I don't want the game to be focused on the kewl and while I do want some measure of snicker, it will be the uncomfortable laughter that comes from something true.

I think My Life with Master definitely inspired me for this kind of undertaking. That game really made me think about self-hatred, horrible things people do and who they hate for having to do them.

Hello,

My kill puppies review touches on this issue in some detail.

Best,
Ron

TonyLB wrote: My Life With Master.

It says that we are willing to confront the fact that weakness is part of the human condition, and to broaden our ability to offer sympathy, pity and mercy.

I suspect (and perhaps people can back me up or contradict me) that those who have played these games are less offended by them than those who just look at the games from the outside.

Ron Edwards' KPFS review wrote: You, the real person, have to cope with your own warped imagination using humor - and the coping is real. Playing kill puppies for satan is an exercise in self-discovery, and surprisingly, it's usually a positive one that I never would have anticipated.

Hi Fred,

Nope, in KPFS, the only reward system is based on Evil, and the only thing Evil is good for is doing atrocious things. The game only offers a hamster wheel. The characters are LOOOO-zers.

I do suggest looking at the "Ick poo" section of my review carefully, especially the quotes from various people. The *game* offers no redemption, but *play* offers a player-only reward in terms of forgiving one's character which turns out to happen very often in practice.

This concept is central to my general response to your (excellent) thread topic. "Our characters are losers, but I don't have to be mean to them."

Interestingly, I have yet to encounter or hear of a group who's played KPFS intensively more than once. (Vincent doesn't count)

Best,
Ron

Vaxalon wrote: I don't count My Life with Master in the "Loser Roleplaying" group. Why? Because, ultimately, the goal of every PC in MLWM is to take that leap up out of loserdom. That's how you "win".

Okay, that's fine, it still offers a step up. "Unloved loser servant of evil" is lower than "Loved loser ex-servant of evil".

Both of them need to be loved, both at the beginning and the end; it's just that at the end, the loser recognizes that need, and to some small extent has fulfilled it.

Also worth noting: [kpfs] A Startling Postscript.

Fred, imagine this. You're playing a character whom you hate. Your friends all hate him too. He's the worst person you can think of, and you're constantly goaded to make him even worse. Pretty soon you're reaching way down and smearing your own shit on him, right? He does the worst things you've ever thought of. You loathe him with a pure and perfect self-loathing.

Self-forgiveness, okay, that's cool. Instead of hating him to death you start to feel sorry for him. Whatever.

But then your friends - your friends don't hate him to death either. He deserves it but they don't. Your friends see the worst you have to offer, you say to them the worst things you've ever said out loud, and what do they do? After they're done being disgusted and titillated, they respond with humanity and compassion, unasked for, unexpected. They treat your worst with grace.

And you treat their worst with grace.

Are you untouched by that? Not me, man.

-Vincent

So let me see if I have this straight, correct me if I'm wrong.

In winner roleplaying (such as DnD), we pull out our best qualities and watch them triumph over an external evil. The payoff comes from our connection to and ownership of the character. You could do this kind of RP in 1-1 with a gamemaster.

In struggle roleplaying (such as Vampire, or, to me, MLWM), we pull out our best qualities and our worst qualities, and we play out our inner struggles with evil in the SIS. The payoff comes from our connection to the character. You could do this kind of RP in 1-1 with a gamemaster.

In loser roleplaying (such as KPFS), we pull out our worst qualities, let them flop about hopelessly in the SIS, and collectively forgive each other for having birthed them. The payoff does not come from our connection to the character. The connection is there, but it offers no intrinsic payoff. Instead, the payoff comes from the connection with the other people around the table; the characters are merely a tool towards that end. Playing this kind of game 1-1 with a gamemaster would fundamentally change the nature of the game, likely draining it of much of its mutuality.

lumpley wrote: Also worth noting: [kpfs] A Startling Postscript.

Maybe.

They were getting something out of the game. I didn't figure they'd ever even consider playing it again, their initial experience was so ... appalling.

Now, whether Dimestore Katana's is going to work at all like puppies does, who knows. It sounds to me like Judd's got something interesting to say about violence.

-Vincent

Vaxalon wrote: In winner roleplaying (such as DnD), we pull out our best qualities and watch them triumph over an external evil.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: I've often had this problem with this presumed "heroic" nature of D&D*. One slaughters and steals, amasses the ability to slaughter and steal more, every once in a while with a plot line that justifies slaughtering and stealing for the sake of goodness.

