Shut down the cult, then enact local reforms necessary for the vigilante organization to go legal, then shut down the parts of organization that try to continue criminal activities. And don't forget to also shut down the evil church, while you're hanging around. A nice fodder for a couple of adventures. What's so difficult about coming up with this decision, save for your own desire to make the situation unwinnable?
Well fine, you ignore the actions of a organised crime syndicate for six months, while your busy fighting a cult, by which time they have slipped further from the positive elements of their past, and you end up going to war with former allies and friends. The Watch move in and take over the drugs trade, and the natives of the district suffer doubly.
Your little war with the church costs hundreds of lifes, makes you outlaws and your success destabilised the entire society, as one of the arms of government collapses, the insueing plagues and invasion brings the death toll into the hundreds of thousands.
It isn't about it being unwinnable. This is after all a role-playing game. No one wins the game. Rather it is about making a characters choices meaningful. Choices must have consequences.
Was there supposed to be some relevant point?
That taste varies by individual. That you are not the sole arbiter of what is purile.
FatR is obviously not a film buff.
And I think he got my point just fine, he just doesn't like that he contradicted himself.
Perhaps you could try the baftas instead ;)
|
My players have enjoyed a lot of stuff that some others here have called puerile. As long as it's in service to the story I'm always happy to see buckets of gore, and sexual themes.
Without such themes we wouldn't get:
Rise of the Runelords:
The tragedy of Nualia.
The horror of the Grauls.
Curse of the Crimson Throne:
The Grey Maidens.
Golarion Lore:
Fleshwarping Drow.
Zon-Kuthon.
Demonic Demons.
Monstrous Monsters.
If the monsters don't really do anything TOO awful, then why do the PCs kill them and take their stuff?
If all the decisions PCs make are easy, then why play Pathfinder instead of a skirmish game?
Finally, the GM and the players are the final arbiters of taste at their table. If a GM is uncomfortable presenting a situation as written in the book, they can change it. If they worry their players may be offended they can slap a warning down, and discuss it maturely. Why does Paizo need to censor itself to protect delicate sensibilities?
My concession is that if there are mature themes in a book that Paizo might want to put a warning label on it (this issue of Pathfinder Adventure Path contains: Mature themes, excessive fantasy violence and nudity). That way sensitive players and GMs can make informed decisions by looking at the label (same as they would for a movie, or a comic book). A warning is better than a censor any way you slice it. :)
Hey, just wanted to throw out that I am looking forward to Carrion Crown SO MUCH IT HURTS!!! I started out playing this game back in the day with AD&D. And some of the best games I've ever played were set in the Ravenloft setting. Having never gotten the chance to run a game there (I was young at the time and not the master of the rules I am with 3.0/3.5/PFRPG) I see this as a chance to go back to mist shrouded vales, haunted castles, and bloodsucking fiends.
So long and short of it is THANK YOU PAIZO! Thank you for giving me the chance to go back to my childhood fun and bring that same level of enjoyment to my players. It's been a great seven Adventure Paths, and I'm looking forward to every one that will follow!
|
That's because it's puerile, not mature. Well, temple prostitutes might or might not be such, depending on the context, your other examples are.Whenever we push the boundaries of what is deemed "mature content," (be it the ogres of Hook Mountain or the creation of a trait like Temple Prostitute, or even something as relatively innocuous as having someone like Seoni with her revealing attire headline a cover), we see a pretty vocal outcry on these boards from customers who are offended or threatened or scandalized or insulted by the mature content.
I actually disagree those examples are puerile. But I suppose each to their own.
James since you said their seems to be a pretty vocal outcry who are offended. I know some of us support it. Have you guys considering doing a one off book for mature content? Like what White Wolf did with their black dog stuff or WotC did with a couple of their books and just slap a mature label on it? I would hope you have considered it and might do it.
Confused in MinnesotaGregg,
The good news is that no matter how bad things get, and no matter how confused you might be, you will always have the Lion's Tap in Eden Prairie, home of the best hamburger in the entire world, to tide you over.
We should all be so lucky.
GO VIKES!
:)
No way, Mona.
Matt's Bar and the Jucy Lucy are the way to go. No better bad-for-you meal, and you get to dip your fries in your hamburger.Nice to see you spelled Jucy Lucy (tm) correctly!
Matt's is also a favorite. There is no shortage of good hamburgers in the Twin Cities (as opposed to, say, Seattle, where they are almost impossible to find).
There's a place in St. Paul called Shamrocks that also has mighty good burgers.
So yeah, lots of options, but I think the Lion's Tap is still the best hamburger ever. I go there at least once every time I get back to Minneapolis (which is usually at least twice a year).
I am always torn between the 5-8 Club and Matt's for Jucy Lucy's, but I have to agree with Erik Lion's Tap is my favorite place to go for a burger.
But sure, another choice is, attempt to turn you allies from a life of crime, risking that they will turn from you, or perhapes even become your enemies. Worse still risk failure in success when you turn the vigilantes from drug dealing and racketeering, only to watch them crumble to nothing as their revenue dries up.
Ah, so in other words, no matter what choice I make, someone will automatically get screwed. This isn't a function of any sort of dramatic law. It is, purely and simply, the dictate of a GM who wants to make sure that the PCs screw SOMEBODY, purely for the sake of screwing somebody. Oh, sorry, I meant "because it's so much more mature that way" or "it's so much more fascinating when the characters and players must confront the fact that whatever they do ends up making things worse." Whatever. The real world is full of that and if I liked the real world enough to spend my free time there I wouldn't be playing a game where I'm pretending to be a gnome.
The point is that, if the deck is stacked against the PCs making things better, it's not because the world is stacking the deck that way. It's because the GM is stacking the deck that way. And if the GM and players enjoy wallowing in misery and never making a positive difference, well, knock yourself out. White Wolf and WoD is all about the epic, angsty pose of the tragic misunderstood Nietzschean superman in the face of a cold, bitter, uncaring world and aren't I so epically tragically angsty blah blah blah, and they're doing quite well for themselves, so there's obviously a market for it. Knock yourself out. You and I simply have different tastes when it comes to this sort of thing.
It isn't about it being unwinnable. This is after all a role-playing game. No one wins the game. Rather it is about making a characters choices meaningful. Choices must have consequences.
