Cheops - What on Earth is a "nonce swear" ? Nonce is UK slang for a paedophile.

All I hear at this point is "I hate/fear change" and the sounds of beating a dead horse.

Try wikipedia.

nonce (plural nonces)
1. The one or single occasion; the present reason or purpose (now only in for the nonce).
That will do for the nonce, but we'll need a better answer for the long term.
2. (lexicography) A nonce word.
I had thought that the term was a nonce, but it seems as if it's been picked up by other authors.

While all I hear is a religious fanatic attacking everything without reason.

But hey you like the censored out SR slang for the normal swear words.

*whack* went the horse, the already pulverized bones of its corpse continuing to shatter here and there as the merciless beating continued.

Also, "we must agree to disagree" is fanatical? Maybe you missed when I said that. Or maybe you don't know what a fanatic is.

I derived it from that article that Draco posted. It uses the term nonce words which I just modified into nonce swears since we are talking about swear words in particular. Here in Canada a nonce usually means an effeminate man (possibly a paederast) but it doesn't really get used. We have fag for that which as I hear it means cigarette to you people.

The awesome thing about language (esp. English) is that you can do whatever you want with it. Good old Bill Shakespeare created all sorts of words to fit in with his interpretation of how people in Renaissance Florence, Milan, etc spoke (and probably to help it fit into his restrictive meter). So there you have a none sci-fi example of someone using made up words to create a "flavour" and "texture" to make his "world" seem different and exotic. If he'd just used commonplace english words it would have made it harder for his audience to suspend their disbelief. If he had not have done that it may have been easier for englishmen viewing his plays to think that it was all happening in england and not Mantua. I'm not an english major but I seem to recall that the Henry and Richard plays contain far less made up words than his comedies (most of which are set in far flung locales).

Again this gets back to what I and several other posters have criticized about SR4. It feels more and more like modern day with magic tacked on. Technology is being brought more in line with modern innovations and even the language is being brought in line with modern language. There is no right and wrong about how you feel about this but honestly the slang does make the game world take a step back from the real world and sets it apart. Censorship doesn't enter into it for those of us on this side of the line.

Besides we all know the real reason why swear words were included: to help further differentiate the game from D&D. The "real", "mature" gamers play Shadowrun because it uses "shit fucking cock balls" in the introductory story.

Actually "Dreck" means dirt / mud in German. "Dreck" alone's a little uncommon curse in German but more common as "Scheißdreck".

---

Wikipedia links "Frag" to the Vietnam War. Since the days of Doom and Quake I use it for "kill".

Is that all you're looking for? That's easy. Did "drek" and "frag" help make you feel like you weren't in the modern world anymore? If so, they succeeded. As far as "earning a PG rating" goes, who's to say what the writer wanted, and what he felt constrained to do? Only the writer knows.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about the movie Napoleon Dynamite. Apparently, it was originally going for an R rating in vulgarity, but Jon Heder (being a good Mormon boy) didn't want to swear, and convinced the writers and directors to take them out. They did, and the movie was even funnier as a result. So, which drove the decision: censorship, or art? Does it even matter?

BBC Dubbing at its Finest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmRTUNh1vPo

Cain - you keep arguing that sometimes made up words have contributed to the end work sometimes and that artists have written a better piece of work as a result of having to work around imposed censorship. You then erroneously use this to imply that made up words or imposed censorship have always resulted in enrichment of the final work which is nonsense. And if you are not arguing this, then there is no basis for saying that Shadowrun must have been enriched by substituting less offensive words: It is only each individual's opinion whether or not the work has been enriched or not. You may feel that the writers avoiding words that might offend has enriched the setting. Others differ. Your argument that word-substitution can enhance something does not mean that everyone feels that it has enhanced something. So you should accept Larme's stated position of "agree to differ".

In any case, in a writer overcoming outside constraints, it is not the constraints we show appreciation for, but the artist that overcame them. Reacting to outside constraints always means that the artist has produced something other than what they originally would have. Naturally people object to this.

