You ever think...

[thebitterguy]

Maybe, juuuust maybe, someone's gone completely over the edge?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: Choice and Blood, the abortion clinic supplement for d20 Modern.

xposted to d20modern and roleplayers.

Comments

[sixteenbynine.livejournal.com]

My comments on another post elsewhere sum up my comments here.

http://watchman2814.livejournal.com/34501.html?thread=34245#t34245

[adamjury.livejournal.com]

Does anyone expect anything else from LPJD?

[caias.livejournal.com]

Other than offering half a cent a word? Not much...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grimtales_/]

The d20ising is semi-pointless but, if you actually read it, it is a useful summary of the issue in the US - useful for non-residents, and is actually replete with pretty good ideas on how to incorporate the issue in games.

I don't think d20 is a fit, Unknown Armies or modern conspiracy games would do better (better than d20 modern) but it isn't the horrific thing that people seem to be kneejerking that it is without looking at it.

[madmanofprague.livejournal.com]

So, uh... is anyone else thinking this would be an awesome CoC suppliment?

Especially if it had both 20s and modern-day material...

Formalism

[normanrafferty.livejournal.com]

I prefer the term formalism to refer to whenever a story-telling or role-playing concept is expressed in gaming mechanics. For example, if I say, "I want to reason with the guard so that he lets me go," that's informal; if I say, "I want to use my Diplomacy +5 to change the guard's opinion of me", that' s a formalism.

The mantra of our game design has always been "rules endorse behavior" -- if you make a rule for it, you're saying that you expect this kind of thing to happen. For example, if your game has rules for combat, you're expecting combat to happen. The more rules you have for combat, the more combat you expect to happen, especially involving complex negotiation. If your game has "Murder Addiction" as a formalism, you're endorsing that a Murder Addict character might show up in the game.

Related to your commentary about depictions of certain issues in gaming ... if a book has rules for an Abortion Provider or Blogger, then the designers must be expecting game-play where these character classes are relevant and are implemented. Does one really need such formalisms as "3rd-level Abortionist"?

I haven't read the supplement itself. A surface review makes it sound like the typical problem of SRD books -- given an interesting venue for an adventure, the writers instead have seen fit to write formalisms for characters -- so instead of working out the difficulties of plot, timelines, characterization, stages, motivations ... you get prestige classes. Another case of formalisms instead of story.

Re: Formalism

[adamjury.livejournal.com]

That's a market thing -- formalisms sell to players, story sells to GMs. There are more players than GMs, so in most cases books are given mechanics that directly relate to players and their characters [new equipment, ways to improve their character, new rules to give their character more details/specialities, new equipment, and, especially new equipment] to be more useful to the majority of the consumer base.

A lot of ebook publishing is very strongly based around this theme, with most of the successful publishers selling bite-sized products geared towards specific players.

[thebitterguy]

That was sort of what I was thinking. I should check and see if abortion clinics are listed in my copy of Haven.

[thebitterguy]

I think it would work as a CoC supplement. It would still be a really, really bad idea.

"Complete Stranger Theory"

[normanrafferty.livejournal.com]

Ebooks also thrive on the idea that if you just showed up at the table with a rules change to make yourself more powerful, the Game Master would tell you that you just can't change rules like that ... but if you gave money to a complete stranger to buy their book to say the same thing, it might be taken more seriously.

Most game designers are writing down what they think are good ideas, for the money they're being paid. I'm personally disappointed by how many rules out there are published that have never been playtested or had their quality assured. If five minutes of your game-time is spent arguing about how to implement some of these rules, you're often putting more thought into them than the original designers did.

It's only exacerbated by how no one wants to buy a book that makes them less powerful -- if you're going to give money to a complete stranger, you want to come out more powerful. This cycle builds up until a new edition comes out (or possibly a x.5 interim edition).

It's funny how some folks will complain that if new books aren't coming out for an RPG, folks will complain it's "unsupported" ... but if new books come out so fast that the game escalates into something cumbersome and inappropriate, folks will complain it's "not as good anymore."

And you're right, formalisms sell more -- every RPG since D&D1 has encouraged the Game Master to change rules, but players can only do it if they pay a complete stranger for the privilege.

As for "story sells to GMs" ... I can't 100% agree with that. D20 itself is rife with books of new monsters (which players don't use) and new magic items (which almost no player has time to actually craft), much moreso than new adventures. Adventure design is the most neglected arena of tabletop-RPG publishing, because it's hard and its sales are lower. As the computer games get more sophisiticated in story, tabletop is falling behind.

[adamjury.livejournal.com]

It can't be any less niche market than furry games, and those sneak out every once in awhile...

[athelind.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between "niche market" and "bad idea".

[normanrafferty.livejournal.com]

It would work very well as a framing device for a World of Darkness adventure. Emphasis on adventure.

[thebitterguy]

It's got a lot of the same repulsion factors that made people go nuts over Charnal Houses of Europe, without the possibility of quality that Rich Dansky stewardship offered.

That said, I should see it before I pass judgement, but I wouldn't feel comfortable paying money for it.

[adamjury.livejournal.com]

While I don't expect LJPD's product to be of great quality [although I trust brief review of it], I don't really consider any subject taboo for a RPG. There are some that I'm not interested in playing [or working on] but I am very loathe to say a game design is a bad _idea_ [based on content as opposed to market situations] as opposed to a poor _execution_.

There are many, many more bad ideas and poor executions in the hobby game industry that have far greater negative impact than a d20 PDF about abortion.