I thought about posting this report for a while, trying to decide whether or not I should.  I'm not sure if this is an actual play post or an exercise in psychology.  In the end, I thought, what the heck, someone may gain from it, and the whole point is to talk about experiences, so...

I was really looking forward to the Roach at GenCon.  Everything I had read about it really sounded like a lot of fun.  I should say that my expectations for the game were somewhat ambiguous.  If asked beforehand what to expect, I guess I would have said vaguely Cthulu-esque tongue-in-cheek parody, along the lines of PBS Mystery does HP Lovecraft as written by Fry and Laurie or P.G. Wodehouse.  Keep those expectations in mind as you read on...

So, I signed up for a game on Saturday afternoon.  There were six players, including the GM.  I don't think any of us had ever played the game before.  I'm tired from having just GM'ed four four hour sessions straight on Friday and Saturday morning, and addled a bit because I had to clear my own Donjon game off the table to let the GM of the Roach game set up (she was very nice about it, by the way, thanks).  I sit down and start to play.

Here is the biggest surprise of the con for me...I hated it.  At first, I thought I just didn't really enjoy it much, that I was tired and not really on the top of my form, etc., but the more I reflect on it, the more I hate it.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of the game; the rules are actually perfect for what the game is.  Jason is worthy to be praised for his work here, and anyone considering a GM-lite game should look at this.  I also didn't hate it because of the players I was playing with; they were all fantastic, really gaming on all cylinders and driving stuff forward.  The GM/organizer knew what she was doing, knew the rules, and had a ton of experience with the game, not to mention all the plastic roach props she poured onto the table, which were fun.  I can't even say I didn't have fun; there were moments when I really enjoyed myself, especially the moment when I spoke MURUB to the chap sitting next to me. 

And yet, I still hate it.  I could go into the fictional events that occurred in the game, but I don't think it would really be helpful; they really weren't that much different from other AP posts you may have seen.

The Shab-al-Hiri Roach is the first game I have ever played that I found disturbing for philosophical reasons.  The game has a point; the behaviour of the characters is essentially no different, whether they have eaten the Roach or not, and therefore comments on the depravity of human nature. I got the point in the first 15 minutes. As a believer in the doctrine of original sin, the point was easy to make for me.

I then experienced another 3 hours and 45 minutes of people doing horrible things to each other and to the NPC's for fun.  From what the GM said, our game was remarkably tame compared to some; she seemed somewhat dissappointed by the lack of gore, bloodthirsty sex, general dismemberment, etc.  I did try to get into it, I think; I purposely took on the Roach early on just to see how that would go, and did my best with MURUB.  But the story breathed its nihilistic philosophy on me and made me shudder.  Frankly, if I had not gotten the Roach card on the last event and been able to expel the Roach from my character, I would have probably felt even worse about the whole experience.  It is the first time in my life I have ever stood up from a game and felt, well, a bit dirty. 

Its not that I haven't played and narrated violence, sex, etc. in games; there has been a lot of that, some of it pretty brutal and graphic.  Just the previous day I had been the Dealer in two Dust Devils sessions that involved prostitution, brutal beatings, gunfights galore, psychopathic personalities, and racial hatred.  So what was the difference? 

I think I have finally figured it out.  In most games the morality of the actions of the characters is essentially independent of the fun you can have with those characters.  The paladin is as much fun as the assassin, and in some ways the actions of the assassin may be moral than those of the paladin.  Often, it is exactly those places where the morality or immorality of the characters intersect with the other characters and the setting that the most fun happens; will this moral character stay moral in the face of horrible pressure?  Will this immoral character see the light?  Will this character confront the moral or immoral tendencies in their own makeup and resolve the tensions?

But in the Roach, as far as I can tell, the fun of the game is directly proportional to the immorality (or amorality) of the characters.  The more depraved the conduct, the more enjoyable the fiction, seemingly.  I have to place the Roach in the same category as I place movies like A Clockwork Orange and Se7en, or the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch; impressive works of art that I wish I had never actually experienced.