Hi folks,

I can see where Vincent is coming from this- but I can also see loser roleplaying as a catharsis and/or as a way of negatively expressing everything you DON'T like. You can see the former in such activities as Carnivale, or revenge fantasies, so it makes sense that it would find expression in roleplaying as well. The latter appears in all kinds of stories, from the enemy deities in religion and myth to classic tragedies where people bring about their own downfall.

I think loser play is fundamentally different based on where the group is coming from. In catharsis, doing everything wrong is a freedom, a release, and the approval/reward is in being free of moral strictures, or free to flaunt them completely. Grand Theft Auto comes immediately to mind. In tragedy, you create the protagonist who will drive themselves to their own doom, and through it, you make a statement about those folks. Requiem for a Dream is the movie that I think of for this sort of them.

Perhaps the difference between raw villainy and loser play is the amount of protagonization or self-inflicted deprotagonization of the characters. A villain is empowered, the cartharsis or downfall comes from power. The loser is all about disempowerment, the pathetic and petty nature of their goals and "power". I could easily see this is where it either goes into the pity and human compassion Vincent mentioned, or just raw ridicule, in the form of mean humor that just likes to watch protagonists suffer(Ah, Charlie Brown...).

Overall, as players, you make statements on what you think pathetic, evil, or stupid is, as opposed to what you think heroism is. D&D on the other hand, negates the concept of using morality as a statement device, as alignments are more boxes to be fit into. System wise and soft techniques advised in general discourage alignment shift, and so, players are also discouraged from making those neat moral statements. What would drive a Lawful character to break the law? Where is that line? At what point crossing it goes too far? etc. Stuff like Dogs in the Vineyard or HeroQuest work perfectly because the lines aren't drawn for you- you draw them yourself through play. Likewise, loser play is all about drawing the lines of what you think all these negative "virtues" are.

Thoughts?

Chris

In our first TROS game, my character and another came to a shipyard in the middle of the night on a horse-drawn wagon. A guard approached, and my friend drew his attention to a city map .. and then shoved a dagger in his throat. I was utterly shocked. I'd killed untold numbers of orcs and all manner of weird-looking monsters in D&D, but this, I couldn't handle. He was just some guy in a crap job trying to feed his family. And my "friend" murdered him, without hesitation, so we could plunder a local center for commerce.

In the Traveller game we played last year, my character came under fire from a security guard in the yard of an installation while fleeing a break-in. He took a knee and emptied his clip. The guard fell. My character got up, put in a fresh clip as he approached the body and put another round in his chest and face. Everyone was aghast. There'd been nothing but spy work up to this point, and now the ugly truth of being a field operative came out: killing is part of the job.

Hi,

Just so I'm not responsible for derailing this thread with inspiring people to post annecdotes about violent, if not murderous, behavior on the part of PCs....

My point simply stands like this: I think "loser" behavior is much more slippery to define than most gamers assume. We have ides of "coolness" "strength" and "competance" -- but how limited or arbitrary are those definitions within the context of an RPG group.

This is a seperate point than Chris' imporant post above. In Chris' post, one can choose to say, "We're going to go for the 'bad'". I'm saying, I don't think many people even think in terms of good and bad when playing. And this leads to complete loser play without anyone thinking about it.

Christopher

Vaxalon wrote:

Ron Edwards' KPFS review wrote: You, the real person, have to cope with your own warped imagination using humor - and the coping is real. Playing kill puppies for satan is an exercise in self-discovery, and surprisingly, it's usually a positive one that I never would have anticipated.

In spite of being fairly extensively covered in the review, this is something I don't get.

You seem to be saying, that by playing a PC who treats the people below them on the pecking order in terrible ways, we learn to have compassion for the people on the ladder below us?

so that's gerald stebbins and let's face it, the guy is not a charmer. he's funny looking, weasely, he's got no dignity, and his breath is for fuck all. but like pretty much everybody, even ghouls, he's got a few friends (including your pcs). they're people who maybe just feel sorry for him, or maybe owe him one from back in the day, or hell maybe actually kind of like the guy. i mean it takes all kinds, right?

and he's not a bad friend, not at all. sure he calls you for help, and says he'll make it up to you and never does, but he's always so genuinely grateful that it's hard to hold a grudge. he's loyal and he won't make excuses when you ask him for stuff, if he can he will and if he can't he really feels bad about it. he won't fuck you up the ass with a sharpened screwdriver as soon as you bend over, not like some people. you could do worse.

