Hi,

I've translated one of the minor RPGs of mine to English, and posted it on my site. It's a short read. Please comment!

Pervo
If you are a games master, you should read this. If you need to relax with some hardcore violence; if you need to get even with your players; if you need to pump up your abilities as a DM, please try Pervo. Pervo RPG is great therapy for flustered game masters. I promise you will never be the same game master, after playing Pervo!

You will find it here:
http://www.fabula.no/pervoEng.html

It's free! It's hardcore! it's violent and sexy! And it's to be played with a lot of players (10-20).

Go for it!

What would you like comments on?

It looks to me like this is a (slightly, but not really elaborate) joke. That is, the thought of playing such a game is supposed to make the GM feel better or something. You don't actually think that people will play this, do you? Doing so would then require you to write a game for players go get back at GMs, then. ;-)

Anyhow, as it's not playable, I guess it would be classified as a "Thought Game" or Gedanken Experiment. As such, it makes a very limited statement about how GM's sometimes feel. I suppose that a frustrated GM could show it to players in order to display their feelings, but I think that they'd be better off talking. Because the game doesn't tell anyone why the GM is unsatisfied, just that he is.

Interestingly, more refined versions of this show up at Cons all the time. The game is played in various manners and under different names (I remember one "Death Ring" game). In the versions that I've seen, the players gather in a large ring, allowing any passeby to join on a whim. The GM (or GMs, sometimes the do tag-team) stands in the middle points to a player who then hops into the ring. The GM presents some situation, often the same as the last player's, and the player must instantly respond with what the character is doing (hesitation is instant death in most cases). The GM usually finds some quick way to kill the character by fiat: "When you open the door, a 2 ton anvil drops on your head and kills you." That player then leaves the ring, and the GM selects another victim.

Some of these seem to have a goal, such that players learning from the deaths of prior players seem to get farther. In most cases, clever responses earn anything from extended play time, to instant death for having thwarted the GM. In some cases, there seems to be no point to play other than seeing what interesting ways the GMs can come up with to kill characters, and potentially to see how large a death count they can rack up in the allotted time.

Anyhow, is your game supposed to be tongue in cheek like this? If that's understood, that's actually playable. But I'm still not sure what the point is, precisely of your version. Why the paper, etc?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What would you like comments on?

Mike Holmes wrote: You don't actually think that people will play this, do you?

Mike Holmes wrote: Anyhow, as it's not playable,

Mike Holmes wrote: Interestingly, more refined versions of this show up at Cons all the time.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm still not sure what the point is,

Well, you asked for reaction/comments . . .

"Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play."

Though I suppose a GM who's able to make each death interesting and/or amusing might hold some folks attention for a while. Not mine, though. I feel like reading the game provides me everything I need - and it was an interesting and/or amusing read. Giving the DM the power to take Cleverness from one player and bestow it upon others is an interesting little twist to get the players in "keep the DM happy, no matter the cost to others" mode, but most people will see through it fairly quickly, I'd think. Rule Three, even if kept secret, will become obvious before long.

<inserting tounge into cheek> I would like to know a bit more about Zader, Mazorg, and/or Zader-Mazorg. If they have a position on the afterlife, I might be able to continue to play my character after he gets killed - that might make actual play more interesting to me. A supplement, maybe? <smile>

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Well, you asked for reaction/comments . . .

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Though I suppose a GM who's able to make each death interesting and/or amusing might hold some folks attention for a while. Not mine, though. I feel like reading the game provides me everything I need - and it was an interesting and/or amusing read.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Giving the DM the power to take Cleverness from one player and bestow it upon others is an interesting little twist to get the players in "keep the DM happy, no matter the cost to others" mode, but most people will see through it fairly quickly, I'd think.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: I would like to know a bit more about Zader, Mazorg, and/or Zader-Mazorg. A supplement, maybe?

Tomas HVM wrote: Comments? Why, nothing else than how you like the idea, possibly. I've made a game, and seriously would like people to try it out.

Mike Holmes wrote: You don't actually think that people will play this, do you?

