NC17 Community for Exalted Stuff...

[Jakk Bey]

True 'dat.

 

[Persell]

Good ol' JB . . . you can always couint on him to say something that adds nothing of substancfe to the conversation . . . and at great length, at that.

 

[Coyotekin]

When the hell did cheesecake become a reference to something sexual? It sounds ill-fitting to me.

 

[8 Drunken Gods]

I should note that it's not -my- site, rather it's something I'm pushing on behalf of its Creator... MUran... even if she doesn't know that I'm pushing it here... 8)

I feel for you.. The subject's definately starting to digress..


Whether the cover was inapropriate or not,


 I'm sure I'll be able to find some humor on MUran's LJ once in a while.

 

[Joseph]

*eyes* Stillborn and Joseph... oh ho? I take it then that sex as a concept does not exist in your games?

It generally doesn't come up; the people I play with tend to have sufficiently healthy sex lives that there's no need to introduce such things into the game content.

 

[Joseph]

Little Joe--Folks are taking the video game industry seriously.

But not the people who come up with the content of the games, who are the people actually "in" the video game industry, as opposed to those who provide the capital for and profit from the video game industry.  The people who are taken seriously in the video game industry are the business heads that have profit-worthy interests in many fields, and often times will not even have played many video games, much less come up with the subjects.

It's a multi-billion dollar industry' date=' with a better profit margin than film, and it spawns film and marketing licenses just as well. It's a cash cow, and people across the board are taking it [i']very[/i] seriously.

This has nothing to do with taking seriously the people IN the industry to which I was referring to.  There's a difference between saying "Investing capital in a video gaming firm is profitable," which is true, and "People generally respect those who work in the video game industry, such as coders, game designers, etc," which is false.  

Is the cover silly? Yes' date=' because it's not a great illustration. [/quote']
And because it's pointlessly sexual, despite that factor being irrelevent to the content of the book in any way.  The same goes for the cover of Cult of the Illuminated.  

It doesn't do anything really to drive home the idea or illustrate much about the nature of the book or the subject matter. It's a girl in diphaneous costume, showing off what the Primordials gave her.

Exactly my point.  If this book was "Whores of Nexus" instead of a book on Sorcery, the cover would have been appropriate enough, because it would actually be related to the content in the book.  As it stands, it's ridiculous.

 

[MOK]

While it's probably not helping the discussion keep on track, whatever it's track may be(I cant tell),

This has nothing to do with taking seriously the people IN the industry to which I was referring to.  There's a difference between saying "Investing capital in a video gaming firm is profitable," which is true, and "People generally respect those who work in the video game industry, such as coders, game designers, etc," which is false.  

Incorrect, the answer to this statement was "True".


Much in the way that people watch movies for the Director, ala "ooh, a Steven Speilberg movie!", a growing number of gamers can be observed spouting statments such as "ooh, a Will Wright game!  I want that!"


This can be seen in vid game fan communities, and I have seen it personally with my experience in the video game design industry.

 

[Persell]

While it's probably not helping the discussion keep on track, whatever it's track may be(I cant tell),

This has nothing to do with taking seriously the people IN the industry to which I was referring to.  There's a difference between saying "Investing capital in a video gaming firm is profitable," which is true, and "People generally respect those who work in the video game industry, such as coders, game designers, etc," which is false.  

Incorrect, the answer to this statement was "True".


Much in the way that people watch movies for the Director, ala "ooh, a Steven Speilberg movie!", a growing number of gamers can be observed spouting statments such as "ooh, a Will Wright game!  I want that!"

Joseph's statement is about what "people generally" think . . . yours is about what "a growing number of gamers" think. See the difference, shitdick?

This can be seen in vid game fan communities, and I have seen it personally with my experience in the video game design industry.

And? All that proves is that people IN the video gaming community respect those in the video game indsutry. It doesn't prove that Joseph is wrong: i.e., that people IN GENERAL respect those in the video game industry.


Joseph is correct. People in general do not respect those in the video game industry. A growing number of GAMERS respect them, but people in general do not. Keep in mind, the elderly make up a sizable portion of our population.

 

[Maryuoh]

While it's probably not helping the discussion keep on track, whatever it's track may be(I cant tell),

This has nothing to do with taking seriously the people IN the industry to which I was referring to.  There's a difference between saying "Investing capital in a video gaming firm is profitable," which is true, and "People generally respect those who work in the video game industry, such as coders, game designers, etc," which is false.  

