Thanks, I did miss it. Some excerpts that I consider pertinant to my point:
"Well, that story is that after I was finished with the book and turned it over, I was called into the WotC offices because there were people there who believed that the book wasn’t “vile” enough. They wanted to “vile it up.” That’s the very definition of gratuitous, I explained. It was a definite battle, but one that I won. The book remained free of any additions created simply to make the book more disturbing."
What does that sound like to you? Maturity on WotC's part?
Monte says:
"yet still I think it addresses at least one topic that probably no one should encounter while casually flipping through the pages of Dragon."
Merely that you should encounter it is not so bad. What I find objectionable is:
"The article offers four types of gaming. None of these approaches is characterized as being better than any other..."
That's Monte's enherent PC talking. I'm not even sure he believes it, but he does apparantly believe that it is the right thing to say. The 'enlightened' and tolerant position, if you will. Later on he lets his real opinion slip, and I wish that he'd said this in the article if he didn't, because sometimes I get so sick of 'tolerence' I want to puke.
"The “vile” game, is, in my personal estimation, a description of taking the game a bit too far..."
"...To these players [those that play the "vile" game], the Book of Vile Darkness will probably be too tame."
Let's hope so.
Like I said, it's not Monte's as yet unseen content that I'm opposed to (though not being opposed to is not the same as wanting it), its this whole charade. None of the other game companies say fit to label their 'Evil' products 'Mature'. Of course, once I see Monte's content, I may have more to say about it. (I'm sure you are all thrilled.
)