Mike; I know for a fact that people will play this. people have paid me to write down the rules on a napkin, just to be sure they did not forget the essentials of this game. People want to play this game! A lot of people have played it, and enjoyed it. Try to understand why...

Mike Holmes wrote: Interestingly, more refined versions of this show up at Cons all the time.

Interestingly, Mike goes on after this rather arrogant presumption, to describe "games" of no refinement, and not even close to what Pervo is.

Mike Holmes wrote: I guess I'm being dense. I can see why a GM might want to run it, but I can't see why players would want to play it.

Mike Holmes wrote: To clarify, by "refined", I mean, narrowed down. ... Not better, neccessarily, except possibly for their specific goals. I meant no insult by the use of the term, certainly.

Mike Holmes wrote: I seem to have incensed you. I was merely trying to get some discussion of the concept going. I hope that by not taking your insults to heart, you can see that I'm being earnest.

Tomas HVM wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: I guess I'm being dense. I can see why a GM might want to run it, but I can't see why players would want to play it.

Well, they do, by some reason. Maybe roleplayers are a bit more open to experiments than we usually believe them to be? Or maybe they always appreciate a good gore? Or is it the novelty of a GM trying to get rid of you?

To clarify, then, do the players actively try to thwart the GM's intentions, or are they "complicit" in the attempts to off their own characters? Given the GM authority to do what he likes, it seems to me that competition is out of the question on the player level. Or have I missed something again?

But still you are wrong: pervo is more narrow in focus than the games you refer to, and got something the haphazard convent-game usually don't have. By applying Pervo in the right way, with the right amount of audacity and enthusiasm, you may release feelings and powers in the players not normally let free under a roleplaying session. This is especially true for players of an academic persuation, but pertains to most types of players, actually. And it is hilarious fun, for both players and GM.

To be even more specific, by refined I meant efficient. That is, these convention games usually take no longer than 30 seconds or so to kill of a character if that (else they'd never get through all the players). In Pervo, it seems that the characters might last a little longer - must be, given that they can kill other characters. It seems that there's supposed to be something that happens in Pervo in the interrim. That said, I'm a little fuzzy on what that's supposed to be.

Could you give an example of play? Again, this is probably a strength of the design, but I'm just not getting it. Certainly the absurdity of the Con games in terms of character lifespan detracts potentially from some of the effect.

OTOH, it seems to me that the energetic enthusiasm is exactly what the Con games are all about. Everybody stands. Everything is shouted so that the whole crowd can hear. Players fall to the ground flailing when they're "killed". So, from that POV it seems very similar to what you describe.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: To clarify, then, do the players actively try to thwart the GM's intentions, or are they "complicit" in the attempts to off their own characters? Given the GM authority to do what he likes, it seems to me that competition is out of the question on the player level. Or have I missed something again?

Mike Holmes wrote: It seems that there's supposed to be something that happens in Pervo in the interrim. That said, I'm a little fuzzy on what that's supposed to be.

Tomas,

Could you post an example of actual play? I must be missing something, because I can't even begin to see how this plays. I've read the rules- twice- and I just don't "get it". What is theraputic about this? How is embracing your death and pain interesting, or even remotely fun? How is dying by capricious whim done so that it is fun?

I think an example of actual play would definitely help me to understand this better. Would you be willing to post an example?

I've posted the initial post of this thread on RPGnet too, and it's interesting to see the difference in response.

The lack of response here speaks volumes, of course; this is not the kind of game endorsed by the average members of the Forge.

The response given by Mike and Anthony is bothered with understanding the concept. It seems to be very important for them to picture the game before entering into it.

I propose another way: happily entering the unknown! Boldy go where men has gone before, on their recommendation! It may function when you actually do it!

"Understanding" is not all! The real experience will tell!

(however: you may go to the page again now, as I have entered a new link at the bottom, on "perverted philosophy")

Tomas,

I don't know--I think you might be misinterpreting what's going on here. The lack of responses that you cite isn't necessarily as revealing as you might think. I've seen a lot of games get a lot less responses here in Indie Design. It's not the most active board at the Forge, and "me too" posts are rare. So if someone has already said what I'd say, then I don't post to add any comments. See what I mean?