Some people here feel that Shadowrun is better with modern day language because the provided substitutions sound kiddified to them or they simply object to what they perceive as outside forces taking precedence over the writer's artistic preference. Some people here prefer to avoid modern day language they find offensive and / or consider the provided substitutions a way of enrching the setting and increasing immersion. It's different from person to person. It is an incorrect argument to say that your taste overrides another's. It is also incorrect to argue that word substitution can benefit something and imply (by holding it up as a counter to someone saying it hasn't in a specific case) that it thus must benefit something. It's like saying all whales are mammals and some mammals are hairy, therefore whales are hairy (conclusion: shave the whales). The argument that word substitution can benefit a work is only valid as a counter to someone who says it never can, an argument which Larme has been explicit in clarifying he is not making. He is saying that in this case he thinks it is not the case. So please accept his request to "agree to differ".

Larme has repeatedly stated a dislike of censorship. That is a correct position. Logically an artist can choose to use a given mode of expression (e.g. using a different word) without being forced to. Therefore a non-censored environment can produce everything that a censored environment can whilst the reverse it not true. Therefore the non-censored environment has greatest capacity for an artist to express themselves. So of course many of us find censorship inherently a bad thing. And naturally that dislike spills over to the results of censorship also. Many would like the Director's Cut version of Shadowrun. Some would not. People have different tastes. I think that's a good thing. Although, if my tastes were enforced on you, that would be a form of censorhip and the constraint would probably result in you rising to new heights of creativity in response. That's the reasoning you were using, wasn't it?

Peace (please),

K.

Actually, as I read Larme's position, he's saying the shadowslang in Shadowrun is a direct result of censorship, and is therefore inherently bad. He's agreed that word choice can be a good thing in the general case, but not the specific. This *is* a debatable topic, and one I'd like to explore. Artistic preferences, while subjective, are a valid topic for debate.

Obviously, I believe it was a deliberate artistic choice on the part of the writers; but I also believe that it doesn't matter. Art is art, no matter the motivation. Even if it came from censorship, I do not see how it automatically "impoverishes public discourse" or lead to bad art. We submit to several forms of outright censorship just by participating on Dumpshock; for example, we cannot discuss piracy, even in a negative light. (I received a mod warning for doing so.) I don't see that affecting the quality of discourse on Dumpshock, nor do I see it limiting the fiction pieces some posters put up.


This is not the case. Clearly, there is a world of difference between a sonnet and free verse. Having written both, I can safely say that a sonnet is a more restrictive and challenging art form; but despite the fact that it's an outside constraint does not always mean I would have chosen to do something else. Sometimes, you want to accept the constraints, because it makes for better art.


Not to be sarcastic, but sometimes it does happen. There are always restrictions on art, be it via convention, via custom, via medium, or what have you; Michaelangelo had a lot of constraints on what he could do, and look at what he came up with! I've read critiques by professors who lament the rise of free verse as too easy, and want to push for more traditional forms of verse as they stimulate more creativity. Not saying I agree; but it is something to think about.

I have, in the past, had some very heated arguments with mods over what they allowed and disallowed here and I actually left Dumpshock for several months, angry at my discourse being limited. I came back - Dumpshock is the only true forum for Shadowrun, but it was a while before I did so. If I find myself censored again, I doubt that I'll have any other reaction this time, either. I dislike censorship intensely.



That's fine, but you've misunderstood what I mean by "outside constraints". I mean constraints imposed on the artist from outside. If I choose to write in iambic pentameter, to avoid the letter 'e' or whatever, this is my stylistic choice for good or bad. If someone from outside comes along and says I must write in iambic pentameters, then maybe I'll write some good Shakespearean prose, but perhaps what I wanted to write was to compose a dirty limerick about a girl from Hong Kong. A sonnet about a girl from Hong Kong may be artistic (in theory) but it may not be the effect I was going for.