And of course the consequences must be negative to be meaningful. If you actually strive and fight and bleed and make things better, why, that consequence has no meaning! QED.
Shut down the cult, then enact local reforms necessary for the vigilante organization to go legal, then shut down the parts of organization that try to continue criminal activities. And don't forget to also shut down the evil church, while you're hanging around. A nice fodder for a couple of adventures. What's so difficult about coming up with this decision, save for your own desire to make the situation unwinnable?Well fine, you ignore the actions of a organised crime syndicate for six months, while your busy fighting a cult, by which time they have slipped further from the positive elements of their past, and you end up going to war with former allies and friends. The Watch move in and take over the drugs trade, and the natives of the district suffer doubly.
Your little war with the church costs hundreds of lifes, makes you outlaws and your success destabilised the entire society, as one of the arms of government collapses, the insueing plagues and invasion brings the death toll into the hundreds of thousands.
It isn't about it being unwinnable. This is after all a role-playing game. No one wins the game. Rather it is about making a characters choices meaningful. Choices must have consequences.
I'm going to have to side with FatR here.
You seem to be deliberately "punishing" the PCs for trying to make the "right" choices out of what seems to be a misplaced need for "dramatic tension." If the consequences of doing the "right" thing are as bad or worse than being selfish bastards, you're just training your players to run nothing but selfish bastards.
You can have "meaningful" consequences without turning your campaign into a Hobbesian dystopia. If the entire society is in such bad shape that things would turn out as you say, why are the PCs even trying to help in the first place? Better to completely replace the government, call in a good aligned church, and reform the society. Yes, this will still cause suffering and require an extensive long-term commitment (not a half-@$$ed attempt like Afghanistan or Iraq) to accomplish, but an honest reform (not just a gloss of reform while changing the individuals in power or the installation of a puppet regime) will provide the populace better opportunities to make a living without needing to resort to criminal/immoral activities and give them better protection from predation by criminal organizations or abusive governmental arms.
My players have enjoyed a lot of stuff that some others here have called puerile. As long as it's in service to the story I'm always happy to see buckets of gore, and sexual themes.
Without such themes we wouldn't get:
Rise of the Runelords:
** spoiler omitted **Curse of the Crimson Throne:
** spoiler omitted **Golarion Lore:
Fleshwarping Drow.
Zon-Kuthon.
Demonic Demons.
Monstrous Monsters.If the monsters don't really do anything TOO awful, then why do the PCs kill them and take their stuff?
If all the decisions PCs make are easy, then why play Pathfinder instead of a skirmish game?
Finally, the GM and the players are the final arbiters of taste at their table. If a GM is uncomfortable presenting a situation as written in the book, they can change it. If they worry their players may be offended they can slap a warning down, and discuss it maturely. Why does Paizo need to censor itself to protect delicate sensibilities?
My concession is that if there are mature themes in a book that Paizo might want to put a warning label on it (this issue of Pathfinder Adventure Path contains: Mature themes, excessive fantasy violence and nudity). That way sensitive players and GMs can make informed decisions by looking at the label (same as they would for a movie, or a comic book). A warning is better than a censor any way you slice it. :)
I have no problem whatever with mature themes. What I object to is the kneejerk assumption that "mature" equates to "bunking up with these horrific creatures over here to fight the slightly more horrific creatures over there, and doing some pretty horrific things yourself in the mean time." You can present mature themes, violence, nipples, and the rest without forcing the PCs to become what they fight. Forcing the PCs to degrade themselves and wallow in wretchedness is lazy, cynical, and dark for the sake of darkness.
Note that I know Paizo is NOT doing that in Carrion Crown.
Creative Director
|
James since you said their seems to be a pretty vocal outcry who are offended. I know some of us support it. Have you guys considering doing a one off book for mature content? Like what White Wolf did with their black dog stuff or WotC did with a couple of their books and just slap a mature label on it? I would hope you have considered it and might do it.
We haven't considered that yet, but the fact that we offer subscriptions makes it a tricky process. If we did a book that was that far out of the expected norm, it'd have to be a stand-alone book, and producing stand-alone books are a lot riskier than subscriptions anyway... ESPECIALLY if they're books that won't appeal to as many people as a stand-alone book.
We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Now, that said, I think that a lot of the products we do DOES count as mature content. "Lords of Chaos" would probably get itself a well-deserved R rating if it were made into a movie... maybe even an X rating... there's some pretty hard-core content in there. And so far, I've not seen much in the way of complaints about that at all. So we'll keep pushing the boundaries!
I have no problem whatever with mature themes. What I object to is the kneejerk assumption that "mature" equates to "bunking up with these horrific creatures over here to fight the slightly more horrific creatures over there, and doing some pretty horrific things yourself in the mean time." You can present mature themes, violence, nipples, and the rest without forcing the PCs to become what they fight. Forcing the PCs to degrade themselves and wallow in wretchedness is lazy, cynical, and dark for the sake of darkness.
For the most part I agree with you Gregg. Occassionally a moral decision that results in bad and worse is ok, but for the most part I prefer my classical D&D good vs. evil plot. An entire AP where players would be forced to live with bad and worse options just doesn't appeal to me.
And of course the consequences must be negative to be meaningful. If you actually strive and fight and bleed and make things better, why, that consequence has no meaning! QED.
It isn't about it being unwinnable. This is after all a role-playing game. No one wins the game. Rather it is about making a characters choices meaningful. Choices must have consequences.
No. But no resolution to a complex situation ever has consequences which are solely positive, or solely negative.
What makes such actions worth exploring the decision making.
Will I do x, y, or z, what will the benefits be, what are the moral considerations, what are the emotional implications for the Characters making the decisions?
Ah, so in other words, no matter what choice I make, someone will automatically get screwed. This isn't a function of any sort of dramatic law. It is, purely and simply, the dictate of a GM who wants to make sure that the PCs screw SOMEBODY, purely for the sake of screwing somebody. Oh, sorry, I meant "because it's so much more mature that way" or "it's so much more fascinating when the characters and players must confront the fact that whatever they do ends up making things worse."
A nice little strawman your building for yourself there.