The other thing that's going on here, though, is that this forum is really for helping people design games by giving them feedback. It's not really meant to be a "look what I did" kind of forum, and that is perhaps a more likely reason for Mike and Anthony's comments. They're coming at this from a, "what feedback can I give" standpoint. You seem to be posting the game not really wanting feedback. In that case, I'm not sure this is the best forum for the post. In contrast, your post on RPG.net is getting more responses in shorter time because the design forum there has a different focus.

So would Mike or Anthony try out this game, if proposed in their game group or at a con? Maybe, maybe not. Their comments here in the design board aren't really indicative of that. Sure, Mike says, "I don't see the point." That's him talking from a design standpoint, not a play standpoint, if you see what I mean.

Sure, it's interesting and humorous. As presented, it seems really to be about forcing players and GMs to think about some aspects of RPGs that are often implicit. In that respect, it might have been more successful as a post in RPG Theory. But as a post here, you really need to think about what help you want on the game. If you don't want any help, and if the design is already finished and you have no intention of making changes, then it's not a post for Indie Design, in my understanding.

Rich

Hi Rich,

I do appreciate responses, as stated before, even if they are negative or lacking in understanding of my designer goals. Although I may seem reluctant to listen to critique, I always do, and use it to turn my eyes on my designs in new ways. I never consider a design of mine "complete", although I usually prefer to present it as such, and fight heroically to defend it. There is always room for refinement. So it is useful for me to post something like Pervo here, and to meet some unmitigated critique (and misunderstandings are always a sign that the design is lacking in some respect).

I also consider it a contribution to other gamesmiths, to give them such a game to read. It may help them in ways more subtle than answering their queries on ongoing projects. This also makes it relevant as a posting here.

I prefer to post something like Pervo under the "design"-flag, rather than under the "theory"-flag. A complete game, discussed and dissected, speaks volumes on the relation between game goals and practical design. That is certainly relevant in a designers context.

I hope you understand this point of view, Rich, and may respect that this is my sincere intentions, and as I perceive them; quite in tune with the ramifications of this forum.

Your point on what the lack of posts signify is noted. You may very well be right. I'm new to this group, so my insight in this sphere is limited. I made a speculation, based on very limited material.

I have been watching both threads. I still don't see the point of actually playing this game.

O.K., with another approach, I do see the point of it as a "thought experiment". I especially like the use of meta-game elements that borderline "happenings" or Andy Kaufman or Situationist Theory, esp. the chapter on roles in "The Revolution of Everyday Life". Either that or it is, a la, Kaufman making fun of those of use who "read to much into something".

O.k., I'll quit while I am behind.

Thomas,

You said:

Pervo is a tool used to release them [GMs] from the anxiety of disgruntled players.

Tomas,

Ok, I get where you're coming from on posting it here--your heroic defense confused me a bit. It gave me the impression that you weren't really interested in the feedback. It makes sense now.

In the meantime, I've been thinking about the main point people are raising in their responses, which basically boils down to, "I just don't get it." I'm in there a bit. I mean, I think I can get it from a GM's standpoint. If you're a frustrated GM, I can see the therapeutic value of it, sure. You get to take revenge on the players. That seems to be the point. But maybe it isn't, or it isn't entirely.

So let me try to work it out some more. I'm not sure if I get it from a player's standpoint, but here's my stab at "getting it." It's what you've experienced, over and over, in countless games. No matter what you do, ultimately, the GM is in charge of everything and your only real effectiveness is your social effectiveness. In these cases, the rules are an illusion (it's the "Golden Rule," after all, in many a game). So the one thing that ostensibly empowers you as a player, the rules, are meaningless if the GM is fudging and ignoring them left and right. Pervo's the same as this, really, except... you know the GM gets to do whatever he wants. It's right out there in the open. No obfuscation, no sense that maybe, just maybe, you can be effective through the rules. Just the GM's power, and if you are clever enough and effective enough on a social level, you can at least beat out the other players. Same as always, but this time it's explicit.