anyway, he's having his thirtieth birthday party and he's inviting all his friends. it's like eight people and he's having it on a thursday night so it won't conflict with anybody's weekend. he's saved up and booked the banquet hall at the motel 6 off the pike, you know he's been planning it for a while because he doesn't have much to spare. (he has a job sweeping up at feeney's funeral parlor, of course). he's borrowed a cd player (maybe from one of your pcs) and checked some cds out of the public library. he's even shoplifted a box of little girls' birthday party invitations and carefully written in his name and the time and place.

your pcs will break his pathetic ghoul heart if they don't go. plus god damn it how many friends do they have, that they can just blow one off?

Christopher Kubasik wrote:

Vaxalon wrote: In winner roleplaying (such as DnD), we pull out our best qualities and watch them triumph over an external evil.

Whoa.

Is this true?

I've seen behaviors in D&D* (*and its children) that made me worry about the moral stability of the people playing the PCs. ...

In a Star Wars game played once at West End, a guy in marketing -- a Viet Nam vet -- slaughtered two hog tied technicians on the new Death Star. He shocked everyone at the table. In his view, he was making sure the mission succeeded. Was his action a triumph of good over evil?

clehrich wrote: .... What kind of sick person thinks of something like that? What kind of sick person finds that funny?

You do. (Well, not you maybe, but players of kpfs.) And then they have to think about it, and live with themselves.

clehrich wrote: And that makes them think a little more clearly about the real world, and ethics, and being a halfway decent person, and why one's mind occasionally drifts off into deep, disturbing waters. And the theory is that this is good for you, because at least you don't pretend you don't ever think like this.

Does that help at all?

Vaxalon wrote: Is loser roleplaying (specifically, KPFS and DKS) founded primarily in characters who hate? Not just other people, but themselves as well?

Puppies characters are hated. It's a stat on the character sheet: "This many people hate me: __."

If they also hate - some do, but probably a minority - they hate ineffectually.

They lack the capacity for accurate self-reflection that would allow them to hate themselves.

-Vincent

Yeah, I remember now.

Wouldn't you say, though, that the standard unenlightened response to hatred, is to hate in return?

I haven't played or read the game (a big handicap in this discussion, I know) but I find it odd that KPFS PC's aren't big in the hating department.

Ya know ... I've both read and played kpfs, and I don't recall anything about the player characters hating per se. I don't think such characters have sufficient focus to hate, or as Vincent said, they hate ineffectively.

Hate is too big a concept for your standard kpfs character. Think smaller like ignorant and petty and overlooked. We're not talking about clever villains here.

Julie

Edited to correct bad spelling.

So they're too focused on just fulfilling the impulses of the moment to do anything as premeditated as hating someone...

I think I can grasp that.

They're no more capable of hate than Beavis and Butthead are.

I kinda like this thread. But, at the same time, it kinda bugs me too, because I feel like there's some navel-gazing going on, and a lot of excited pop psychology analysis, without anyone really sitting down and taking a look at the bigger picture.

This is a thread about literture. Yup.

An Agatha Christie mystery has a certain amount of entertainment value. Poirot (say) is a wittily writen character, and the plotting and structure encourages the reader to engage in an interesting logical exercise. But they're pretty short on drama. You compare an Agatha Christie novel to Raymond Chandler's "The Big Sleep," and you see a huge difference.

Good drama requires losers. If you don't have losers, your dramatic conflict lacks all kinds of punch. I've started keeping a kind of running tally when I read. The better the writer, the more screwed up their characters tend to be.

I'm not, like, saying that EVERY character has to be a total whack-job. But, the whack-jobs are where the dramatic impulse comes from. They drive the conflict. Without them, everybody would be Ned Stark, the Lawful Good Northman.

So, take a look at William Gibson, George R. R. Martin, and so on, and check out how messed up some of their characters are, and how that "messed-up-ness" relates to the drama at large.

Now, let's talk history. Unless you're one of those D&D Drifter types like Raven, dramatic conflict is not really the point of a D&D game. Dramatic conflict and the other trappings of literary form are used to color the framework for Step On Up. The Evil Necromancer or the Lich Lord or the Drow Queen or whatever are Total Whack Jobs to explain why the PCs are justified in beating the crap out of them. They kidnap princesses, pilage the countryside, rape vilagers, murder innocents, etc., all in a days work, for one purpose: To establish in the minds of the players "Aha! Cool, a bad guy. Let's go get him!"