At only one point have I provided a set of consequences (and that was one of many possibles), rather I have set out a range of the risks associated with each choice. It is entirely possible that the PCs could resolve the any of the above-suggested paths of action, without terrible things befalling them or others, but it is difficult to do so. And if it is not the destiny of the hero to struggle I don’t know what it is. (see nearly every hero form Hercules to X-23)
It is also erroneous to suggest that any one one the solutions simply screws every some one. Many of the options contain risks that the PCs may make things worse in some ways, but they also have the opportunity to do great good in all cases. But they must make choices about which risks are acceptable and which are not.
Whatever. The real world is full of that and if I liked the real world enough to spend my free time there I wouldn't be playing a game where I'm pretending to be a gnome.
Oh for crying out loud. I get it, you want your games of Pathfinder to be an escapist power fantasy in which you make the world better. THE END.
And you’re welcome to play it that way. There are already seven APs that will let you play it that way with only minimal changes. All I have done is express a desire, that here, where we come to a gothic horror based campaign, that we should see a change of pace, that takes provides far more troubling and weight moral dilemmas to the player. In which deciding which course of action requires a little more than just a Detect Evil spell.
But frankly, the idea you seem to be trying to clinge to that inclusion of story themse build around moral relativism makes something not escapist is ridiculous. Just because you happen to prefer simple issues of black and white morality in your game of murder and looting, does not make my desire to play a game where I must choose between the lives of my characters two best at the hands of some “horror from beyond”. Both are forms of escapism, you just happen to prefer one to the other.
The point is that, if the deck is stacked against the PCs making things better, it's not because the world is stacking the deck that way. It's because the GM is stacking the deck that way. And if the GM and players enjoy wallowing in misery and never making a positive difference, well, knock yourself out. White Wolf and WoD is all about the epic, angsty pose of the tragic misunderstood Nietzschean superman in the face of a cold, bitter, uncaring world and aren't I so epically tragically angsty blah blah blah, and they're doing quite well for themselves, so there's obviously a market for it. Knock yourself out. You and I simply have different tastes when it comes to this sort of thing.
Yes I like White Wolf, call me mad, but the idea of making small but personally meaning full differences to the lives of imaginary people speaks to me more than making “epic world shattering differences” to entire nations of imagainary people, without even the slightest nod to the consequences of such changes having been throught through.
“Man it sure is good that we all live happily, with money in our pockets and food on our table. Damn I am glad we don’t live in Kassamorn, did you hear they are having rice riots there, maybe we should give the church a little change to help them. Speaking of which, this is great rice.”
But hey, I also like exalted, because while it does give you superpowers, it also tries to explore what said superpowers mean for the world.
In addition, I like call of cthulhu, because I love the idea of having to choose between the risk to your own body and sanity, and the risk to others.
I have no problem whatever with mature themes. What I object to is the kneejerk assumption that "mature" equates to "bunking up with these horrific creatures over here to fight the slightly more horrific creatures over there, and doing some pretty horrific things yourself in the mean time." You can present mature themes, violence, nipples, and the rest without forcing the PCs to become what they fight. Forcing the PCs to degrade themselves and wallow in wretchedness is lazy, cynical, and dark for the sake of darkness.
Since you brought up Friedrich Nietzsche ...
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
But hey, I also like exalted, because while it does give you superpowers, it also tries to explore what said superpowers mean for the world.
In addition, I like call of cthulhu, because I love the idea of having to choose between the risk to your own body and sanity, and the risk to others.
While my (limited) experience with Exalted confirms my belief that Wow stacks things dark for the sake of stacking things dark, your raising of Call of Cthulhu raises an interesting point. The fact is, I adore both playing and running CoC, and when doing so I have no problem in cooperating with extremely vile sorts to head off the greater evil. While I've never considered the dichotomy before, I assume that it's because I have sch different expectations when playing the two different genres.
When dealing with fantasy RPGs (NOT literature, since what works in literature does not always, or even often, work in RPGs, and vice versa) do want the chance to make an unalloyed difference. Note than I don't demand that it happen, and I don't demand that I survive to see it. I don't mind dying in the quest, and I don't mind trying and failing. I just want a fair chance.
In Lovecraftian horror, however, the things you're up against make the vast majority of human differences meaningless, so there's no reason to worry about them. All your efforts are futile, in the long run, and you and everything you know is doomed, doomed, doomed. You know it going in, and it makes the brief (in cosmic terms) victories all the sweeter. What works for me here doesn't work for me in fantasy. Honestly I'm not sure why.
I am sure, however, that my earlier snide attitude was unwarranted and you have my apology.
But frankly, the idea you seem to be trying to clinge to that inclusion of story themse build around moral relativism makes something not escapist is ridiculous. Just because you happen to prefer simple issues of black and white morality in your game of murder and looting, does not make my desire to play a game where I must choose between the lives of my characters two best at the hands of some “horror from beyond”. Both are forms of escapism, you just happen to prefer one to the other.
Just to chime in here, the impression I got was that he was hoping for a different sort of escapist fantasy, not claiming that it wasn't escapist.
It's kind of like how I don't like movies like Out of Africa or Sophie's Choice. I'll never claim they're not well done, but damn, the world sucks enough as it is, let's pretend that every choice doesn't result in horrible things. And we can do that, it's our universe where what we want to happen is what happens.
The issue I have is that you seem to be claiming that the games have to have this moral relativism or they're somehow invalid. And that I have issues with. You want a shades of gray campaign where no choice is 100% for the good of all, have at it. But I hope you would acknowledge that:
- Not everyone wants to play that kind of game
- Just because they don't want to play that kind of game, they're not somehow morally inferior to people who do.
I obviously cannot know what you're thinking, but that's the impression I get from your writing - that you feel superior because you're playing a game with realistic choices and consequences while other people are playing a kiddy version that doesn't have realistic consequences.
If you in fact do not feel that way, that's great - all I'm saying is that's what I get from your answers.
|
|
James since you said their seems to be a pretty vocal outcry who are offended. I know some of us support it. Have you guys considering doing a one off book for mature content? Like what White Wolf did with their black dog stuff or WotC did with a couple of their books and just slap a mature label on it? I would hope you have considered it and might do it.We haven't considered that yet, but the fact that we offer subscriptions makes it a tricky process. If we did a book that was that far out of the expected norm, it'd have to be a stand-alone book, and producing stand-alone books are a lot riskier than subscriptions anyway... ESPECIALLY if they're books that won't appeal to as many people as a stand-alone book.