Incorrect, the answer to this statement was "True".


Much in the way that people watch movies for the Director, ala "ooh, a Steven Speilberg movie!", a growing number of gamers can be observed spouting statments such as "ooh, a Will Wright game!  I want that!"


This can be seen in vid game fan communities, and I have seen it personally with my experience in the video game design industry.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2005-05-27&res=l


Just felt the sudden need to link.

 

[MOK]

it was fresh on my mind, I thought it was funny when I thought about the appeal of simcity  =o)


Well, we had different perceptions of the term "people in general".  And since we wont be able to accurately define that idea:  No.  I don't see the difference.  Vagina head!  But since I guess we've thorougly lost any relevant direction, I guess my cameo for this thread is done!

 

[Flagg]

Vagina head!

Watch your mouth, pooface.


-S

 

[Maryuoh]

Yeah, so I joined it.


...


... Yeah. 'k.

 

[Jakk Bey]

I knew that the vanilla side of Little Joe would rise to the surface.


Sex doesn't arise in games? Because you're "mature"? Spin another one, O Lord of the Earth...


Sex happens in books, not just because authors know that it will boost interest, and possibly sales later on, but because stories often include people who have sex.  Mature people. Immature people. People who are young at heart. People who like it dirty. People who like it in the missionary position and only on every third Wednesday of the month.


Often, how a character likes to have sex is essential to building that character.


Take The Sopranos as a for instance. Tony's dalliances are indicative of the character, and not just and excuse to put scantily clad women in the shot. That's what the Bada Bing is for.  Ralphie  Cifaretto's proclivities into BD/SM played a large part in several episodes as well, not because it was particularly sexy, but it explained a great deal about the character--between lying about his sexual exploits, losing his goomah to Tony, and what led to the character's death.


Sex happens. Ignoring it, or worse, dismissing it as not being "mature" is specious to the point of me not being able to have any respect for the poor dumb bastard who bothered to put the words on phosphor to my screen.


We tell stories. Stories about people in remarkable situations. To ignore that sex happens, that people get involved, means you are NOT telling a panapoly of stories. You are limiting yourself, and then getting on a high horse that you don't deal with those things, which writers have been dealing with in adult situations since we could put words down.


The fact that we're telling Epic tales that myths are supposed to be based on, and ignoring sex is even worse.  Myth is rife with the sexual proclivities and prowess of Heroes and Gods.  To ignore it is to further distance yourself with the very genre.


It shows your own personal bias, and possibly your discomfort with talking about sex.  It has risen several times, over several different threads, and in a way it worries me about our Little Joe, because that distancing himself, and the way he treats sex as being "above" it shows a disconnect with one of the acts that binds us together.


Sex isn't dirty. It isn't immature. It can be handled poorly, and there are ST's out there who aren't capable of handling it well, and those folks are probably better off staying away from it. There are players who aren't that adept either, but that doesn't preclude the whole of playerdom from doing so.  To assume so is to underestimate both all the ST's and players out there, and it shows some serious bias issues about the subject.


Back to TSJ's point though. We are talking about naughty in the game. Naughty is subjective--as subjective as what amounts to cheesecake, which the designers and illustrators feel are an important enough element to include.  It's a theme that is part of the genre that we are talking about, and it goes back to the start of the genre--which is why I brought up old H. Rider Haggard's She and Bourroughs.  And damn near every Conan cover. Or Kull. Or just about any High Fantasy film you want to mention. Or book. It's a long standing tradition. It's nothing new.


And respecting that tradition, and revelling in it, enjoying it, isn't particularly immature, any more than enjoying hot dogs as a tradition at a baseball game.  Do people not take baseball seriously because you eat hotdogs at the stadium? That the uniforms are tight and the fellas spit?


Projecting your own likes and dislikes on the genre doesn't make things so, and this is an example where Little Joe's own vanilla tastes seem to clash with the genre that he likes to play in, and themes that make him feel uncomfortable--perhaps owing to some discomfort with his own sexuality, or perhaps in expressing it, which I think is more likely.


Back to point though, with TSJ--we're discussing mature themes. What is mature? What is cheesecake? What is naughty? What is over the top? I'm attempting to bring the discussion back to point--why do you need another site to discuss "mature" themes, when I think we can do just as fine a job here. I think that a lot of those themes are valid, and backed up by the designers no less, and the history of the genre as well.