Again, my intent is not to bash on Jason, Bully Pulpit, my fellow players, or the game itself.  I'm just trying to understand if this is simply a case of "not the game for me", or if there is something more involved.  Looking back, I realize that if I read the other actual play examples more closely, I would probably have noticed the aspects that in the end made me dislike the experience.  Also, I really was very tired, and I admit I was not at top form.  I'd be surprised if any of the other players in this game remember any of my inputs very well (except for MURUB, of course, which is just plain easy to make memorable).  Another point is that my expectations different from what the reality of the local instance of the game was.  Finally, I have not read the actual rule-book itself, and have no idea what guidelines might be within that address exactly the experience I had; I only have the verbal description provided to me by the organizer as a reference.  But I do have several questions:

* Did I simply miss the real point of the game?  Was there some deeper meaning or subtext that went over my head?
* Was this focus on depravity a design feature of the game, or just a local phenomenon?
* Is the kind of nihilisitc angst I experienced during the game what is intended, or am I just taking the whole thing too seriously?
* Am I just an idiot for not realizing what I was getting myself into, like a guy walking into a bar called "Wild Cherry Gentlemen's Lounge" and then complaining it would be a nice place if it weren't for all the naked women?

Your in game decision really impressed me

In C.S. Lewis' Cosmic Trilogy there are some pretty harrowing moments of degradation and cruelty, especially in That Hideous Strength.  And there are moments where characters come face to face with the realization that their actions have lead to their damnation.  All this is pretty harrowing stuff (even for an infidel like myself).  Lewis gives the frisson of being threatened by the infernal but the reader has some distance from the damnation in question.  S/he is proximate to ultimate horror yet given to realize that s/he has within the power to refrain from making the fatal step over the abyss.

Your intervention in the game made me think of C.S. Lewis meets HP Lovecraft.

In any case -- you did not become obstructionist.  You made a contribution to the game based on  your response to the premises of the game.  It's sad that the rest of the players didn't pick up on that.

Erik

I believe I was in this game as well. You were the Asst. Prof. of Mathematics touting his Theorem and his Calvinism, correct? I played the manipulative, cruel, German Prof. of Foreign and Ancient Languages.

Having little time at the moment to contribute my perspective, I just want to add a bit more information for those reading:

Lisa Provost was the GM.

The two people between you and me (Kyle [male] and Corrie [female]) were friends I’d talked into coming to the Roach game with me. My friends and I had never played before, and only I had read about it. I talked them into the game because we all appreciate Cthulhu camp. I actually didn’t end up purchasing the Roach, but Corrie did.

I’ll chime in more later when I have time.

(Noticing Erik's reply) -- Erik, what of Hans's contribution do you think the players "didn't pick up on?"

epweissengruber wrote:
Your in game decision really impressed me

Adam wrote:
I’ll chime in more later when I have time.

Adam wrote:
Lisa Provost was the GM.

The two people between you and me (Kyle [male] and Corrie [female]) were friends I’d talked into coming to the Roach game with me. My friends and I had never played before, and only I had read about it. I talked them into the game because we all appreciate Cthulhu camp. I actually didn’t end up purchasing the Roach, but Corrie did.

Hans,

I find it interesting that you did not enjoy yourself.  A bit puzzled as well since I asked you if you were or were not during the break we took about two hours in.  Being the nob GM and uber paranoid, I wanted to be sure that everyone was having a good time.  :)

You know, it very well could be that it's not the game for you.  Not everyone is going to like it.  And that's okay if they don't.  There are plenty of games out there that people I know play and enjoy that I personally dislike.  *shrug*

I wonder if maybe you should try the game again... maybe with someone else that is not as blood thristy and violent as myself.  *insert big grin here*  If you still dislike it, then it's not the game for you.

I was thinking of what I might have done to make it more interesting/enjoyable for you but you know after reading your posts again, I really don't think there was anything else I could have done.  Erik mentioned that maybe the other players should have noticed your uncomfortable-ness but going back and thinking about it, you didn't give off that vibe at all to me and I was sitting right next to you.  If anything, you were the one laughing harder than I was. 