We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Now, that said, I think that a lot of the products we do DOES count as mature content. "Lords of Chaos" would probably get itself a well-deserved R rating if it were made into a movie... maybe even an X rating... there's some pretty hard-core content in there. And so far, I've not seen much in the way of complaints about that at all. So we'll keep pushing the boundaries!
Yeah I know with the subscription model it would be tricky. But my thought would be do a stand alone product, layout all the idea's first well in advance. Put it up for preorder and encourage people that want it to preorder. That would help give you a ballpark for a print run. Then if it sells well enough, you could add another product line. Like what you did with the fiction line. Perhaps something like 3 books a year that print stuff you feel you couldn't get away with in the normal product lines. Then if it grows in popularity you can add more products to it. It would be a mixed line, like maybe 1 splat book a year and 2 adventures or something.
Anyways just thinking out loud. :)
We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Which issue(s) did that apply to?
Yeah I know with the subscription model it would be tricky. But my thought would be do a stand alone product, layout all the idea's first well in advance. Put it up for preorder and encourage people that want it to preorder. That would help give you a ballpark for a print run. Then if it sells well enough, you could add another product line. Like what you did with the fiction line. Perhaps something like 3 books a year that print stuff you feel you couldn't get away with in the normal product lines. Then if it grows in popularity you can add more products to it. It would be a mixed line, like maybe 1 splat book a year and 2 adventures or something.
Anyways just thinking out loud. :)
Now wait a minute. What's wrong with a "Mature Material" subscription that's separate from the others?
It might not sell as well as the more mainstream ones, but I can't imagine it would be all that terrible, either. I suspect that the majority of people would be just fine with it.
Kind of like Book of Vile Darkness. Which, personally, I like a lot :)
|
|
Yeah I know with the subscription model it would be tricky. But my thought would be do a stand alone product, layout all the idea's first well in advance. Put it up for preorder and encourage people that want it to preorder. That would help give you a ballpark for a print run. Then if it sells well enough, you could add another product line. Like what you did with the fiction line. Perhaps something like 3 books a year that print stuff you feel you couldn't get away with in the normal product lines. Then if it grows in popularity you can add more products to it. It would be a mixed line, like maybe 1 splat book a year and 2 adventures or something.
Anyways just thinking out loud. :)
Now wait a minute. What's wrong with a "Mature Material" subscription that's separate from the others?
It might not sell as well as the more mainstream ones, but I can't imagine it would be all that terrible, either. I suspect that the majority of people would be just fine with it.
Kind of like Book of Vile Darkness. Which, personally, I like a lot :)
I think what James meant and i agree with. Was doing a mature product in a existing product line subscription would be risky. Also it wouldn't make sense to start a new product line subscription unless they was sure it would sell well enough to make it worth supporting. Hence why I suggested doing a one off book at first to test the waters and then if it does well start a new product line with mature content, that needs a obvious mature content warning on the book.
We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Now, that said, I think that a lot of the products we do DOES count as mature content. "Lords of Chaos" would probably get itself a well-deserved R rating if it were made into a movie... maybe even an X rating... there's some pretty hard-core content in there. And so far, I've not seen much in the way of complaints about that at all. So we'll keep pushing the boundaries!
I think part of the reason it was readily accepted within the context of a subscription was that it was a tightly focussed and well telegraphed "issue". We know what to expect in a book about extremely evil things like demons. If "faiths of wickedness" (or whatever) comes out, I suspect an equal amount of mature content would be accepted. It seems to me the problem with slipping it into a general subscription item (like a rulebook or some such) is that some people will get something they don't want and didn't expect.
But frankly, the idea you seem to be trying to clinge to that inclusion of story themse build around moral relativism makes something not escapist is ridiculous. Just because you happen to prefer simple issues of black and white morality in your game of murder and looting, does not make my desire to play a game where I must choose between the lives of my characters two best at the hands of some “horror from beyond”. Both are forms of escapism, you just happen to prefer one to the other.Just to chime in here, the impression I got was that he was hoping for a different sort of escapist fantasy, not claiming that it wasn't escapist.
It's kind of like how I don't like movies like Out of Africa or Sophie's Choice. I'll never claim they're not well done, but damn, the world sucks enough as it is, let's pretend that every choice doesn't result in horrible things. And we can do that, it's our universe where what we want to happen is what happens.
The issue I have is that you seem to be claiming that the games have to have this moral relativism or they're somehow invalid. And that I have issues with. You want a shades of gray campaign where no choice is 100% for the good of all, have at it. But I hope you would acknowledge that:
- Not everyone wants to play that kind of game
- Just because they don't want to play that kind of game, they're not somehow morally inferior to people who do.
I obviously cannot know what you're thinking, but that's the impression I get from your writing - that you feel superior because you're playing a game with realistic choices and consequences while other people are playing a kiddy version that doesn't have realistic consequences.
If you in fact do not feel that way, that's great - all I'm saying is that's what I get from your answers.
I don't know how you got to this opinion. My writing does very often come across as very antagonistic. It is not meant to. It is, i think, a function of my attempts to write in a clear manner(which I know doubt fail at without support .)
I will attempt to answer as quickly and as unambiguously as possible.
Just to chime in here, the impression I got was that he was hoping for a different sort of escapist fantasy, not claiming that it wasn't escapist.
Clearly, and that is fine. My very point was that while what he was describing was escapist, what I was describing was also escapist.
I work in sheltered social housing. The moral decisions I make on a day to day basis are very black and white. Do I call an ambulances for resident x who has fallen over. Yes of cause I do. I have found £10s on the floor of a residents flat, do I pick it up and keep it for myself? No of cause I don’t. The moral choices I make are entirely no brainers. So for me it is every bit as escapist to dive of into a world where the choices I make have nuance as it is for Gregg to play a game where bad guys wear black hats.
And I am happy for Gregg to play such games. I will happily point him to seven pathfinder APs that broadly support exactly that style of play. I even enjoy playing that kind of game, especially in Pathfinder. But not so much that I don’t long to see one pathfinder AP in eight where, when facing the BBEG, the party is forced to genuinely stop and think about if they really want to prevent the Villain’s plan coming to fruition.
It's kind of like how I don't like movies like Out of Africa or Sophie's Choice. I'll never claim they're not well done, but damn, the world sucks enough as it is, let's pretend that every choice doesn't result in horrible things. And we can do that, it's our universe where what we want to happen is what happens.