As a voluntarily self-imposed constraint, a limitation is nothing more than an artistic choice. It doesn't limit the real range of options, it is only the artist choosing from a sub-set. Externally imposed constraints do affect the real range of options. Therefore logically, outside constraints reduce the possible artistic expression in a way that self-imposed ones do not. They are qualitatively different. The outcome work may be the same - I might have wanted to write a sonnet all along, but the criticism is that it may not be.

Now in the specific instance of Shadowrun "profanities" I'm not aware whether this was an outside constraint or not. Surely it wasn't a legal restriction but knowing that members of the non-intended audience would interfere with sales of the intended audience (the Parent Factor) is still an external pressure and can thus become a constraint. As a kid, it never occured to me that this would be a factor - I just took it for granted that the writer wanted to use frag. As an adult, that seems naive. There's a good chance, given the market and society at the time, that it was a factor.

So there is a list of possibilities (not exclusive).

You like the altered language (I found it helped immersion back then and still use it now)
You dislike the altered language
Either of the above and don't care if its the result of censorship / don't think it is.
Suspect it is the result of censorship and attach additional weight to that.

Now the last is the position you really have been arguing against. You've been making the point that if you like the result it doesn't matter if it is the result of censorship. I think I'm safe in attributing that position to you, correct? (Say, if not the case).

Well that position is valid in itself and perhaps for you. But there are a couple of factors why taken as a whole, the last point is correct for some of us. Firstly, some of us attach weight to the intent of the authors simply out of respect or because we like the rest of their work. Because there is a justifiable objection to censorship a priori (i.e. outside the context of just this discussion), it is natural and not incorrect to wish to redress any changes that result from it now that we are able to. For example, it looks like the current developers have said to themselves they're now free to use modern day "profanities" and are glad to be able to do so. Secondly, however, a belief that the words are the result of censorship actually can affect how the words are received. The objection of many is that the words sound kiddified. The reason for such a perception is, I believe, because it is obvious to them that it is an attempt to avoid using "offensive" language. To anyone who thinks this, then there is no way that the made up profanities can't seem a negative thing.

This second position is a natural consequence. It seems to not follow mainly for those who either, like myself, didn't realise there was censorship or else who have a preference for avoiding real life "profanities".

Really, people are starting from different positions on this, hence the best conclusion to all this we can end up with is agreeing to differ and a bit of increased knowledge all around. Any argument based on assuming the other person is beginning from the same position as you is going to fail in this case.



Ah, but look at all the things he didn't do! Oh, we can't... And that neatly puts my position.

So what is a publisher? An editor, or a censor? They're imposing constraints from outside as well.


That seems to be the position I'm arguing, yes. I wouldn't have put it that way-- it makes me seem pro-censorship-- but I think it's the end result that matters most.

I;m reminded of stories (urban legends?) of abstract paintings done by monkeys, being sold and accepted as art. Some people argued that this was making a mockery of the whole thing. Others said: "What the hey, as long as I like looking at it." I think bringing free speech into a discussion on shadowslang overly politicizes a discussion about art. Sure, some people always thought the shdaowslang sounded "kiddified"; but I sincerely doubt that it sounded fine up until you thought it was the result of censorship, after which it became "kiddified".

Then a diet is starvation, a murder a war and a one-mile run a marathon. ; ) Degree has relevance. If I am a minute late, your irritation might be mild. If I am an hour late, your irritation might be huge. If a publisher overrules a couple of minor things in a work, we may say that the impact is small. If they say "no - you're not allowed to include this sexual sub-plot" then the impact is much greater. People's anger may vary accordingly. Note that I am specifically referring to editorial over-ruling. When an editior told me I needed to restructure my story to improve it, I thought about it, decided they were right and did it. The latter is not a constraint, but feedback. The principle of the former can be the same however, and can have the same result.



Well note that I specifically gave two reasons why people would bring censorship into their consideration of the end result. The first is lending weight to the perceived intentions of the writers and preferring to go with what is perceived as originally intended. The second is that if it is perceived that the substitutions are indeed means of avoiding "offensive" language, then the language has been kiddified to them in that it has been "made safe for kids". That inherently takes away from the impact of the words. E.g. if we know that "frag" is used as a safer version of "fuck" then people find it reduces immersion in the game because they're talking in a way that they feel their hard-bitten characters would not.