Am I getting the point here?

Of course, this seems most useful to both GMs and players who have had Bad Experiences (TM). Which I suppose is a lot of people. So maybe the reason I wasn't getting it was that I haven't really had all that many bad experiences of this sort, at least not for a very, very long time. I can see the usefulness of it in challenging or revealing unspoken issues that many players and GMs have with each other.

I'll take a break now and wait to see your response to Jasper's questions, which I'm interested in as well.

Rich

Jasper wrote: What, as you perceive it, is the benefit of playing Pervo for the GM, and for the players (is there one for the players)?

Rich wrote: ... the rules are an illusion ... So the one thing that ostensibly empowers you as a player, the rules, are meaningless if the GM is fudging and ignoring them left and right. Pervo's the same as this, really, except... you know the GM gets to do whatever he wants.

Hello all!

I've been lurking on the Forge for a while now (a good place to lurk), but thought I'd go public and post some comments about how Pervo can be played. I've only played it once, and it was years ago, at a con.

The unpredictable and cynical cruelty of the GM, who didn't seem to care _at all_ what you were supposed to do at a gaming session, was a bit of a shock. The public humiliation took some time getting used to. I remember we all had to write our names down at the top of the paper. A few had sloppy handwriting, and didn't get a lot of Cleverness Points (Flinkhetspoeng). I got severely punished for having a stupid name. I don't remember very much of the actual session - two characters got their bodies fused together, and the players were forced to speak simultaneously, trying to say the same words at the same time, so they were talking rubbish veeery slowly most of the time. One character was forced down onto a large blade and cut slowly in half. We were told we could hand in requests for more Cleverness, if we wanted; nobody dared at first, because we assumed our characters would be killed (and we'd be ridiculed again), but I took a shot at it, and actually received some points. At no point did the GM, who we didn't know (then), show any sign of liking us, or trying to do anything else than inflict pain on the characters and humiliation on the players.

It's one of the more notable gaming sessions I've experienced (top 20 at least). Hard to say whether I actually enjoyed it as such - I guess I did, after a fashion. But I can definitely see Tomas' point that it must do wonders for the GM. After having done all this to a bunch of players, you'll never have to worry that you're too harsh on them again.

I might like it more if I played it again, since now I know both the game and its creator, and would find it easier to take a step back and laugh at the sheer over-the-top cruelty of it all. However, that would take a bit of the fun away from it as well.

I'm not really sure that the written document does justice to the game as it is (was?) played. I'm also not quite sure that it can be pulled off at all by just any GM. It's all about attitude, and is one of those things that's very simple once you get it, but very hard to describe - like "what's rock and roll".

- Matthijs

Thanks for posting that play experience, Matthijs, that helped a lot. I agree that the write-up of the game, as it stands, does not really describe Pervo or its funciton, as far as I see it now.

However, I also have to say that I have grave doubts as to the beneficial effect of GMing a Pervo game. Perhaps I'd have to see one to judge it...but this seems like a strange kind of hazing in a way. Personally, I would never want to be a player of Pervo, nor would I want to GM it. Specifically, I fail to see how the GM's cruelty (both to characters and players) will make him a better GM. Matthijs says that perhaps the GM will no longer fear being cruel in the future...that may be true, but I don't see how it helps.

On the other hand, Thomas, you said that Pervo would let a GM learn that players have fun even if without him, so he can stop worrying so much. That might be a noble goal...but I don't see how the GM indiscriminantly killing characters facilitates that.

PS. Please don't take my criticisms too personally. I don't wish to activate the "heroic defense" of Pervo any more than it already has been, since I don't think that will help any of us.

I don't take criticism personally. At least I try not to do it.

You may doubt the effects of this game. It's only natural. The sideeffects were not premeditated, but discovered in play. So they are there.

What I'm concerned with is why they are there, and how the experience may be used. I try to use it to strenghten GMs in handling their players. I also try to increase our insight into roleplaying games, by referring to these sideeffects, and giving theories on how they come about.

I think there is knowledge to be had from Pervo, both on a practical and a theoretical level.