I have never actually watched either film.
But one of my favourite films is run lola, run. Lola lives a day three(?) times, searching for a way to achieve a happy ending. It’s focus is on how simple choices result in very different outcomes for everyone involved. I have been very clear that not every choice should result in terrible outcomes. I am more than happy for there to be positive outcomes, even from seemingly terrible choices. And as I have pointed out before, I have as a general rule not said that every choice must end in horrible results.
All I have argued for is that in this one AP, I would like to see choices which have outcomes that contain both positive and negative elements, and choices which carry risk beyond simple failure. I have not said that EVERY choice must be built on those lines.
Now here is the thing, Greggs argument boiled down to. How dare you want to play said game in the same medium in which I enjoy my ‘bad guys where black hats’ game. I am not suggesting that EVERY pathfinder game should conform to my preferences. All I have done is express disappointment that one specific horror themed adventure path, might not live up to my desires and expectations. Which is exactly what Gregg set up this thread to do.
The issue I have is that you seem to be claiming that the games have to have this moral relativism or they're somehow invalid. And that I have issues with. You want a shades of gray campaign where no choice is 100% for the good of all, have at it. But I hope you would acknowledge that:
- Not everyone wants to play that kind of game
- Just because they don't want to play that kind of game, they're not somehow morally inferior to people who do.
No. I don’t believe I have ever said that. In fact I very early on said that you can play role-playing games without the inclusion of any moral choices at all. Doing so does not make the experiences invalid, or stop it being fun. I might argue it isn’t really role-playing anymore, but that doesn’t make it invalid, any more than chess not being a role-playing game would somehow make it invalid.
What I would quiet happily say is that black and white morality is a less mature way to interact with the game. Modern moral relativism is a relatively recent development in thought and is product of a more academically mature view of the world than in-group/out-group morality systems of historic theism. In just the same way young children find relativism a far trickier than black and white morality. In fact, even many young adults older fail to grasp it, living in a world where there is always a good guy and a bad guy, rather than a tangled knot of causation, emotion and human weakness.
And that isn’t a value judgement. I am not saying that because it is more mature, it is somehow better, merely as someone who thinks in that way I find it more stimulating than the simpler moral dilemmas of Black and white morality.
If you’re looking for someone who is applying their views about how things should be, and ascribing value judgements to the actions of others, you need look no further than FatR. Where I try to talk about maturity simple in terms of development without saying that something or someone is wrong(and the fact that I am have to even write this means I haven’t done well enough), I have tried to avoid using emotive terms such as puerile, to describe the preferences of others.
I obviously cannot know what you're thinking, but that's the impression I get from your writing - that you feel superior because you're playing a game with realistic choices and consequences while other people are playing a kiddy version that doesn't have realistic consequences.If you in fact do not feel that way, that's great - all I'm saying is that's what I get from your answers.
Sure, I find black and white morality dull. I mean mind numbingly stupidly dull. It damages my suspension of disbelief, I feel it limits the stories that are written, and I think that many people who don’t want to play out more complex moral dilemmas are limiting their own experiences, in exactly the same way that someone who chooses to have a Mc Donald’s rather than a meal at a Michelin star restaurant. Be it fear, bloody mindedness or preconception.
And I would like to see them go outside their comfort zone, not only because I benefit by Paizo moving further in my direction, but because I want others to have the chance to explore something with greater complexity and nuance.
And not in a snotty 'this is better, so you have to like it' way, but in a 'Dude, this is like my favourite band in all the world, you so have to give it a listen way.'
Evangelising something I love, not trying to knock down something I don't really care for.
And I don’t see that as a bad thing. I’d love to know why you’d think that it is a bad thing.
Now here is the thing, Greggs argument boiled down to. How dare you want to play said game in the same medium in which I enjoy my ‘bad guys where black hats’ game. I am not suggesting that EVERY pathfinder game should conform to my preferences. All I have done is express disappointment that one specific horror themed adventure path, might not live up to my desires and expectations. Which is exactly what Gregg set up this thread to do.
I set up this thread because I'm a subscriber to the APs and I wanted to know from James (or someone in a position of authority) whether or not I would be wasting my money if I bought the next two APs. I don't have money to waste and $240 over the course of a year on adventure modules I would never want to play would be a significant hardship for me.
My argument did not boil down to "How dare you want to play said game in the same medium in which I enjoy my ‘bad guys where black hats’ game." I couldn't care less how you play your game. What I care about is whether I would spend my limited resources on an AP that would assume that I would/force me to play in a style I wouldn't enjoy. As it turns out, it looks like Carrion Crown won't and Jade Regent will, so I'll buy the former and cancel my subscription for the latter.
For the record, I don't give a tinker's damn how you play your games. Enjoy yourself in whatever way you want.
Personally, having grown up watching movies like Godzilla, Seven Samurai, Ringu, and various kung-fu movies, I've always been interested in Asian fantasy themes.But if, for example, Paizo were to produce the AP equivilent of my most hated genre, the Musical, I would probably cancel my subscription for a half-year too. ;-)
Me too, on both counts. LOL about the musical.
I still have a dvd or two here from classic shaw brothers kung-fu movies. I watched Ten Tigers of Kwangtung 2 weekends ago. Ill probably watch the Five Deadly Venoms when I get a chance next. Seven Samurai was good too.
Looking forward to both upcomin APs.
**** late edit - If you havent watched A Chinese Ghost Story yet, you missed out.
|
Creative Director
|
We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Which issue(s) did that apply to?
Issue #300 of Dragon, and issue #95 of Dungeon, if I remember correctly.
Issue #300 of Dragon, and issue #95 of Dungeon, if I remember correctly.We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Which issue(s) did that apply to?
There was a nasty adventure involving an orgy in Scuttlecove in Dungeon, if memory serves.
|
Creative Director
|
There was a nasty adventure involving an orgy in Scuttlecove in Dungeon, if memory serves.Issue #300 of Dragon, and issue #95 of Dungeon, if I remember correctly.We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Which issue(s) did that apply to?
That would be the one. (Written by me, no less! Very fun adventure to write!)
Issue #300 of Dragon, and issue #95 of Dungeon, if I remember correctly.We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Which issue(s) did that apply to?