There is disagreement here not because the logic of either faction is wrong (though some of the criticisms of each opposite faction have been incorrect), but because both groups are starting from a different position. For example, there are some posting on Dumpshock who regard the use of "offensive" language itself to be immature and consider the use of substitutes to, in a way, be more mature than scattering fucks throughout the fluff. To another group, that is completely inverted. The former group see these words as having a special significance (they are inherently offensive) and wish to avoid giving them that significance by use. The other group sees these words as having no special significance (they're just words) and see deliberately avoiding them as giving them a significance that they shouldn't have - i.e. adopting the mindset that these words are "bad" in some way. The former group sees these words used, perhaps primarily by kids or by people they dislike as a challenge or as a sign of immaturity. They thus see their presence in a game book as a sign of immaturity too. The latter group find it immature to think of the words as special and see the avoidance of these words as "kiddification", that grown-ups should just see it as another word.

Different positions that cannot reason the other into submission because the difference in position is not one of logic, but of a priori attitudes. Note that the above special words / unspecial words division is not the whole of this, but is what leads to different conclusions for a lot of people.

My personal position again, is that I like the use of made-up slang and use some of it, but do object to outside pressure influencing the writers' work. In my GM'ing, I mix it all up. The last game had some drek and at least one frag. I don't actually recall any in-character modern day "profanities" happening but there might well have been.

Peace,

Khadim.

I've skipped over most of this due to not having a ton of time, and for that I apologize, especially if this point has already been made.

What is considered socially appropriate (or inappropriate) does change over time based on tons of factors. Languages influence each other all the time, and new nouns are entered into the lexicon regularly. Without analyzing it too much (as I only took a couple basic linguistics classes and am thus not really qualified to speak heavily on the subject), the honest to God truth is that Shadowrun's world, as a whole, should be MORE conservative in its speech than ours.

Why?

Because of the corps. The vast majority of the metahuman population live, breathe, and die by the megacorps. They are controlled in school, in their job opportunities, in most of their leisure time.. Language comes through one's parents most strongly, and I always got the impression that the corps were family.

Now, this doesn't apply to Shadowrunners, of course. Or bratty kids, or even people who are venting off of work. In other words, the actual Shadowrun environment would probably be a rebellion against this clean culture of the wage slave, and should be reflected as such. And of course there is the Matrix, where who knows what kind of shit can go down. In other words, I could see arguments for language getting stronger and weaker. Personally I cuss like a sailor as a GM, but that's because at the moment my players have been dealing with truck stops and smuggling routes in the NAN.


You know what I personally always wanted to see more of? Elf/Ork cussing. Even at the height of Elf posing in the 50s and early 60's, and now with the rise of Ork popularity thanks to the finding of that Rosetta Stone, it just seems like more people, especially the younger generations, should be cussing in the flavor of the month language. I mean come on -- How many people here know someone who uses the words Baka or Kawaii or other pidgin Japanese thanks to the Anime influx of the last couple decades? It's out of context and stupid, but it is there. I personally would see something similar happening with the Ork language, but I don't really see it much.

(and no, this is not a subtle request for help considering my players are going to be interacting with the Cascade Ork a lot here soon. Nope. No sir. )

Actually, I think only 50% of the population has corporate citizenship. Furthermore, each corporation has a unique culture. I imagine that at least some corps with a culture of "be a shark or get your face bitten off" prize executives who behave like ruthless assholes, and profanity would fit that image. Those who are too weak to cuss like sailors are too weak to climb the ladder, and all that

Regardless, despite your opener, you seem to be saying that Shadowrun's using real profanity is either correct, or it doesn't go far enough. After all, it's a game of rebellion against the corporate straight-laced straight-faced soullessness. People on the streets wouldn't have clean vocabularies, and it just strains credulity that, say, a polite version of "fuck" would replace fuck itself. Shadowrun is another world, but it isn't. It's still Earth, it's still in the future. The vestiges of today still predominate. If we were talking about a Dune time scale, i.e. so far in the future that Earth isn't even a memory anymore, I could accept that the setting is so foreign that we need to not say "fuck," because that word is too associated with the modern world.