Myth is rife with more than just violence and cutting off the heads and limbs of critters. It has sex. Betrayal. Incest. Adultery. All manner of themes, and I think that exploring them is exactly what the designers had in mind--otherwise, why mention in the background material the sexual proclivities of a House?  Gods having sex with mortals is a long held tradition across the globe, why should a game NOT explore that? If writers can touch on these themes with wild abandon, and not get castigated for it--see the Bridge of Birds as a for instance that is tailor made for stealing into Exalted--why should ST's or players?


Because a few idiots get the giggles? If your group can't handle it, then by all means avoid the theme, but I think that most adults can handle a character getting a little.  Especially if it advances the plot. And if an ST ignores a fairly basic tool, and motivation for characters as well, it means that the ST is limiting themselves and the stories they tell.


You and your significant other make jokes about your sexual activities all the time, sometimes even in public, and veiled even in normal conversation with friends--and if you don't, I have the number of a good therapist. That's normal. Talking about sex with your friends is normal, so why shouldn't it be normal for characters in a game about super humans--who, should if they are at all on their game, be getting some like a motherfucker. That, or they're pining for that lost love, and holding onto that cookie like a motherfucker.


Bride With the White Hair anyone?


If you don't deal with sex, in a game, the question should be why? It doesn't come up? That sounds suspiciously like "I don't let it come up."


Sex is normal, natural, and it happens all the time. Ignoring it means you're ignoring a huge tool for your tales.

 

[Flagg]

In one of my games, a local ruler who had angered the party gave them 50 head of cattle and 20 virgins to try to appease them.


They were completely uninterested in either.


-S

 

[Jakk Bey]

Then the Night Caste there wasn't on his game.


Those virgins could have had some market value. As did the cattle. Parlayed into some property, or more portable valuta--or simply as sacrifices--those cows could have been a coup for the party in the good will department.

 

[Flagg]

Those virgins could have had some market value. As did the cattle. Parlayed into some property' date=' or more portable valuta--or simply as sacrifices--those cows could have been a coup for the party in the good will department.[/quote']
I agree completely. They seemed to have no idea what to do with such a gift, which to my mind shows a dissapointing lack of even the rudiments of imagination. Oh well.


-S

 

[Andrew02]

Often' date=' how a character likes to have sex is essential to building that character. [/quote']
I submit that is a terrible, terrible lie.

 

[Joseph]

I knew that the vanilla side of Little Joe would rise to the surface.

Because anyone who isn't sexually obsessed such that it impacts EVERYTHING they do is vanilla, right?

Sex doesn't arise in games? Because you're "mature"? Spin another one' date=' O Lord of the Earth... [/quote']
Where did I even MENTION maturity?  My comment was:

It generally doesn't come up; the people I play with tend to have sufficiently healthy sex lives that there's no need to introduce such things into the game content.

Notice the distinct lack of commentary on whether or not maturity is involved, Jakk.  Your reading comprehension SHOULD be sufficient to see that, despite your clear learning disabilities.


Sexual content not coming up in my games has nothing to do with the maturity of those involved, it has to do with the fact that we are all sufficiently sexually fulfilled that we don't NEED to shove sexuality into everything else we do.  We don't NEED to turn our games into sexual fantasies, or even add SOME sexual fantasy to them, because we just plain aren't interested.  I can have sex anytime I want to, in pretty much any fashion or variety I want to.  Why would I add sexual content to a fantasy adventure game?  


So stop making up arguments for me then trying to refute them.  Maturity has nothing to do with it, and having a healthy sex life has EVERYTHING to do with it.  I don't NEED to turn to Exalted for my sexual fixes, because I get them handled elsewhere.  The same is true of those I game with.  If it's NOT true if you, too bad for you.

Sex happens in books' date=' not just because authors know that it will boost interest, and possibly sales later on, but because stories often include people who have sex.  [/quote']
Do you even read what you write?  "Sex happens in the books because the stories include people who have sex."  That's a tautology.  ANYTHING that happens to people in the books is because the stories include people to whom such things happen.  That's no JUSTIFICATION for adding things to the story, because it's entirely circular.  


No, sex is included in the books because it will boost interest in those who aren't all ready sufficiently fulfilled, often likely including themselves.  That is the ONLY reason it is added.  

Often' date=' how a character [i']likes[/i] to have sex is essential to building that character.

No, no it's not.  How you like to have sex is an EXPRESSION of who you are, NOT a factor in DETERMINING who you are.  ANYTHING that can be discerned about someone through how they like to have sex could just as easily, and almost assuredly more concisely and clearly, be discerned from other types of information about them.