Was it just the subject matter?  If maybe there hadn't been the 'using' of co-eds, the murder, do you think it would have been enjoyable at all?

It's funny you should mention that you felt 'dirty'.  My husband was in a game later that night of MLwM run by Adam Dray and he laughed saying her felt 'dirty' once they were done playing it. 

Lisa P

Hans,
in my convention game, we had a *very* tame game as can be seen in the actual play report up here. The only death was like 'off-the-scene', and the majority of the game was academic satire, warped by roach-bound commands.

So, meaningless brutality does not need to dominate the game. My guess is that once it has been used successfully, it's easy to follow up in the bloody tracks plowed by other players. I need to play this game more to comment in-depth, though.

Lisa wrote:
I find it interesting that you did not enjoy yourself.  A bit puzzled as well since I asked you if you were or were not during the break we took about two hours in.  Being the nob GM and uber paranoid, I wanted to be sure that everyone was having a good time.  :)

Not everyone is going to like it.  And that's okay if they don't. 

I wonder if maybe you should try the game again... maybe with someone else that is not as blood thristy and violent as myself.  *insert big grin here*

I was thinking of what I might have done to make it more interesting/enjoyable for you but you know after reading your posts again, I really don't think there was anything else I could have done.  Erik mentioned that maybe the other players should have noticed your uncomfortable-ness but going back and thinking about it, you didn't give off that vibe at all to me and I was sitting right next to you.  If anything, you were the one laughing harder than I was. 

Was it just the subject matter?  If maybe there hadn't been the 'using' of co-eds, the murder, do you think it would have been enjoyable at all?

It's funny you should mention that you felt 'dirty'.  My husband was in a game later that night of MLwM run by Adam Dray and he laughed saying her felt 'dirty' once they were done playing it. 

oliof wrote:
Hans,
in my convention game, we had a *very* tame game as can be seen in the actual play report up here. The only death was like 'off-the-scene', and the majority of the game was academic satire, warped by roach-bound commands.

So, meaningless brutality does not need to dominate the game. My guess is that once it has been used successfully, it's easy to follow up in the bloody tracks plowed by other players. I need to play this game more to comment in-depth, though.

Lisa wrote:
It's funny you should mention that you felt 'dirty'.  My husband was in a game later that night of MLwM run by Adam Dray and he laughed saying her felt 'dirty' once they were done playing it. 

Hans wrote:
* Did I simply miss the real point of the game?  Was there some deeper meaning or subtext that went over my head?
* Was this focus on depravity a design feature of the game, or just a local phenomenon?
* Is the kind of nihilisitc angst I experienced during the game what is intended, or am I just taking the whole thing too seriously?
* Am I just an idiot for not realizing what I was getting myself into, like a guy walking into a bar called "Wild Cherry Gentlemen's Lounge" and then complaining it would be a nice place if it weren't for all the naked women?

I talked to Lisa and was assured that she had the standard lines and veils discussion before play, which is something I really harp on from people who facilitate it at cons, so I really don't see how a person could be completely blind-sided.  That said, I totally respect your feelings about The Roach, and I'm encouraged that you brought them to the forums. 

Hans wrote:
Actually, though, if you want to know the thing that most gave me this impression, it was definitely something of my own creation; the whole business of sorority girls enslaved by Wheldrake with equations carved into their foreheads.  I made this up, and if I had come up with it as a GM back in my old World War II Mage game as something some Nazi scientist was doing, I would have totally grooved on it.  But in this case, it was not some Nazi scientist, it was ME carving equations into their foreheads; I could not distance myself from the fictional act.  Does that make sense? 

This is all verging on psychoanalysis territory, and yet it seems important to me from the perspective of any RPG, not just the Roach.  We have all narrated some pretty gruesome and horrendous stuff in our gaming lives.  What are the circumstances that let us say "thats not me DOING that, its someone else"?

Jack wrote:
I once wrote a story and while writing I was entirely within the head of the main character. I was my character yet at the same time I was the author of the story and I was doing some rather terrible things to this person. The imagination is a rather amazing thing and it has many levels, it seems.