[disclaimer]Not a complaint or rant, simply a few questions.[/disclaimer]
In addition to selling me Dragon 300 ('bought Dungeon 95 last year), this brings to mind a few concerns.
After completely reading through the articles (the ones I liked), I enjoyed (and will probably make use of) ten out of the thirteen articles. These articles likely attracted the "moral" outrage referred to in your post, but these were also some of the most interesting (and useful) articles I've read in Dragon; because of this I can count issues of Dragon and Dungeon I've bought on one hand. The primary offender was probably Monte Cook's article (How Far Should You Go?) which only mentioned, mentioned, a few unkind options available in mature (or vile, if one must describe them as such) games.
Why are mature topics not treated in a way one might approach a (perspectively) boring setting/campaign? For example, I hate desert-themed campaigns. I avoided the LoF AP and said nothing of my displeasure (well, until now, but this really isn't a complaint). Therefore, why can't players and GMs approach mature gaming with the same mindset? While rhetorical, I thought I'd bring up these points. Moving along...
Have these overreactions created a unspoken standard that Paizo observes? This is not a criticism, just a question. If such is the case, I'll simply praise the "controversial" products louder to help balance scales I never knew existed.
Also, I'd like to add my support for a mature Pazio line...and a request for a Porphyry-House-tiered module (maybe an AP) set in Galt.
"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
In my experience, no book I have ever read, movie I have ever watched, song I have ever heard, or game I have ever played has been enriched or improved by 'mature' content. A good story or adventure stands on its own without having to resort to cheap tricks to attract an audience, which is so often the case.
That would be the one. (Written by me, no less! Very fun adventure to write!)There was a nasty adventure involving an orgy in Scuttlecove in Dungeon, if memory serves.Issue #300 of Dragon, and issue #95 of Dungeon, if I remember correctly.We don't want to sneak a truly mature-content book into the subscription lines, because when we did that with Dragon magazine, a lot of people were outraged. Including some pretty famous industry folks.
Which issue(s) did that apply to?
OH DEAR GOD. I had completely forgotten about the "terrorism in my mail-box" BS that certain "famous" people whined about. I'm not saying they were wrong for disliking it, but come on...terrorism? I mean, really?
I for one loved it, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't have read it. Much like everything else I encounter in my life.
|
|
"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
In my experience, no book I have ever read, movie I have ever watched, song I have ever heard, or game I have ever played has been enriched or improved by 'mature' content. A good story or adventure stands on its own without having to resort to cheap tricks to attract an audience, which is so often the case.
A brief list of things made better or possible thanks to adult content.
Books:
Fight Club
Choke
Catcher in the Rye
Song of Ice and Fire (George R.R. Martin)
Heralds of Valdemar
Watchmen
Films:
Fight Club (again it's very good)
Requiem for a Dream
Deliverance
Games:
Grand Theft Auto series
Hook Mountain Massacre
Left 4 Dead 2.
Hope that helps :)
To further Dudemeister's point - Yes, it is true that you can have something good that does not have adult content. You can have something Great - Tolkien comes to mind - even. Lack of adult content is no impediment to greatness.
But the existence of adult content also doesn't degrade the quality of a work. And there are works - as Dudemeister pointed out - that work specifically because of their adult content.
Of these I'm specifically speaking of Song of Ice and Fire and Watchmen - two works which specifically take what are generally considered un-adult genres (fantasy and superheroes) and juxtaposes them with rather lurid, gritty, adult themes. And the works work not because there's the occasional sex scene or brief nudity, but because those themes create a very real and resonant link to our reality.
It gives us a glimpse of a world that, in its imperfection, is a little bit like ours. The "heroes" and "villains" of GRRM's SoIF aren't to be admired at a distance as epic examples of what man should strive to be. They're what humanity - as we know it to be - would be: they're imperfect, they're flawed, they're horny, and they want to do what's right. (All with the qualifier, of course, that certain characters possess more of some qualities than others.) And the superheroes of Watchmen aren't superheroes - they're barely heroes at all, and they certainly don't have any powers (if you're going only by the movie, you should discount their insane superhuman combat abilities - they lacked these in the original, one of the few points where the movie deviated).
(Also - I do hate the term adult content. It does seem luridly childish. But I use it for lack of a better term - "mature" is essentially a white-washing of adult.)
|
Greetings. I have to say I miss Matt's a lot and I only moved across town to the Nordeast! I can only imagine how it is for you Eric. Thinking about south mpls gets me thinking about Ted Cook's 19th Hole BBQ. That has got to be the only place in the Twin Cities that makes good southern style pit. /off topic
I am a player in Gregg's games. When I first started gaming with Gregg I had some reservations about his claims "PC's should always be heroes," I didn't want to be stuck playing "cowboys in white and twirly mustache outlaws in black" again. After a few months of an AP the group decided to take a break and try Call of Cthulhu. I saw an entirely different side of Gregg. It was a different game with an entirely different canon. There were no heroes in this game. It was dark and dreary and everything the AP wasn't. It was this experience in which I reached an epiphany about how people view tabletop role play gaming.
Gorbacz I think we may have something in common. I also view D&D/Pathfinder as a base platform where the world and style can be shaped to whatever the players would like. However many out there have preconceived notions that you need a certain system to create a feel or type of game to suit one's need. If your friends have their mind made up that D&D/Pathfinder is a "kids" game, it isn't going to matter what type of AP Paizo publishes. It will never convince them.
Now Gregg has shown me he can be one hell of a GM. I also learned that he uses the right tools for the job. I cant help but think his issues with the next few APs could be summed up with an analogy. Maybe something like Gregg wanted to tune up his Pathfinder hot rod and is asking Paizo, "why the hell are they giving me a table saw for?" Some auto mechanics can fix your alternator with carpenters tools they are that good. However some people would rather stick to what the description on the tool box says.
See you Friday Gregg.
In my experience, no book I have ever read, movie I have ever watched, song I have ever heard, or game I have ever played has been enriched or improved by 'mature' content. A good story or adventure stands on its own without having to resort to cheap tricks to attract an audience, which is so often the case.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand your position. Schindler's List simply wouldn't carry the same weight if it were rated G.
That's not to say I don't believe a good deal of "mature" content is anything BUT mature -- I do. But there can be real artistic value in many things society labels "mature" or "indecent."