It works the same way in reverse if the PCs are evil. "We are Total Whack Jobs, so let's go kill some vilages and get XP! Ah, we are Total Whack Jobs, so the guards want to kill us."

When you do start getting into dramatic, story-centric role-playing (Say, what Vampire wants to be) there's always the assumption carried over from D&D and earlier games that it will be PCs vs. the Whack Jobs, with the Whack Jobs controled by the GM. That's just what gaming is, right? The GM runs the Bad Guys.

Only, it's not. There are a lot of games that have come out of the Forge that chip away at the traditional role of the GM, distributing GM tasks more and more. Before the Forge, even, there were still lots of people who would distribute GM tasks with traditional rules-sets, just because they wanted to.

Also at the Forge you've got a whole bunch of people who have been thinking more or less non-stop for like 4 years about *what drama is.* They understand about the Whack Jobs. If the Whack Jobs are an essential component to dramatic conflict, and if Narrativism is all about player authorship, then shouldn't the PCs be Whack Jobs? At least some of the time?

That's what Narrativism is about, remember. These moral quandries that the real people (the players) find interesting. There aren't very many of these in Agatha Christie. There's a crapload of them in the Big Sleep.

Paganini wrote:
When you do start getting into dramatic, story-centric role-playing (Say, what Vampire wants to be) there's always the assumption carried over from D&D and earlier games that it will be PCs vs. the Whack Jobs, with the Whack Jobs controled by the GM. That's just what gaming is, right? The GM runs the Bad Guys.

Marco, that's like... totally random sarcasm. I'm sitting here all "what the heck?"

Obviously I'm generalizing. People do things lots of different ways. Fred's asking about a trend. I happen to actually know some people who play V:tM, and it's the only WW book that I've actually read. So, it was an example that sprang readily to mind.

So, like, take a deep breath and read a little slower. You say you agree with my point. You say what I described is canonical V:tM. So.... uh... what's the problem?

Paganini wrote: Marco, that's like... totally random sarcasm. I'm sitting here all "what the heck?"

Obviously I'm generalizing. People do things lots of different ways. Fred's asking about a trend. I happen to actually know some people who play V:tM, and it's the only WW book that I've actually read. So, it was an example that sprang readily to mind.

So, like, take a deep breath and read a little slower. You say you agree with my point. You say what I described is canonical V:tM. So.... uh... what's the problem?

I am not a fan of analogies of roleplaying games to literature or even fiction. They are two related but quite different art forms.

I'd say that roleplaying (at its MOST narrative) is to fiction what improv theater is to playwriting.

There is a certain amount of skills overlap, but in the end, the time element causes a great deal of deviation.

When you're writing fiction, you have a great deal of power (from extensive to total, depending on your writing style) to go back and fix stuff in the beginning, or go forward and make solid decisions about where the flow will go. In a roleplaying game, (depending on your social contract) that power is limited or nonexistent.

So forgive me if I don't buy literature analogies, they're fundamentally flawed.

Paganini wrote: I'm not, like, saying that EVERY character has to be a total whack-job. But, the whack-jobs are where the dramatic impulse comes from. They drive the conflict. Without them, everybody would be Ned Stark, the Lawful Good Northman.

Nathan,

Havin' thought about it over lunch, I apologize. I don't agree with the common analysis of V:tM--but I shouldn't have jumped on you like that. I think there's a tendency to be very much overly prescriptive in what games do but, presently, that's an accepted part of the dialog.

So I apologize. I'm sorry I was sarcastic with you.

-Marco

/me catching up to many posts here

Marco,

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. I don't have the GURPS Vampire book, so, there you go. I have the SS V:tM second edition, I think. In there, IIRC, it's pretty clear that the PCs are "good guys" who are holding off the "evil beast within," while the "bad-guys" are the ones who have given in to the hunger, are interested in humans only as food, perpetuate atrocities, etc. etc. I guess I should have been more specific with my references. So, we're cool. :)

Fred,

It's not an analogy; there's no "is to as is to." Ron's original articulation of Narrativism was given in terms of short-story writing. I'm not saying "here's something similar to help you understand." I'm talking procedure. "This is what we do."