But seriously, fuck was around when our grandparents were kids, does anyone think it won't be when all of us are senior citizens? Frankly, a large number of us could still be alive during Shadowrun's projected timeline. And while there have been plagues and upheaval and suchnot, our entire generation wouldn't be dead. Nor would the next lowest generation, which still says "Fuck." I could understand if a dominant culture came in and replaced our swear words -- if we were saying fuck in Japanese or German or Navajo, fine. But saying it in polite-speak? I still, after all the handwaving about artistry, call bullshit on that. If it's artistry, it's badly done. A near future game can make a lot of crazy assumptions about a bizarre new future world, but if it doesn't retain vestiges of today that would in all probability survive those changes, it's done badly. Maybe if they had written up something about why polite versions of modern cusswords became the norm, maybe if they had some kind of explanation, it would work. But the wholescale substitution, without even acknowledging that everyone in the future has had their mouth washed out with soap for some reason? That's not art, it's cowardice in the face of potential public offense, it's blind obedience to the RPG culture of the time, wherein RPGs did not contain swears. At best, they were simply following the herd. They do not deserve praise for this. Maybe they don't deserve to be bashed for it either, because overall Shadowrun is a good setting. The language issue is a minor point. But saying that someone is creating high flying art, just because they didn't buck the trend and played it safe? Huh-uh.

All I hear from the pro-drek-and-frag crowd is the same bullheaded resistance to every single change brought on by SR4. It's not a matter of this argument, it's about the principle of massive resistance, about giving SR4 no quarter, no benefit of the doubt. It's not a question that can be resolved either way, but it is telling that it's the same people criticizing this part of SR4 who criticize SR4 every single chance they get.

I disagree-- I never thought it sounded like a church lady. I thought it sounded like a society different than our own. One where we greet people w/ "Hoi", an obvious non-english phrase that is in the USA... um... UCAS b/c of the vast intergration.

Now, when I read "fuck" in the flavor text, it reminds me of a B-budget movie that has a boob shot to make up for a lack of story. I love boob shots, and have given Playboy some money for DVD's w/ them... but in my action movie, when a girl jumps out of a cake topless on a Naval ship taken over by terrorist for no apparent reason to help the story-- it just seems like a distraction to make up for bad writing and make it more "adult". In SR's case, it reads as a blatent attempt to entice teenage buyers.


Be it known that I'm not even arguing "appropriate" or not. I don't care: I'm over 30 now, and I have no kids or parents to hide my books from, nor do I care what people give their own kids. It's not my business. I just think that this decision took away from the emersion of an alternate world-- and seems cheap

Again, as I said above all it does is to differentiate it from other games in the market. "Mature" games like WW use swear words and graphic photos. So SR uses swear words now too to show that it is "mature" and "gritty." Not at all like a fantasy game with guns and corporations.

Heartily agreed. While the beneficial side effect of drek and frag was that could I bust them out while playing at the dining room table at my parents' house in middle school without fear of reprimand, I always felt the primary focus was to make the world and the language sound like it had actually evolved over the course of 60-some years. Now the loss of it seems to bring with it an ever-so-slight decrease in the level of immersion, but that may simply be a lack of nostalgia instead. It's easy to confuse the two.


And this too.

Well, perhaps SR is going with the crowd now by swearing. But you can't say they weren't going with the crowd by not swearing when they first started, either. If that's the case, then neither their current nor their past policy on cusswords is praiseworthy, it is just normal and uninteresting. What I won't accept, however, is people saying they were right to go with the crowd back in the beginning, and wrong to do it now. I would accept, however, that they were wrong then and wrong now -- maybe if they'd stayed with the tradition, they would have distinguished themselves more. However, in order to accept that, I'd have to disregard the utter senselessness of fake swearwords in a near future world that takes place when I should still be alive. Again, transporting us to another world is a good objective for fake language to have, but drek and frag are not part of the world, there's no argument that they come from some dominant culture like "hoi" or "neh." They're watered down swearwords, not based on the game world or storyline, but based on the past prevailing idea that you couldn't swear in RPG books.