Okay, my experience with the game! But first an aside:

That Particular Revulsion

I was not revolted by the game in the same way you were, Hans, but you described your reaction in a way that was immediately familiar to me. I wracked my brain remembering why.

It was Grand Theft Auto: I once had the same reaction playing the video game Grand Theft Auto that you had playing the Roach. GTA gives you deplorable game objectives, and then turns you loose to accomplish them in deplorable ways. I found it difficult to navigate the game at all without accidentally running down pedestrians. Murder isn't a big deal, it's just a thing you do.

So I don't play GTA.

Playing the Roach

I had a good time, and I would gladly play again. The only reason I didn't buy it is because I can't imagine its Cthulhoid academic satire appealing broadly within my circles of friends. Corrie did buy it, and so I hope to play it again with her and those few others whom I can imagine being interested.

I know I've read the comment before, but the Roach felt a bit like a colorful board game -- akin to Betrayal at the House on the Hill. Because the fiction failed to constrain or increase my options, I had a sense that the fiction didn't really matter. So I went about my murdering and torturing and stuffing a man's intestines into his own mouth without a sense that I was addressing any premise whatsoever.

I created my character to be despicable. The thought process went something like:
1. Hmmm, what funny accent do I want to try today? I know! German!
2. Huh, what were the Germans up to around 1919? Oh, I remember...
3. A proto-Nazi it is!

The first two atrocities were mine: when trapped in Kyle's mad sculpture, my squirming loosed the spike that killed the Chair of the Board of Trustees, and later I tried to frame Kyle by killing the Chaplain and putting him inside another sculpture. In both cases I attributed no moral weight to the acts: I was a player jockeying for position.

At the end of the game (as I stood over Asst. Prof. Andrews' dying body) I remember I hesitated for a long moment: at that point I was realizing that a) I was not Roached, but b) I was being a right monstrous bastard anyway, and c) it would be too complicated to humanize my character at this point, so I was better off continuing to be a right monstrous bastard.

I noticed a palpable drop in energy at the end of the game, when most of the table realized they could not win.

Josiah's Redemption

Josiah's deliverance went totally over my head, I'm afraid! I totally failed to figure out who the "kindly face" was, much less that the Roach was expelled through His agency. I understand the Mythos to be a nihilistic, materialist milieu: I no more expected Christ than I expected Cinderella. I glossed past your narration because I didn't understand it, and I was keen on getting to that bit where I won the game.

Perhaps some of your discontent is that you wanted to address a premise ("Does a belief in determinism [Calvinism] lead men into evil?") and the rest of us were doing no such thing?

Hans wrote:
The Shab-al-Hiri Roach is the first game I have ever played that I found disturbing for philosophical reasons.  The game has a point; the behaviour of the characters is essentially no different, whether they have eaten the Roach or not, and therefore comments on the depravity of human nature. I got the point in the first 15 minutes. As a believer in the doctrine of original sin, the point was easy to make for me.

Adam wrote:
So I don't play GTA.

I know I've read the comment before, but the Roach felt a bit like a colorful board game -- akin to Betrayal at the House on the Hill. Because the fiction failed to constrain or increase my options, I had a sense that the fiction didn't really matter. So I went about my murdering and torturing and stuffing a man's intestines into his own mouth without a sense that I was addressing any premise whatsoever.

3. A proto-Nazi it is!

I noticed a palpable drop in energy at the end of the game, when most of the table realized they could not win.

Josiah's deliverance went totally over my head, I'm afraid! I totally failed to figure out who the "kindly face" was, much less that the Roach was expelled through His agency. I understand the Mythos to be a nihilistic, materialist milieu: I no more expected Christ than I expected Cinderella. I glossed past your narration because I didn't understand it, and I was keen on getting to that bit where I won the game.

Perhaps some of your discontent is that you wanted to address a premise ("Does a belief in determinism [Calvinism] lead men into evil?") and the rest of us were doing no such thing?

Hans wrote:
That is probably a deep insight into my character Adam.  Have you ever considered becoming a therapist?  I never consciously thought of that premise, but its pretty obvious my subconscious was sending me telegrams about it.