Tomas,

I thought I was getting it all figured out, but then Jasper's comments and your response have made me think some more. 'Cause, y'know, it does really seem like a kind of hazing ritual to me, too.

But what really got me thinking was when you wrote: I try to use it to strenghten GMs in handling their players. I also try to increase our insight into roleplaying games, by referring to these sideeffects, and giving theories on how they come about.

Rich,

I mean, the GM is just another player. Sure, depending on the game and the group dynamic, he may be the player handing out credibility. But he's still a person hanging out with a bunch of other people. In functional groups of friends, he shouldn't need something like pervo to strengthen his ability to handle the players. He shouldn't be "handling" the players at all, should he?

Rich Forest wrote: Has Pervo primarily used by LARP players/GMs?

Mattijs, you’ll probably be surprised that I don’t particularly disagree with anything you’re saying. We’re probably in danger of talking past each other—I didn’t mean to imply that the power split in play needs to be even between players and GMs. What you’re describing, as long as everyone is in on it, is just fine. The players are putting their trust in you, and you’re doing your best to live up to it. And it sounds like it’s working.

I have no problem with that.

I was skeptical about Pervo, but open and interested, right up until that bit about teaching GMs to handle players. That’s where my alarm bells went off. (They're little bells, by the way, not, "Oh my god, we have to stop this maniac!" alarm bells. More like, "wait a minute, now I have a new question" bells.) Not that the GMs couldn’t be helped in some ways by it—I certainly have no concerns about people asking for help and getting it, nor do I labor under the illusion that all game groups are happy and functional.

What concerned me was the degree that it continues to place the GM in an entirely separate place. So I’ve gone back and read the thread over once more, to try to pin down how this game is valuable to players.

Tomas, you wrote: In addition to this, Pervo also is good for the players (and popular because of it) in another way; it enables them to let loose (like in many other improvised games), and to explore anxieties linked to authorities, loss of control and sex. It is really effective in this regard, as you may experience total humiliation within the relative safe context of a game, and still live to tell. It's like a purgatory! The anxiety is burned away!

As the game transcend the social borders, and make use of player insults, it becomes more effective in this respect. At the same time the fairness of it (everybody is killed, and insulted), makes it a positive social experience, and not a private neurotic one. That is a very important point. If you did this to one of the players in another RPG, you would be overly brutal, an evil man, and a bad GM.

Hi Rich,

play it! Gather a bunch of people around you (10-20), and let loose!

But please don't play it as some therapeutic experiment. Do it for the heck and fun of it! That's the primary goal of Pervo.

Rich,

I agree that there's no fairness in Pervo, in the sense that the GM and players are in two entirely different "places". The one time I played it, I can't say I felt like I could "let loose" either, in the way Tomas describes; there was too much paranoia, and the sense that the GM might pounce on you at any time. It was perhaps cathartic, though I didn't really feel a great sense of release in the end. It was a bit like role-playing through "I have no mouth, but I must scream", as a matter of fact...

- Matthijs

There is indeed fairness in Pervo; all players are treated equal, and as they, in a context with a elevated GM, must be regarded the true social collective, they all share the experience. This sharing is essential.

The GM is in fact outside this collective, like some sort of joint focal point for the players, and is, if anyone is, the one treated unfair by the game. I mean: the game isn't showing of his sympathetic side...

However; most GMs and players understand this; Pervo is a game, it's allowed to explore such things in a game.

As for Matthijs' experience with the game: it's his, and true to the game.

Hi Tomas,

First, consider not telling people that if they don't see the value or reason behind the game that they should play the game. It's very true that the only way to see what a game will do in actual play is to actually play. But that doesn't mean that a game can't be discussed here. Basically, in telling people that they can't argue against you until they've played the game, you eliminate 100% of the dialog until somebody plays. If people make arguments pre-play, debate them on that level. We understand that it's your experience that the game does what you say it does, and we believe you. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing to discuss there.

Consider that, for one, if people reading the rules don't see the point of play that they might not play. Whether or not the game does what it's supposed to do. That ought to merit some discussion right there, and Rich was giving you good feedback on that topic.