As such, it is NEVER required -- and further, NEVER efficient -- to create an image of a character based on how they like to have sex.  

Take The Sopranos as a for instance. Tony's dalliances are indicative of the character' date=' and not [i']just[/i] and excuse to put scantily clad women in the shot.

No, his dalliances are excuses to put scantily clad women in the shot, it's what HBO does.  He's CLEARLY the sort of person who would do things like that, we could easily tell that from OTHER features of his personality.  Actually SHOWING it happening is entirely superfluous, because anyone intelligent could all ready tell he's the sort of character that WOULD do that.


The best you could argue is YOU, as an INDIVIDUAL, are too socially undeveloped to be able to tell he'd do that without actually seeing it, and frankly I don't even believe THAT.

Sex happens. Ignoring it' date=' or worse, dismissing it as not being "mature" is specious to the point of me not being able to have any respect for the poor dumb bastard who bothered to put the words on phosphor to my screen. [/quote']
1) Given you're the one who mentioned the maturity argument rather than me, you realize you are the dumb bastard in question, right?  You're the only one who put those words on your screen.


2) Ignoring it isn't specious at all.  Even SAYING ignoring sex in your games is specious makes me suspect you don't know the definition of the word, so let me refresh your memory:


spe·cious    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (spshs)


adj.


Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.


Nothing about ignoring sex in your games is specious, proving once again you're an idiot.  The fact that you're arguing against an argument that NO ONE MADE makes you even more of one.

We tell stories. Stories about people in remarkable situations. To ignore that sex happens' date=' that people get involved, means you are NOT telling a panapoly of stories. [/quote']
Once again it's clear you aren't understanding the words you use.  Let me refresh your memory on the definition of panoply (which you also misspelt):


pan·o·ply    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pn-pl)


n. pl. pan·o·plies


A splendid or striking array: a panoply of colorful flags. See Synonyms at display.


Ceremonial attire with all accessories: a portrait of the general in full panoply.


Something that covers and protects: a porcupine's panoply of quills.


The complete arms and armor of a warrior.  


The only one even REMOTELY related to what you're claiming is definition one.  One can clearly, however, tell a splendid or striking array of stories without involving sex at all.  Arguing otherwise just shows you're a fucking idiot yet AGAIN.


I could just as easily say "Gambling happens.  If your stories don't involve gambling, and you ignore that gambling is occuring in the world, you aren't telling a "panapoly" of stories."  I'd be equally wrong.  Nothing says you need to involve EVERY POSSIBLE THEME OR OCCURANCE in your stories.  Plenty of books in the real world don't involve sex happening at all, and they can be perfectly fine stories.

You are limiting yourself' date=' and then getting on a high horse that you don't deal with those things, which writers have been dealing with in adult situations since we could put words down. [/quote']
You're right, I AM limiting myself.  I also don't tell stories about garbage men.  I'm limiting myself in that regard also.  I also don't tell stories about magical manatees, which is another limitation.


Not everyone cares to tackle EVERY POSSIBLE THEME.  And yet again, there's nothing HIGH HORSE about me not telling sexual stories.  I never called it immature, I called it a function of not having a fulfilling sex life.  There's no ethical judgement going on here, except in your made up world.

It shows your own personal bias' date=' and possibly your discomfort with talking about sex.  [/quote']
Oh no, showing my own personal bias!  How damning, having a bias and then not hiding it ashamedly.  


You're showing your OWN personal bias RIGHT NOW.  EVERYTHING we say on this forum demonstrates our personal biases, so what?  I have no DISCOMFORT in talking about sex, I just find it trite, boring, and generally sad; why talk about it when I can simply go DO it if I care to?  


On the other hand, you seem pretty damn uncomfortable with the idea that someone else might not be as obsessed about sex as you are, which is why you ALWAYS go off on me when I point out how drab it is.  You can't HELP YOURSELF, you go as far as to MAKE UP ARGUMENTS for me so you can attack me.

It has risen several times' date=' over several different threads, and in a way it worries me about our Little Joe, because that distancing himself, and the way he treats sex as being "above" it shows a disconnect with one of the acts that binds us together. [/quote']
Nothing binds you and I together, Jakk.  We quite literally have no bonds, and I am happy with that.


You might be desparate for connection with your fellows, but I am not.  I am an individual, and I am happy to be an individual.  As such, I assure you you have nothing to worry about.