Dude, I have problems even playing Sorcerer for the same reason.

I'm pretty easy to engage, I think. Even when the game isn't precisely my cup of tea, I'm usually on board in some respect. But...I prefer to play heroes.

It's like the computer Joshua says in the movie Wargames about playing Global Thermonuclear War: "An interesting game Dr. Falcon. The only way to win is....not to play."

I mean, in Sorcerer, the "winning move" to me is to stop being a sorcerer. Banish your demons and live a normal life. Ron points out that you can perhaps overcome your demons and win that way, but the probable moral descent neccessary to do that is, I think, not acceptable.

I often play characters who are tempted by the dark side, don't get me wrong. And they even go over at times. They're only human, after all. But in the end, I hope that there's something truely redeeming about the character. If not, well, then I'm really not interested in playing the character for more than - as you put it yourself - about 15 minutes.

I've had precisely the same problem with Paul Czege's game Acts of Evil and have made that clear.

The issue is that after you've made the point with 15 minutes of play (or even having watched that much), the only way you're enjoying yourself is is you are actually finding humor in the things that are going on. That, in and of itself isn't problematic to me. I can watch a dark movie. The problem with a RPG is that you yourself are making up the dark things. Those come from somewhere. And the fact that you're making such a thing for the exploitation of the group present?

Yeah, I don't enjoy that at all, either. Maybe I do have a dark side. I'd rather not look at it too deeply. That's not denial, that's player preference.

I think that it's a testament to how effective Jason's design is that it provokes such a reaction. Even a game as good as, say, Unknown Armies with similar content doesn't do so. And, I'm sure that for some it'll be a great design as they may enjoy these things. I'm not going to judge.

But, sorry, I don't have to participate. I played a 15 minute demo of Roach. And that's probably all I'll play.

I would say that MLWM is not exactly the same. This is because the characters in question aren't so much bad as pathetic. You understand that they're doing the bad things they're doing not because they want to do them, but because they're in a dysfunctional relationship with somebody domineering. As such, when you're laughing about something apparently depraved, the tears that accompany the laughing are because of the sorrowful feeling you have for the poor minion.

Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter. ~Friedrich Nietzsche ...

If you're feeling for the minion, rather than simply reveling in the depravity of a bad act, it's a very different thing. Leastways it is for me.

Mike

Hans this is really interesting to me, because it's come up recently in my own thoughts on a game I'm currently preparing to run. Basically, at what point and in what way is the creation of a fiction condoning the events that occur in the fiction?

I'm currently setting up a Burning Empires game. For those who don't know, Burning Empires structures the game around the battle between Humans and Vaylen (body snatcher-like aliens). You can have humans on the Vaylen side who don't realize they're on the Vaylen side - their actions are just working against the best interests of humanity.

In the game as we've set it up, two of the three PCs are Noble Lords whose planet and power is built on serfdom. They are on the Human side. A figure of note on the Vaylen side is a Serf Insurrectionist. Since this world creation session I've gotten to thinking about it, and it makes me deeply, deeply comfortable. It seems to me that we, the players of the game, are creating a fiction in which fighting slavery is against the best interests of humanity. I've discussed this with my players, who think I'm overthinking this, but I feel like we're creating a fiction in which slavery is condoned.

Now, I enjoy pushing comfort boundaries in games I'm in, but this is the first time since I was very young that my comfort boundary is being pushed, and I think this is happening not because of the events that are occurring or could occur in the game but because of the statement about slavery I believe me and the other players are making in this game, intentionally or not. It sounds like this is what you and Adam and Mike are talking about - that the mechanics of the game push the fiction towards a message you don't agree with and that by playing out that fiction you feel as though you're condoning it.

Bret wrote:
In the game as we've set it up, two of the three PCs are Noble Lords whose planet and power is built on serfdom. They are on the Human side. A figure of note on the Vaylen side is a Serf Insurrectionist. Since this world creation session I've gotten to thinking about it, and it makes me deeply, deeply comfortable.

Just want to offer a really quick comment to Hans, thanking him for starting this thread.  It's a good thread.

