[BoVD] So... did the sky fall?

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Hellbender

Those first Realms of Chaos books blow the covers off the Book of 'Vile' Darkness.

Have you ever read through the old Kult rpg books by Metropolis games? The BOVD is a kiddie book compared to those, and the WW stuff is angsty superheroes pouting and trying to act tough. The Realms of Chaos books were in places more icky than Kult, but nowhere nearly as disturbing. I played in a rather intense Kult campaign back when it came out, and it remains the most vivid and compelling roleplaying I have ever done. You know you have had a good game session when you are nervous to be alone in the dark for a few days afterwards.

When I first laid hands on the BOVD, I was pretty happy with it overall. But now that I have had some time to digest it, its really not that great or special. The spells are lackluster and rather boring, the stats for the fiends are really not that useful, and most of the prestiege classes don't have anything really compelling going for them. The only really good parts of the book were the parts on curses, sacrifices, and possession. As has been said before, for ideas and content, AEG's Evil, Mongoose's Demonology and Necromancy, and Green Ronin's Secret College and books of fiends were much better and more original.

 

[WizarDru]

Not really. Time has not a thing to do with the issue past the beginning of the 20th century. Much, much worse stuff was written and released in the 1950's.

A gaming supplement was released in the 1950s that was worse the BoVD? Really? Which one?

Time has quite a bit to do with it. Remember 'The Silver Princess'? The D&D module that was voluntarily pulled and rereleased because of a controversial (for the time) picture? Very tame compared to BoVD, which in turn is fairly tame to what has come in the interim. After games like Kult, Hol, Vampire and a host of others have appeared in the interim with much more graphic material, BoVD just doesn't seem that shocking.

Moreover, I was specifically referring to the anti-D&D craze of the early 80s, which was the inevitable backlash to a short-term popular craze. Of course much more graphic material has been released in the past. That's a straw man; much more graphic material has been released for centuries. The difference here is were discussing a specific game supplement, and how so many decried it as a danger and a threat to our hobby. A few months ago, we heard nervous voices nay-saying an unseen book, and demonizing WOTC for even thinking of producing it. Now, a short time later, we see people criticizing it for not being what they were afraid of. It just seems silly, is all.

 

[Olive]

well... Sigil, i disagree. lots of people have liked it. of 5 reviews on the reviews section of ENWorld, you gave it a 1 and four people gave it a 4.

and now people are complaining that it isn't vile enough! well, its not, but i don't think that monte ever said it would be. its not suppossed to be like that white wolf imprint, or KULT or FATAL or whatever.

and while i agree that the dules in mongooses demonology were more innovative they were also totally unbalanced, even by the admission of its own author.

so, and evil got panned roundly.

i think the BoVD generally approaches its subject in a simple usable manner, keeping with the rules of the current game (i' pretty sure that there is no vile cold damage for example, i think that vile damage is extra on top, and a new type of damage...). and so its not exciting or odd, it is solid and necessary...

 

[Polyhex]

I am delurking for this.

Like some people, I find the BoVD's content bland and somewhat weak. I do not think it is particularly offensive or particularly inspiring. I would not have purchased it if I were not running a campaign that deals intimately with the Archdevils and Demon Princes. Any 12 year old can read far darker, more graphic, and morally challenging material by picking up a Stephen King novel. I am not against the idea of mature content in RPGs. I am an adult, and I prefer to be treated like one. However, there is an important effect that the BoVD has had on the way I think of D&D.

I would not run a D&D campaign for a minor, and I would strongly caution any adult considering it. Not because I would EVER include inappropriate content for a young person, and not because I in any way think roleplaying is unsuitable for adolescents or even children. I would not run a D&D campaign for a minor out of fear of criminal liability. There is a frightening hysteria attached to accusations of crimes against children that becomes its own evidence. (Real crimes against children and young people are of course, the most selfish, despicable acts that a person can commit. I am talking about people falsely accused.)

Consider the run of (mostly later overturned) convictions in the 80's (US) against people, particularly workers in the child care industry, accused of using children in Satan-worshipping cults and orgies. In many cases, the evidence against these people consisted of A) leading children to make accusations they initially denied through repeated interviews by corrupt psychologists. (Keep reprashing the same questions over and over again until you get a "yes."), and B) testimony from occult "experts" (read: quacks).