You're also begging the question by using "mature content" and "cheap tricks" interchangeably...but I suspect you're aware of that.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand your position. Schindler's List just wouldn't carry the same weight if it were rated G.
Why does this suddenly remind me of Marvel's recent "let's replace Nazi's with Hydra" tendencies?
Why does this suddenly remind me of Marvel's recent "let's replace Nazi's with Hydra" tendencies?I'm sorry, I just don't understand your position. Schindler's List just wouldn't carry the same weight if it were rated G.
D'oh! I'd like to preemptively make the argument that mentioning Schindler's List does not constitute a Godwin. :P
I am a player in Gregg's games. When I first started gaming with Gregg I had some reservations about his claims "PC's should always be heroes," I didn't want to be stuck playing "cowboys in white and twirly mustache outlaws in black" again. After a few months of an AP the group decided to take a break and try Call of Cthulhu. I saw an entirely different side of Gregg. It was a different game with an entirely different canon. There were no heroes in this game. It was dark and dreary and everything the AP wasn't. It was this experience in which I reached an epiphany about how people view tabletop role play gaming.
Ah yes, CotCT. Where my character had to stop your character from burning down the building full of kids. :-D Good times, good times.
Gorbacz I think we may have something in common. I also view D&D/Pathfinder as a base platform where the world and style can be shaped to whatever the players would like. However many out there have preconceived notions that you need a certain system to create a feel or type of game to suit one's need. If your friends have their mind made up that D&D/Pathfinder is a "kids" game, it isn't going to matter what type of AP Paizo publishes. It will never convince them.
That's a fair point; first impressions are very difficult to change. And like any other RPG, Pathfinder/D&D can be used to support anything from grim postapocalyptic struggles for survival to lighthearted swashbuckling. My original point (mostly lost now, I admit) was that I didn't want to pay money for something that was going to try to pound my square peg into a round hole...which sounds both painful and dirty, now that I say it that way.
Now Gregg has shown me he can be one hell of a GM. I also learned that he uses the right tools for the job. I cant help but think his issues with the next few APs could be summed up with an analogy. Maybe something like Gregg wanted to tune up his Pathfinder hot rod and is asking Paizo, "why the hell are they giving me a table saw for?" Some auto mechanics can fix your alternator with carpenters tools they are that good. However some people would rather stick to what the description on the tool box says.
Yeah that's fair. And hey, if someone in the group is keen to run Jade Regent, I'll buy it. I just don't think anyone is all that fired up about the Asian stuff. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to play a fish out of water Gwailo in Tian Xa!
See you Friday Gregg.
Have fun storming the castle!
OH DEAR GOD. I had completely forgotten about the "terrorism in my mail-box" BS that certain "famous" people whined about. I'm not saying they were wrong for disliking it, but come on...terrorism? I mean, really?
I for one loved it, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't have read it. Much like everything else I encounter in my life.
I never read the issue of Dragon in question, but I do recall reading the post by the famous writer referenced here when it was first distributed in his newsletter (of which I was a subscriber at the time). It did seem rather like an overreaction.
I would counter-argue, though, that performing badly rendered parodies of popular musical numbers at every con event you run is tantamount to terrorism in my own eyes. And that's coming from someone who, unlike James Jacobs, actually likes musicals. :)
Playing evil characters can be as deep or as shallow an experience as the gaming group in question wants it to be. I recently got flak from another poster here for talking about some very dark humor that arose from an evil campaign I'm running. I think there's a perception among some segments of the gaming world that if you're playing evil PCs (particularly if you play them with better motivation and characterization than friggin' Gargamel), you're somehow Doing It Wrong.
Playing evil characters can be as deep or as shallow an experience as the gaming group in question wants it to be. I recently got flak from another poster here for talking about some very dark humor that arose from an evil campaign I'm running. I think there's a perception among some segments of the gaming world that if you're playing evil PCs (particularly if you play them with better motivation and characterization than friggin' Gargamel), you're somehow Doing It Wrong.
I agree with you completely. I am currently running a PF game set in my Homebrew where the PCs are all evil. They are all currently 15th level, using medium advancement, and it is going just fine. In fact, most of the bad-guys they fight are other evil guys. It wasn't planned that way, its just the way it worked out.
Man, this thread took me like 2 hours to read thru... but here goes.
To throw in my 2 cents on this mater I'd just like to state that I think some people here are being unreasonable. I've been playing role-playing games for 15 years, not as long as some guys here but still a decent while, and I can say that I have never seen a company put out one awesome adventure after the next with half as much skill as the team at Paizo. Even during Dungeon magazines hight I didn't find nearly as many outstanding ideas as I see come out of them now.
Now, that doesn't mean that everything they do strikes me as something I'd love to run. Many people here complain about Jade Regent, without any idea what the stories will even be like yet, but did you complain about Legacy of Fire? Shouldn't you have? It's also an adventure path set in a none european location. What if they made an adventure path in the Lands of the Linorm Kings? Settings have to change to tell certain stories. It's just the way it works. There is an ENTIRE WORLD that Paizo has built, and I can't blame them for wanting to show it off.
Secondly, I don't see where the complains about Carrion Crown are coming from. There is NOTHING forcing the players to be evil, just as there is nothing forcing them to be good. I have been frothing to run this AP since the first time I heard about it! I think the problem is that some people don't understand that, to keep things new and interesting, the people at Paizo have to keep pushing the boundaries of what we are used to. Does that mean that sometimes they'll do something you don't like? Sure. I've had games I've disliked as well. But we also get awesome new ideas like the Haunt system. That's what the player feedback is for.
Thirdly, there are many different views on what is or is not mature content. Some people complain about the explicit nature of certain books, but I can't think of a single time that this has offended me. Heck, I had to seriously play up the Iron Cages of Lust from book 4 of Rise of the Runelords, and even then my players weren't put off. I'm not certain what Paizo's target demographic is, but I'm gonna guess it's in the 18+ range. As such I don't see anything wrong with serious games. If you, as a GM, feel that your players would be offended by certain materials that I believe it is your job to adjust the stories accordingly.
Finally, I'd like to address the Black and White games that Gregg was talking about. I love being the hero. I love saving the day. But sometimes to save the day sacrifices have to be made. Sometimes heroes fail. Sometimes they fall. Sometimes they are redeemed. And sometime the ENDS justify the MEANS. Is it dark? Yes. Is it gritty? Yes. Is it mature? Yes. But in the end there is only one reason we, and by 'we' I mean all GM's, run these games. You, I, Gregg, and James. We are here to tell stories. We are here to make memories. We are here to entertain others, and perhaps be entertained as well. And as long as our players are enjoying themselves that is all that maters.