Hans, thank you for clearly and without rancor saying what most people really mean when they say "This game sucks"

thanks,

James

Bret wrote:
It seems to me that we, the players of the game, are creating a fiction in which fighting slavery is against the best interests of humanity. I've discussed this with my players, who think I'm overthinking this, but I feel like we're creating a fiction in which slavery is condoned.

Ricky wrote:
Hans, if you encounter fiction that makes you uncomfortable, that's perfectly OK. It means that you have to decide between two choices:
1) You say, "This content makes me uncomfortable, and I will play this game anyway, with the goal of trying to understand where my discomfort comes from."
2) Or you say, "I am not going to play this game in this form because I am uncomfortable with its content."

Does that help at all, Hans?

Hans wrote:
Of course, another question might be how do you deal with the situation where, three hours into a four hour session, you cross the line from point 1 to point 2?  Or three sessions into a five session campaign?  At that point it becomes more a question of tact; how do you tactfully explain to the GM that you need to walk away?

Hans wrote:
We all know these things should be discussed up front (as Lisa and Jason have indicated the rules of the Roach require), but we also know that people's self knowledge is incomplete; sometimes you don't know something will bother you until you actually experience it, and therefore don't really have any hint you should avoid the experience in the first place.  In a Dust Devils game I ran at GenCon, one player made the statement at the beginning of the game that he was uncomfortable with rape.  I thought, "wow, that is incredible self-knowledge, I need to make sure I ask a question regarding boundaries before every session of Dust Devils I run with strangers."  But at the same time I thought "wow, what had to happen in a game for him to need to state THAT up front?"  I can truthfully say I've never had rape even hinted at in 20+ years of gaming.  It would never have occurred to me to mention it as a boundary I didn't want crossed.

I'd love to play in a Roach game where the switch for moral engagement was definitively, explicitly on.  It'd be a very different game, and much harder to play I suspect. 

In terms of boundaries, I tried to make it clear in the rules that if someone articulates their desire to establish a line or veil, that is to be honored without further comment.  I recognize that "I will not abandon you" play is both possible and laudable, but I don't think The Roach is the game in which to explore it.  When I play, I always say "sexual violence against women or children" as a hard line, because I don't want to see it, ever.  Once that is out there, and knowing what everyone else has issues with, I can push 110% on whatever remains, which is always plenty.

No, it's not that we condone the acts. I've had characters do heinous things that I would never, ever condone. No, it's that we're enjoying the suffering of others that's problematic. That we're reveling in villainy. Yeah, sure, we're also making commentary that what the characters are doing is heinous. But, as I said, after you say that once, after that, why are you continuing to say it? Message recieved, over and out. Anything after that is exploitive of our own feelings about the darkness that we're discovering in ourselves as we come up with the depraved things that happen.

You know what's interesting? I hadn't actually assumed on reading the game that this sort of horrible thing would happen constantly. Oh, to be sure when controlled by the roach, characters are forced to do some things that are bad. But the player still has some control over what happens. When I played my demo, I thought I was getting out of hand when I had my character deliberately try to injure somebody. I'm a piker when compared to most players, it seems.

I think that a much more "civilized" game of roach could be played that doesn't end up like most of Lisa's sessions. OTOH, maybe it's just my inexperience with actually playing the game.

Mike

Mike,
the horrible things described in the AP reports don't happen constantly. I assume (and my experience with dogs support that assumption) that AP reporters are mostly very creative, colorful and extroverted people. That also means that they will go to the extremes a game offers them often, so we see them here.

I have already linked to my Roach AP account, which is much less vile, satanic and brutalizing than most of the stories I've read here. Nonetheless, it was a game where people followed the roach orders, where being roached was a bad thing that gave you the extra power you needed, where professors competed for reputation, and all that jazz. We even hat ancient east sumerian architecture, engineering and art on topic. On top of that, we had plagiarism, student-professor relationships, police investigations, ...

I promise you another "civilized roach" AP report before the end of the year. Keeping it "civilized" also adds to the tension between the roach commands and their disconnect with "modern society".