I can see the BoVD in the hands of an occult expert in the witness stand so clearly I can read the print on the cover.

To clarify, I DON'T see the BoVD elliciting anything more exciting than a yawn from the media or the religious right. I find the material very mild, and I won't be alone. They have much bigger fish to fry. But if a DM somewhere is ever accused of crimes against a minor, I fear that the BoVD will be something that the prosecution trots out. Yes, there has already been much darker content published for d20. Remember also that people are stupid, and the BoVD is clearly labelled "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. If this ever happens, I don't think that the answer, "But I don't use that in my campaign," is going to cut it. Do you use demons in your campaign? Has the party ever fought a demon? Forget that, do you use *villains* in your campaign? Thinking of this from the perspective of the lowest common denominator, and a complete unfamiliarity with RPGs, a "yes," to any of those questions could be used to link the accused to the BoVD. And hence back to Satan worshipping cults and orgies. Hey, the 80's are in again, right?

You can take this with a grain of salt. I am naturally paranoid and I also would never run a daycare center for similar reasons. My husband is finishing his degree in criminal justice with an eye on law school, so I am often treated to stories about gross miscarriage of justice. I don't object to the BoVD and I would actually PREFER more d20 mature content available. But I am also not planning on allowing a minor in my campaigns.

 

[hellbender]

A gaming supplement was released in the 1950s that was worse the BoVD? Really? Which one?

If only William Burroughs or Kerouac had written DnD back in their day.
I meant that harder books have hit the stands, times do not change for the more lenient, quite the opposite. The '80's were gravy compared to nowadays where a concerned parent, watchdog or some other person deathly concerned about what everyone else does seems to lurk around most any corner. I think Polyhex made a much moe eloquent point and I agree totally with that point of view. Most people are idiotic sheep, and a herd can be wrangled up with very little provocation. I am not saying that as rpgers any of us are smarter than the general populace, just that we understand that we are just playing a game and killing time in an enjoyable way. Realistically, this is mainly a US problem anyway, as people in many other countries have no problems with rpgs and see them as much more harmless than your average American non-gamer.

hellbender

 

[Michael Tree]

I'd say the only dire prediction that has come true is Tracy Hickman's. The "mature" sticker on the front is a misnomer. There is very little that is mature about this book. "Book of Puerile Darkness" would be a more accurate title in many ways.

BoVD isn't about evil, it's about eeeeeviiiiiil. It's Disney villian evil, with blood and guts and drugs added on.

Some of the artwork is very well done, and most of the mechanics seem fairly sound (if dull), but more than anything the evil in the book is the sort of stuff I would have though was cool when I was 13, not the sort of evil that is interesting now.

 

[Vaxalon]

Except in Brazil, where there was a serious movement to make RPGs ILLEGAL.

Yes, ILLEGAL.

Not "pressure the bookstores to take them off the shelves" not "grab your kids books and burn them in the streets" but PASS LAWS TO MAKE ROLEPLAYING GAMES ILLEGAL.

Except in Greece, where orthodox priests tried to make ALL computer games ILLEGAL.

Not "pressure the stores to take them off the shelves" not "grab your kids games and burn them in the street" but PASS LAWS TO MAKE COMPUTER GAMES ILLEGAL.

No, my friend, here in the states we have it easy.

We have constitutional protections against that kind of idiocy, constitutional amendments for which even judges in the pockets of the Christian right have a certain small amount of respect.

Around the world, freedom of the press is quite rare.

 

[Michael Tree]

To clarify, I DON'T see the BoVD elliciting anything more exciting than a yawn from the media or the religious right. I find the material very mild, and I won't be alone. They have much bigger fish to fry. But if a DM somewhere is ever accused of crimes against a minor, I fear that the BoVD will be something that the prosecution trots out.

I think you've hit the nail on the head right here.