Fiction Rule of Thumb

Enough said.

I don't know... I rather enjoy Lewis Carroll's work.

And James Joyce, wow! Finnegan's Wake must be universally despised.

Read the caption (mouse-over).

QFT

However, your argument has been that it is about the censorship. I think it has much more to do with marketing. Whereas before you were more likely to lose customers due to swearing now you are differentiating your product and potentially gaining a new group. Censorship doesn't enter into it -- it is a business decision imposed by the customers and market.

IMHO SR doesn't really care too much about the young gamers anymore. Swearing in the books to me is an indication. So that leaves them catering to us crotchety old people (as you so wonderfully put us) or else players 5 years from now who graduate out of D&D. It is actually surprisingly well situated to take advantage of player migration. On one side you have D&D which is fantasy and PG. On the other side is WW which is mature and modern. Stuck in the middle is SR which is fantasy with guns and a rulesystem like WW. The only problem I can see it having is general lack of notice and the fact that its rule system doesn't do a great job of modelling its fluff (which the other two do really well).

drek is Yiddish
Frag has been a miltary slang for killing someone. Granted the "frag'n" use was pushed into pre 4e fiction probably from the obvious similarity in sound as our infamous F-bomb.

This kind of thing was used in Clockwork Orange, which I doubt anyone will argue was censored? Cal was used for shit, sod for bastard, and sodding and "in and out" both used for sex.




Then "Clockwork Orange" is a piece of shit by that rule Then Neuromancer (which pretty much made the CyberPunk genre) takes a big hit; That great novel called Dune... by rule of thumb, not so great. Thank the Ghost we were given two thumbs! (I mean "thank God", so that I'm 4E compliant).

What?? By "young games", we have to be talking about 12 to 17 years or so, as the idea of a gaming group for people under 12 is a little special. Putting swear words in a book is a GREAT way to get that age range to buy your book. The only thing better would be to add more scantly dressed women in the pictures.

The best, IMO, campaign to ever get young people to smoke cigerettes was the "Tobacco is whacko, if you are a teen". First, they got a tax break b/c they slid that in as a PSA, and not an ad (though only for a short while, as I've not seen this in years). Then to tell a teenager that it's only bad... b/c they are a teen and NOT an adult. Genius, pure genius. By Ericsn's life stages, that age range is more likely to do things that they think are geared towards adults than any other (technically, to 21 y/o, not 17).

If a fantasy game adds pictures of decapitations to their art work, I assure you it's not to capture my 30-40 y/o age group (though we also still like art of scantly dressed women... I think that's from 13 to death). It's to get the 13 to 20-somethings.

I think it is much more likely that the developers of 4e just felt they did not need to worry about outside pressures on "obscene" language and wrote as they pleased. They don't strike me as a crew that are overly concerned with such matters.

Also, you have several preconceptions in this and earlier posts that may not apply to others. For example your equation of "fantasy" with PG and and modern with mature. I don't see Shadowrun as being caught between two poles. The poles are ones you see but others may not. I don't especially regard WoD as being mature either. I used to run it when I was around 16-21. It was fun. Still would be I'm sure. But I don't equate gore and sexually explicit things with maturity. More teenagerdom, if anything. Not that it is a bad thing. But a setting that just takes them as a given and doesn't feel the need to showcase it as its central selling point seems more mature to me.

As to the stuff about SR4 not modelling its fluff well, where did that suddenly come from? SR4 does a very good job with its rules system creating a realistic feel. Increasing injuries of the condition monitor, abilities that are roughly well extrapolated from real world abilities, seems good to me. And it certainly can't be compared in this regard with D&D 4e, where any geriatric wizard who happens to be great in magic must also be able to swim great rivers and hop up and down mountains like a billy goat because of the way the level bonuses work.