You know your players, just as I know mine. Yours may not like mature games, but mine do. So I guess the long and short of this is... don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Now, that doesn't mean that everything they do strikes me as something I'd love to run. Many people here complain about Jade Regent, without any idea what the stories will even be like yet, but did you complain about Legacy of Fire? Shouldn't you have? It's also an adventure path set in a none european location. What if they made an adventure path in the Lands of the Linorm Kings? Settings have to change to tell certain stories. It's just the way it works. There is an ENTIRE WORLD that Paizo has built, and I can't blame them for wanting to show it off.
I never blamed them for anything. But I don't purchase every Paizo product either. I buy the ones I want and the ones I think I'm going to use. As far as I know, nobody in my group is interested in Asian themes, so the $120 I would spend on it would go to waste. I don't have money to toss around.
Secondly, I don't see where the complains about Carrion Crown are coming from. There is NOTHING forcing the players to be evil, just as there is nothing forcing them to be good. I have been frothing to run this AP since the first time I heard about it! I think the problem is that some people don't understand that, to keep things new and interesting, the people at Paizo have to keep pushing the boundaries of what we are used to. Does that mean that sometimes they'll do something you don't like? Sure. I've had games I've disliked as well. But we also get awesome new ideas like the Haunt system. That's what the player feedback is for.
The issues I had were taken from the blurbs about defending the werewolf lord and indulging in the vampires' blasphemous traditions. That's not what I'm interested in doing. But this has been hashed out at length.
Thirdly, there are many different views on what is or is not mature content. Some people complain about the explicit nature of certain books, but I can't think of a single time that this has offended me. Heck, I had to seriously play up the Iron Cages of Lust from book 4 of Rise of the Runelords, and even then my players weren't put off. I'm not certain what Paizo's target demographic is, but I'm gonna guess it's in the 18+ range. As such I don't see anything wrong with serious games. If you, as a GM, feel that your players would be offended by certain materials that I believe it is your job to adjust the stories accordingly.
Nothing in what I said had anything to do with mature or serious themes. Being forced to bunk up with werewolves and vampires is, in and of itself, neither mature nor immature, neither serious nor unserious. It is, however, something I don't want to do, and something I'm glad Carrion Crown doesn't demand it the way the blurbs led me to expect.
Finally, I'd like to address the Black and White games that Gregg was talking about. I love being the hero. I love saving the day. But sometimes to save the day sacrifices have to be made. Sometimes heroes fail. Sometimes they fall. Sometimes they are redeemed. And sometime the ENDS justify the MEANS. Is it dark? Yes. Is it gritty? Yes. Is it mature? Yes. But in the end there is only one reason we, and by 'we' I mean all GM's, run these games. You, I, Gregg, and James. We are here to tell stories. We are here to make memories. We are here to entertain others, and perhaps be entertained as well. And as long as our players are enjoying themselves that is all that maters.
Agreed.
You know your players, just as I know mine. Yours may not like mature games, but mine do.
Once more I object to the equation of the things I was talking about with "maturity." You can approach the themes I talked about in mature or immature ways, and there's nothing in them that inherently inclines toward one or the other.
So I guess the long and short of this is... don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Well, given that nothing I, as a single consumer, can say or do would possibly have any effect on what Paizo decides to publish, I magnanimously grant your request. :-)
Very well...
To your first point, why do you have a subscription if you only buy what you want to use? You must have know that they would eventually put out something that you weren't interested in.
To your second point... why buy it?
To your third point you seemed to have misunderstood me. I assumed that in the context of the sentence you would interpret 'mature' as 'mature content' not 'acting mature'. Anything can be taken mature/immature. I've know people who can make high society fart jokes, I've known people who could crack jokes watching the Passion of the Christ. What I meant was 'mature adult content' when I said mature content. Hence my continued reference to what could be construed as offensive material. And to your last line, again, why buy it?
To your forth point, I am glad you agree. But if you do, then why start this thread? It seems like a simple case of this not being your ascetic. If that is the case, then see my answer to your first point.
To your fifth point please see my answer to your third point on my use of the word mature. But you seemed to have missed the intended message here. I was saying "Understand that we have differing views and things you (and I assume your players by default)find uninteresting or offensive, I (and I assume my players by default) may find interesting and entertaining."
To your sixth point... you are correct and I graciously accept. It's my hope that you enjoy the adventure path after Jade Regent.
The main problem I see with listing books, movies, and games that are 'made possible' by the inclusion of adult content is that they are hardly representative. For every piece of media that tastefully uses adult content to advance a story or produce an emotional impact, there is a mountain of media that uses it for lurid shock value.
I'm not saying that adult content in and of itself is bad. Schindler's List is one of my favorite films and very instructive in realistically portraying the horrors of war and genocide. But I am saying that the argument for the artistic merit of adult content cannot shake from itself the fact that most of the purveyors of adult content are devoid of artistic merit. But hey, that's just my opinion.
The main problem I see with listing books, movies, and games that are 'made possible' by the inclusion of adult content is that they are hardly representative. For every piece of media that tastefully uses adult content to advance a story or produce an emotional impact, there is a mountain of media that uses it for lurid shock value.
I'm not saying that adult content in and of itself is bad. Schindler's List is one of my favorite films and very instructive in realistically portraying the horrors of war and genocide. But I am saying that the argument for the artistic merit of adult content cannot shake from itself the fact that most of the purveyors of adult content are devoid of artistic merit. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Sturgeon's Law applies to everything. It applies equally to things aimed at adults and children, to things including any particular theme, and to things tasteful and vulgar for that matter. If you discount the use of adult themes in quality productions because the vast majority of things including adult themes lack quality, you must by the same logic discount the quality productions that do not include adult themes because the vast majority of things that do not include adult themes are, to quote Surgeon's Law directly, "crap."
The fact that 90% of things produced incorporating adult content are crap isn't a commentary on adult content, it's a commentary on the creative process and the people who employ it. In the vast majority of instances, any production in any medium incorporating any themes intended for any audience will be banal, forgettable, and a waste of time for all involved.