Your second doesn't really contradict my point. Julia is a great example of a messed-up character. She has problems. She's not *predictable.*

. . . Hmm. Something just ocured to me.

Like, well-adujsted characters are predictable, right? You always know that Ned the Lawful Good Northman will do the honorable thing. It's how he's wired. His function in the story is to be the Good Guy. The same thing applies to well-adjusted Bad Guy characters. Drama, like I pointed out previously, comes from characters being Messed Up. Messed Up people are *not* predictable. You don't know what their problems will drive them to do.

But the Losers we're talking about here actually are very predictable. The always kill puppies for satan, or whatever, because that's how *they're* wired. So there's not much dramatic conflict there. I think I see why you were making a contrast between MLWM and KPFS.

In MLWM, the guys can eventually break free, they can have resolution. In KPFS, they don't have that opportunity. They stay losers, and just keep on killin' puppies.

Hmm.

Hmm. I guess I really never have played a total loser. I've played some really messed-up characters, but none of them were Napoleon Dynamite.

/me thinks about this some more

Just so we're clear: in the editions I had and read the PC's were supposed to be battling the hunger as well--no argument there--but there was plenty of small minded messed up and depressive area for them to be "whack jobs."

I wouldn't say that the vampires were as loserly as kpfs characters--but I would say that there was ample disempowerment, dispair, and lack of heroism involved in play that the parts that *did* become heroic stood out.

'm just sayin'--since I wouldn't make the argument that a scheming Toreodor was as down and out as the loser-squad this thread is about--but I also wouldn't class the characters I saw as D&D heroes either. There was certainly tons less combat and nothing that resembled a dungeon crawl: and the players saw themselves as (somtimes) being badguys--but in a bad, even pathetic way (Guy A frenzied and killed a gas station attendant. Guy B, horrified, began the work to burn it down to cover their tracks--he certainly wasn't reveling in his power or evilness--he was projecting, and I think feeling, helpless and impotently enraged at being cursed with vamparism).

-Marco

Paganini wrote:
In MLWM, the guys can eventually break free, they can have resolution. In KPFS, they don't have that opportunity. They stay losers, and just keep on killin' puppies.

Marco wrote: Guy A frenzied and killed a gas station attendant. Guy B, horrified, began the work to burn it down to cover their tracks--he certainly wasn't reveling in his power or evilness--he was projecting, and I think feeling, helpless and impotently enraged at being cursed with vamparism.

Wasn't meant to be a refutation of the statement--just that not all protagonists need to be as extreme as kpfs. You don't dig on the losers, and that's cool. It's not my favorite thing myself but I'm not, y'know, concerned about it.

If Vincent ran a kpfs game at a con, I'd give it a go.

-Marco

Indeed, I agree. Characters don't need to be as extreme as in KPFS.

It's part of my reason for posting that I didn't understand why anyone WOULD make a character as extreme as in KPFS. I was trying to understand the purpose of it.

Vincent (I think) said (as I understand it) that the reason the characters in KPFS are so extreme, the reason for "loser" RP, is that it creates an environment where the players can let their inner loser out in public, and be forgiven for it by the group, and thereby obtain a different kind of gratification than "winner" RP or "struggle" RP would give.

I'm still not sure whether I agree with this.

EDIT: Or rather, if it's true, I don't fully understand how or why it's true.

Well Fred, you know there's only one way to find out.

I'll bet you'll be surprised which of your friends are willing to try it with you.

-Vincent
who is about to get shitkicked by a demon for a scab.

If it's true, it's true. I can't understand how people like coffee icecream but the stuff is in the grocery store.

There's a therapeutic technique called psychodrama that is used to sort of (without going into details--and I'm no expert) roleplay interacting with another person and sometimes being that other person (a real person who is or was in your life). This is some pretty deep, pretty real stuff.

I've been in games where some of the ugly stuff came up--where players felt a prevading sense of unease and in some cases internal feelings of sadness or anger or helplessness or dispair.

One of the most memorable ones was when the players were playing young (college aged) slackers who were, essentially, failures in the world and were dealing with that (and the unusual events going on around them).

It wasn't "struggle" in your sense, although there were aspects of that. It wasn't "winning" in your sense (although there were aspects of that). What was, IIRC, most powerful there was getting in touch with real-life feelings of powerlessness that everyone at some point in their lives feels (and, no, it wasn't powerlessness over the game itself).