Now how was I supposed to know I could do that?

Yeah - funny cartoon.

GDI! I've read almost all the back issues of xkcd after someone linked it here, and I've missed every single mouseover caption cuz I didn't know to look >.<

Sometimes language is really aggravating. I use a word like censorship, and then I have to spend three pages describing that I don't mean government censorship, and then it turns out people still didn't understand my meaning, because instead of reading all the words, they just read the one that interests them, and the overall meaning is lost because I used a loaded word. However, I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me. I called it self-censorship, based on the designers' worries that parents wouldn't let their kids/teens own books with swearwords in them. That's the same thing as a business judgment to try and sell the game to a younger crowd. In retrospect, I don't think it was a wrong judgment necessarily, because at the time there were vast numbers of RPG gamers younger than 18. However, it was still a judgment based on the game being "for the kids." The audience has changed. So shouldn't the product change as well? Maybe games are acquiring more mature themes and language because their audiences are more mature and they expect it.

I understand that mature themes and language don't automatically make a product more mature. However, what can be said of actively deleting mature language? Could that possibly make it more mature? By using an unexplained, unrealistic profanity substitute, are they proving that they're so mature they don't even need to swear? That's just silly, that's basically saying that you don't need to prove you're not childish, because of how childish you act. IMO, there's a big difference between being realistic and being gratuitous. Shadowrun uses profanity, but not on every other page. It uses it where people would probably use it. They're not throwing in F-bombs everywhere just to attract teenagers, that would be immature. They're using it in some approximation of real life, in a world where modern swear words would not have died out suddenly and completely for no reason. Instead of ducking the issue, they are confronting it head on. They don't beat us around the head and neck with profanity, they use as if we were adults, as if we could hear it without any serious reaction to it, as if it were a normal thing, as if we weren't worried that our parents would find the book and take it away. And that, I think, pretty well defines maturity.

News flash. Just because you aren't under 18 anymore doesn't mean that there aren't still vast numbers of RPG gamers younger than 18.

Also, not to devolve this into an SR vs. D&D debate but there's a reason that geriatric old wizard can still do that stuff. It's called Epic Destinies. And when your choices are things like Demigod or Archlich or Immortal it gives you a very good idea of what you are supposed to be doing at high levels. D&D has really evolved in this latest edition and if people could supress their bias against it they'd find all sorts of neat innovations there.

SR doesn't model the fluff well IMHO because it encourages a style of play that is very similar to D&D. In a vanilla game of SR you have a Hacker, a Mage, a Street Sam, and a Face. While you don't play those "classes" you have to follow a certain "build." The GM then has to go out and design a high-tech dungeon and be sure to include Karma level specific challenges for each of those builds to keep everyone interested. Vanilla also seems to involve tons of combat from what I've seen IRL and from other posters on this board.

All of this wouldn't be as big a problem for me if the ruleset was much better than what it currently is. As it is the ruleset blows and it is only the fluff that keeps this game unique at all. I LOVE the fluff.

Doi, really? Do you usually treat people over 18 like they were 5? You must think I'm a moron if you think my logical basis for saying the RPG population is more adult was my own age. I don't think it can be disputed that the RPG population is aging, just like the comic book population. Fewer and fewer kids are getting into them. That doesn't mean none. But by all means, if I'm wrong, I'd love to know the basis for it. Just don't accuse me of being an absolute retard, please.

I also can't see any reason for you to turn the previous post into an off-topic discussion of D&D, plus an obtuse and provocative broadside against SR4 as a whole, but I won't take your flame bait and get sidetracked onto either of those issues.

Well I do think you are an idiot but that's also off topic. And I do accuse you of being a retard when your first post in this thread is to call everyone who disagrees with you "crotchety" and "old." You brought up the GAMEPLAY aspects of D&D not me -- I was talking about D&D and WW in terms of market positioning. So I'm fine ending it on this note.

I'm just going to make this simple... thread locked, probably scheduled for deletion and warnings to be issued. You all can't play nice anymore, so we're taking it all away.