Regards,
    Harald

oliof wrote:
Keeping it "civilized" also adds to the tension between the roach commands and their disconnect with "modern society".

Couple thoughts:

On the toned-down "civilized" Roach game -- I find that con games sort of encourage the depravity, due to the quickened pace and the anonymity.  A con game is a venue where you can experiment going further than you might normally with friends that you're going to play another game with next week.

On applying Calvinism to the Roach -- first off, I think my eyes crossed when you described your character's rapture to heaven.  To me, that seemed to be a pretty profound departure from the game's intended content; I'm not surprised at all that it was hard to shoehorn in.

On the difference between playing and condoning -- the point-man for this discussion is Lolita.  Nabakov wrote the novel to explore what would make a man trespass so far from cultural norms.  There's value in exploring that territory, because crossing boundaries is the only way we ever understand the nature of the boundaries themselves.  We aren't saying that it's okay to cross the boundary, we are exploring why the boundary is there and whether or not it should be there.  Personally, I think it's important to at least consider the possibility that the boundary is not a valid one; without that possibility a great deal of the exploration is simply impossible.  In Lolita, you have to consider whether it's possible that Humbert really can love Lolita, or if his attraction is wholly depraved.  If you go in with an answer pre-prepared, you miss a great deal of the novel's impact.  The same goes for games that offer big, hard moral choices -- it's got to actually be a choice, otherwise you're missing the bulk of the game.

On moral choices in games -- one of the best things I've seen in recent games is the trend towards placing big, tough moral choices in the context of specific situations full of conflicting details and compelling characters.  Dogs is awesome in this regard, in that the game can make the Dogs question nearly any of their beliefs when presented with loving, hurting, desperate people who are struggling with those beliefs.  That's why I find Brett's BE game fascinating (fascinating enough for a separate thread, Brett -- get posting!), because the game sits there and presents the players with a conundrum.  Here's your antagonist: he's morally superior to your protagonists.  Now deal with the situation.  Roach has a similar conundrum: how far will you go to get tenure and recognition?  Sure, the question is easy when it's presented like that; it's much, much more difficult when you've got a fully fleshed out character in front of you, in a rapidly escalating situation complicated by other player characters who are also fleshed out with their own motivations and goals.

To me, Roach can get played in one of two ways: it can be played for cheap laughs, or it can be played pretty hardcore.  It's hard to play the second at a con game to start with -- it requires a little more investment and social support structure.  However, for the second you've also got to leave your absolutist faith in anything at the door.  The purpose is exploration, not exposition.  If you go in with an answer already determined -- or decide that you've got it all figured out in the first 15 minutes and don't need to test your hypothesis -- you're short-circuiting the game.  It's like walking into an Uno game deciding that you're the Uno Champion, and disregarding whether you win or lose each hand, denying that anything that happens in the game has anything to do with your Uno Mastery.

All that said, Hans, I don't know if either mode -- cheap laughs or hardcore exploration -- is the kind of play that you're interested in.

Oh, I dunno, that sort of anonymity where you actually are with a person isn't the same as internet anonymity. I tend to be more guarded, not less, when playing with people I don't know. Not knowing whether or not it will offend, etc.

Yeah, I think that there are some gamers for whom this isn't true - gamers who aren't socially well-adjusted. I saw the game Hans was talking about and from that and his description, I don't think that's true of these particular gamers.

No, I think it's just that the game says that it's OK to get depraved, gives you an excuse, and players go ahead and get depraved. Probably in part because they haven't had a chance to do so in other RPGs. Similar to how players get kinda crazy when playing Universalis for the first time and end up with odd genre bashing or just silly play. If the parallel works here, then it may be that "civilized" Roach play will come with more experienced players. That said, I don't see players playing Roach a lot of times, so I'm not sure that it'll get there.

Mike

I hosted a Roach game on Saturday night at the Embassy Suites. It was the tamest Roach game I've ever played in, and perhaps the tamest game I've ever heard of.

The worst bit of violence I recall was when the roached professor randomly murdered a luminary for disturbing him in his holy place ("This Place Shall Not Be Disturbed," or somesuch, was the card). There were a couple fistfights. There was a forced man-to-man kiss. And, of course, another professor accidentally poisoned a bunch of people at the board meeting. My character had a lot of consensual sex with Regina Sutton, even in a coffin.