I think kpfs is the "straight stuff" in that sense. It's not a drink I'd like to drink all the time by any means--but if some people like that, why's that disturb you?

Do you have any, you know, empathy with your inner loser?

-Marco (who has an inner loser just like everyone else)

Yeah, I do.

I'm not sure it's worth it.

I feel like I'm standing on the rim of a vomitorium, and the guys swimming around inside are telling me, "No! Really! It's FUN! Come on in, the vomit is nice and warm."

I've walked out of games, in the past, when they've slid into depravity, and in this case, I'm looking at it from outside and shaking my head in disbelief.

Marco wrote: I can't understand how people like coffee icecream but the stuff is in the grocery store.

Vaxalon wrote: Yeah, I do.

I'm not sure it's worth it.

I feel like I'm standing on the rim of a vomitorium, and the guys swimming around inside are telling me, "No! Really! It's FUN! Come on in, the vomit is nice and warm."

I've walked out of games, in the past, when they've slid into depravity, and in this case, I'm looking at it from outside and shaking my head in disbelief.

and finally other random weird freaky shit
you know how when you've been chasing this damn dog all over town and back and you just can't seem to catch up with it and it's acting like it knows you're there and it's onto you and you start to wonder precisely who's chasing whom and then it surprises you by jumping out of a garbage can and sinking its teeth into your arm and before you know it it's turned into some guy, i mean some fucking guy with a mouthful of your meat? that's this guy.
- vampires, werewolves, ghouls, skinchangers, undead, the whole goddamn freakshow, it's all out there if you know where to look. or if you don't know which side of the fucking tracks to stay on, puppy boy.
- they all have their own stats and i'm not really inclined to make them all up. you've got the pattern by now surely. knock yourself out. i'll do one to get you started. it'll be your fave and mine, vampires.
..... [mechanics cut, because who cares?] .......
- their powers can include turning into a bat or a wolf or mist, mesmerizing people, moving superfast, being superstrong, you know, the whole damn list from that other fucking game. i know you own it.
- here's a character sheet for a random vampire.

a monster i am, lest a monster i wankety wankety wank
my name is elias dumond iii
cultured 5
cunning 3
bloodthirsty 3
immortal 4
hungry 1
i can transform myself into the bat and transfix the ladies with my sinister yet compelling dark eyes, nyorm nyorm.

so that's npcs. make your pcs piss their puppy-killing pants.

Well, see, I have a problem with that too.

Because there are SO many really, really good games out there, and because of some hrm, bad budgetary practices in the past, I have made a promise to buy only games that I have a solid plan to actually play.

Maybe someday I'll get to a con where it's being demoed, or link up with someone IRL for it.

For now, though, I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm just too unhip for this game.

Oh, and by the way? I can't stand South Park.

Thanks, Chris!

Don't Kill Puppies for Satan. The rest of my hate mail lives here.

I have a longstanding policy, Fred. It appears at the top of my hate mail page. It's: I wrote a game called kill puppies for satan, for goodness sake. What, did I think everybody was going to like it?

I hope you understand it better. You liking it - that's totally not mine to ask.

-Vincent

I think I do understand it, a little. About as well as I understand quantum physics, that is to say, I can follow what people say about it but it's so alien from my own experience that I can't say that I grok it.

Not like I grok algebra, for example.

I suppose that's the best I could have hoped for.

Hello,

This thread seems to have evolved into something beyond the basic principle of loser role-playing. Fred, do you have a specific point-of-issue that we can discuss? As Vincent points out, no one is trying to make you like something (although Chris is getting a bit toward that end of the pool and should stop), and a couple of your posts seem to be trying to protect yourself ...

Anyway, I'm not shutting anything down, don't mistake me on this - I'm asking for a return to the idea that you raised, rather than an emotion you feel about a particular game.

Best,
Ron

Well, how about my postulate, as far as four styles of RP?

That is, Hero, Struggle, Perverse, and Loser?

It seems to have either been ignored or tacitly accepted.

Vaxalon wrote: Well, how about my postulate, as far as four styles of RP?

That is, Hero, Struggle, Perverse, and Loser?

It seems to have either been ignored or tacitly accepted.

I think that's because perverse and struggle involve something that gamism don't really care about all that much, and that's character development (as distinct from advancement). Movement from one state to another.

Does Sim care about character development? Perhaps, but it's not as fundamental as it is in Nar.