The religious right hasn't made a furor about BoVD because a) they probably don't k now it exists, b) even it they did RPGs are such a tiny niche hobby that it's not worth their while to make a stink, and c) it's fairly mild compared to many video games, movies, and other works of fiction anyway.

However, if some D&D player kills someone, commits some other violent or sensationalistic crime, or kills themselves, I would not be at all surprised if the BoVD was trotted out by the media.

 

[WizarDru]

You can take this with a grain of salt. I am naturally paranoid and I also would never run a daycare center for similar reasons. My husband is finishing his degree in criminal justice with an eye on law school, so I am often treated to stories about gross miscarriage of justice. I don't object to the BoVD and I would actually PREFER more d20 mature content available. But I am also not planning on allowing a minor in my campaigns.

It's a reasonable attitude to take, even if I don't tend to agree entirely with it. As a father of two, I already know my children are both interested in 'the dice game', as my daughter calls it. When they're old enough to play such a game, it will more likely be 'Once Upon a Time...' first, then perhaps a very light, mostly non-violent variant therein. I let my daughter watch 'The Princess Bride', and I'll show her 'The Hobbit' soon. Some sections need to be sped past, but you get the idea.

D&D by it's very nature requires a certain degree of maturity to play, and the content has always been, at a visceral level: kill the monsters, take their loot. Sure, there's much more to it than that, and yes, that's hardly the only way to play...but boiled down to a one sentence summary, that's the general idea. Any game based around the voilent dispatch of other beings is certainly not a game for the under-10 crowd, strictly speaking. But children play pretend, and my son likes to run around with a sword and shield, pretending to fight a dragon ala Shrek. Kept at the right level, such content is relatively benign.

But the same kind of insulation that you need to perform for any activity exists for D&D. When watching football, I need to either mute certain commercials, or make sure my children understand the reality of a situation isn't reflected therein. Certain TV shows simply can't be watched while the children are about. If you run a D&D game with a mixed group of minors and adults, you'd best be sure that the minors parents (if that's not you) are 100% on the same page about the game. But make no mistake: as a 13-year old, I was revelling in the violent slaughter of beasties, and I didn't need Mr. Gygax's help for that. Ask any number of ants who suffered under magnifying glasses or plastic army men who suffered numerous flaming deaths.

 

[WizarDru]

I meant that harder books have hit the stands, times do not change for the more lenient, quite the opposite. The '80's were gravy compared to nowadays where a concerned parent, watchdog or some other person deathly concerned about what everyone else does seems to lurk around most any corner.

Actually, if history has shown us anything, it's that societies generally start as more restrictive and gradually migrate towards more lenient as time passes. This often can lead to a massive backlash, effectively resetting the clock, but it usually doesn't go back as far...two steps backward, one forward, as it were. There are exceptions, of course, but as a general rule, this holds.

Others have already pointed out that the US has it pretty good concerning the public's general attitude towards RPGs, and they didn't mention the occasional harrasment in some other countries that have been reported here, such as France and Germany. So enough about that.

As for the 1980s, I don't think you lived through the same decade that I did, apparently. You don't remember the book burnings, the album and comic book labelings, game and comic shop store owner arrests (often vindicated...after their businesses were bankrupted), claims of RPGs being associated with cults and a host of other events that I seem to recall. Those people you so blithely call 'sheep' haven't changed much in the last two decades. Many are concerned at a game who's primary means of success is found through the violent defeat (usually killing) of other beings. Some people find that patently offensive, and aren't much concerned with a game's quality or relative merits, and frankly always will.

The difference is that in 1980, we get 'Mazes and Monsters', a film that portrays role-players are social misfits and schizophrenics, while in 2000, we get 'Dungeons and Dragons', a film that portrays role-players as enjoying really bad movies. Luckily LOTR came along when it did.

Those people who find D&D offensive will continue to do so. The trick is that most of the fence-sitters, who read the news blurbs about D&D, no longer regard the game as a danger to their children. This is helped by the fact that most of the 'old guard' of D&D now have kids of their own. D&D has, for all itents and purposes, gone mainstream. In the world of 'Postal', 'Grand Theft Auto' and 'BMX XXX', D&D just isn't in the running for being shocking, any longer.