We had a hilarious, yakkety-sax scene involving a professor in a hospital bed, Mr. Bompus, a couple other professors, and a cute nurse. You had to be there.

At the end, a couple people were roached. A couple people who had been roached (like me) got unroached. I ended with a big pile of chips and won narration of the epilogue. I said that the roaches left and that everyone at Pemberton University lived happily ever after.

It was a lot of fun.

If you would, Adam, how much experience with the game did the other players have. Checking on my hypothesis.

Mike

Mike: In my game, nobody ever had played it before. Not even me.

I believe that no one in that game had ever played it before.

Huh. OK, so much for that idea.

Mike

Maybe Harald and Adam's friends are just morally superior to us, Mike. ;)

Heh.

Well, again, I played relatively un-debauchedly in my first demo, too.

So maybe I should have known better. And I think in Hans' case, he was probably getting caught up in doing what was expected by the group in question. Which would be problematic, because that's him...uh I want to say knuckling under to peer pressure, but you get the idea. That would revolt me, too.

But, consider that I was somewhat revolted at myself merely having my character trying to do bodily harm to some of the others second hand (like he'd ordered a student to rough up the other guy).

The word that I keep coming up with to describe it is that it seems prurient.

Mike

At the risk of calling Lisa out -- I'd say that at her table this GenCon, she strongly encouraged extreme violence.

The seven of us were over halfway through the game with only two deaths (both my doing) when, during the break, Lisa remarked how surprised she was that the game was so tame. She followed up by describing with great enthusiasm all a number of bloody Roach games she'd played before.

By the end of the game we'd ramped up the brutality accordingly.

First, I think that every game is going to have players that push things one way or another. Second, in case anyone is thinking that I'm being judgemental, I'm not. If people get their kicks from playing like this, good for them. So this sounds merely like somebody getting from a game what they want, which seems just right to me.

I don't want to participate in such a game, but that's just my own preference. Others should indulge if they feel that they'll enjoy it.

Mike

Mike wrote:
...because that's him...uh I want to say knuckling under to peer pressure, but you get the idea.

Adam wrote:
She followed up by describing with great enthusiasm all a number of bloody Roach games she'd played before.

Good question, Hans.

Mike

Hans wrote:
Enthusiasm and relish. :)  Lisa is an expressive person, whose enthusiasm is contagious and who lets you know exactly what she likes and doesn't like.  This makes her a great GM, and a great player as well.  However, I wouldn't say Lisa "encouraged" extreme violence, in the sense of her saying "come on, what's with you people?  get with the rending and the maiming and the piles of bodies already!"  Rather, I would say that she gave the impression that in her experience games with lots of extreme violence were the most fun.  That is, you sort of got the feeling that if you weren't putting in a lot of extreme violence, you probably weren't fully appreciating the Roach experience.  I guess I would have to ask Lisa if that impression is actually her opinion of the Roach, or simply an unintended consequence of human communication. 

Lisa wrote:
Does that answer your question Hans?

As another data point, when I ran the Roach a couple of months ago at a small con, it was a game that definitely fell into the tame category.  There was a lot of university politics and infidelity, but it wasn't until toward the very end of the game that the level of violence even rose to fisticuffs, and then there was one scene where my character attempted to stab one of the other PCs (and ended up killing an NPC instead).  That was it.  No dark sorcery, no sacrifices, no torture, no bloodbaths.  I was frankly a bit surprised, as I'd gotten the impression from reading AP posts that things tended to go way over the top violence-wise, but the game never even wandered near that territory.  Afterwards, I even wondered if I'd done something wrong in explaining the game, since it was the first time any of us had actually played the Roach.  Most everyone had fun though.

Hans, I suppose it's in some ways unfortunate that your first Roach experience ended up being the other sort of game, as I think you may have enjoyed the more tame version.  Or at least not had as negative of a reaction.  Thanks for posting about the experience you did have though, as it was really interesting.