I think that I have a better handling on your game now from the posts that you have made that respond directly to the people giving you feedback. And what I'd posit, possibly controversially though that's not my intent, is that what your game is doing is teaching the idea that we term on The Forge as Coherence. That is, the game has a simple and clear direction on how the players and GM all interact. In doing so, as an exercise, I think that it can show people that one can have an understanding between each other of what the game is supposed to be about that's clear. And that, I think, if anything would be what most GMs would take away in terms of a lesson. The "fear" that you speak of, the fear of being unfair or mean to players is precisely the fear that not everyone is on the same sheet of music in terms of what play is supposed to be.

While I think that the game might serve as an interesting excercise, as you put it, I think it also has some potential problems. It seems to me that the players are being sacrificed on the alter of the GM's need for catharsis here. As Matthijs points out, in play he felt trapped (I love the Ellison reference) and paraniod. These elements can be fun, but I'm not sure I see where it would be in this context. Rather, it seems to me that what you get is a GM who can take out his aggressive impulses on the players.

Don't take this as an insult, but that seems like a hypothetical anger therapy session that allowed the angry party to verbally abuse the people in their relationships in order to make the angry party feel better. Which in the long run I'd doubt the effectiveness of, and which in the short run may stress out the abused. If the intent is not to address the GM's issues about his players, then why the particular context?

It seems extreme and unfocused in terms of it's objectives. The "solution" to the problem of Incoherence is generally assumed to be writing games that deliver a coherent means of play. That is, why do the "exercise" when you can play another game that delivers all the other elements of a RPG, and delivers an equally coherent way to play? Why not incorporate the lesson into the game?

Because, other than the lesson, I'm not seeing anything particularly attractive to a game that's about, from what I can see, characters dying greusomely. I can do that in Cthulhu, and get an investigation out of it as well. :-)

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

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: First, consider not telling people that if they don't see the value or reason behind the game that they should play the game.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that I have a better handling on your game now from the posts that you have made that respond directly to the people giving you feedback. And what I'd posit ... is that what your game is doing is teaching the idea that we term on The Forge as Coherence. That is, the game has a simple and clear direction on how the players and GM all interact. In doing so, as an exercise, I think that it can show people that one can have an understanding between each other of what the game is supposed to be about that's clear. And that, I think, if anything would be what most GMs would take away in terms of a lesson. The "fear" that you speak of, the fear of being unfair or mean to players is precisely the fear that not everyone is on the same sheet of music in terms of what play is supposed to be.

Mike Holmes wrote: It seems to me that the players are being sacrificed on the alter of the GM's need for catharsis here. As Matthijs points out, in play he felt trapped (I love the Ellison reference) and paraniod. These elements can be fun, but I'm not sure I see where it would be in this context. Rather, it seems to me that what you get is a GM who can take out his aggressive impulses on the players.

Mike Holmes wrote: ... allowed the angry party to verbally abuse the people in their relationships in order to make the angry party feel better. Which in the long run I'd doubt the effectiveness of, and which in the short run may stress out the abused.

Mike Holmes wrote: The "solution" to the problem of Incoherence is generally assumed to be writing games that deliver a coherent means of play. That is, why do the "exercise" when you can play another game that delivers all the other elements of a RPG, and delivers an equally coherent way to play? Why not incorporate the lesson into the game?

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm not seeing anything particularly attractive to a game that's about, from what I can see, characters dying greusomely.

Mike Holmes wrote: This really is more of a Theory discussion that a design discussion...

No, the players CAN kill the GM. RPGs are based on social contract, so the players can just decide that the GM has no power over them, just like in Labyrinth.

PS, gotta get me some of them David Bowie pants

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

Tomas HVM wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: ... 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: preference is preference.

Mike Holmes wrote: This forum is for discussing developing specific projects.

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

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

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...

Tomas HVM wrote: 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.

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

Cemendur wrote: Would you consider the Fountain-Pervo analogy appropriate?

Tomas HVM wrote: 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.

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...

Mike Holmes wrote: ... 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.

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