That said, it would be hard for me to be above sex, given I indulge in it at times.  It simply isn't on my mind constantly, as it appears to be with you.  I can play Exalted without obsessing over it.  I can play video games without obsessing over it.  I can go have a chat about features of the world without discussing it.  

Sex isn't dirty.

When did I call it dirty?  Show me the quote.

It isn't immature.

When did I call it immature?  Show me the quote.

Projecting your own likes and dislikes on the genre doesn't make things so' date=' and this is an example where Little Joe's own vanilla tastes seem to clash with the genre that he likes to play in, [/quote']
Scream vanilla all you want, but you don't even KNOW what my tastes are.  You can repeat this a thousand times, and a thousand times you'll be speaking from complete ignorance.  


The fact that you needed to take a break from addressing something TSJ said to reaffirm something you felt about me that you've all ready stated at length in this post, however, is indicative of an EXTREME discomfort with my opinions.  I'm sorry you're so obsessed over my ability to go about my life without constantly thinking about sex, but I also find it somewhat creepy.

If you don't deal with sex' date=' in a game, the question should be why? It doesn't come up? That sounds suspiciously like "I don't let it come up."[/quote']
And the answer, of course, is "Everyone involved has a sufficiently fulfillin sex life that we have no need to discuss or tackle the subject."  We play Exalted to experience things that we do not in our real lives (at least I and those I play with do).  Given there's PLENTY of sex in our lives, none of us care to bring it up.  That's all there is to it.


It's the same reason I never play a philosopher in any roleplay game I'm in, and almost always give my characters world views that are actively at ODDS with any well thought out philosophy; I have plenty of philosophy in my actual life, I don't need to tackle it in roleplaying games.  

Sex is normal' date=' natural, and it happens all the time. Ignoring it means you're ignoring a huge tool for your tales.[/quote']
We have so many tools we can do without this one.  If you can't get through a story without bringing up sex, that says something about you, and you might want to consider having a more fulfilling sex life.

 

[Joseph]

In one of my games, a local ruler who had angered the party gave them 50 head of cattle and 20 virgins to try to appease them.
They were completely uninterested in either.


-S

I would have created a pure cattle/virgin fighting force, and used it to conquer the nation that tried to appease me.


That way, not only do I have a new nation, but the previous king will have had the shame to losing to a guy charging in with nothing but cattle and virgins to back him up.  It doesn't get much worse than that.

 

[Maryuoh]

I'm fairly sure that making that offer in one of my games would just drive the PCs more to attack the king, as he's clearly proven he has more virgins/cows than he knows what to do with, and, hey, free virgins/bovines.

 

[psychoph]

In one of my games, a local ruler who had angered the party gave them 50 head of cattle and 20 virgins to try to appease them.
They were completely uninterested in either.


-S

Bah I would rather have an experienced, flexible woman with no vds any day over a virgin.


Course if I were a Solar exalted i am not sure that would be all the exciting since I could go bang a Fair Folk that looked like someone out of a dream i had.

 

[Joseph]

I'm fairly sure that making that offer in one of my games would just drive the PCs more to attack the king, as he's clearly proven he has more virgins/cows than he knows what to do with, and, hey, free virgins/bovines.

If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy.

 

[Flagg]

Thak you, Jack Handey.


-S

 

[Andrew02]

I'm glad I stay at these boards. If my characters were to get a gift of virgins and cows, I would be more worried about how my character would provide for the housing and sustenance rather than the use of those virgins and cows.

 

[Halfdead Frodi]

Most of my characters would have more difficulty with the number of virgins and cattle more than the virgins or cattle in particular...though they'd generally have more interest in the virgins than the cattle...except maybe as a food source. However, in my games, sex is certainly used to some extent...if characters have a relationship of one form or another...or a one time fling or whatever, we pay attention to it... some characters certainly aren't in bed with anyone, but they generally have a reason why not, whether shyness, still looking, a vow or whatever...same as those that are sharing sheets generally have a reason of their own...even if that reason is a form of madness or just pure unadaultered lust...or devoted love to a single individual, or group or whatever. Main sexual theme found in Exalted that we've never made use of...and are unlikely to in the future, is beastmen... no one in my group can quite wrap themself around fucking animals, whether for power or pleasure...just isn't something that we feel comfortable with or see any point in. Then again, we aren't hundreds of years old Lunars, either...so... though we do have one Lunar with plans for using an Immaculate Monk as her monthly sacrifice to Luna sometime, offering up their virginity and killing them in the metaphorical sense, so...