Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[mmadsen]

Perhaps we should clarify where everyone stands and what the arguments actually are. For instance, which of these statements does each person here agree with or disagree with?

• I like "vile" material, and I will buy "vile" material for my one campaign.
• I do not like "vile" material, and I will not buy it.
• "Vile" material should be standard in D&D.
• "Vile" material should be kept out of the core D&D books.
• "Vile" material should be kept out of popular D&D supplements and magazines.
• "Vile" material should be kept out of all D&D products.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

• I like "vile" material, and I will buy "vile" material for my one campaign.
• "Vile" material should be kept out of the core D&D books.

 

[Erebus Red]

Silent Majority

I'm writing because I DON'T have strong feelings on this issue. Does that make me the silent majority - heh!

I think Dungeon magazine is excellent value. I think the quality of the adventures is pretty good and I can convert most of them to my own campaign.

Vile Content? I honestly don't care. The first vile adventure, strange though it was, did fit into my campaign at the time and I ran it.

But I suppose my point is - when I'm planning an adventure I don't give a moments thought to whether or not it has 'vile content' or whether it's Disney material. Some adventures are more horrible than others - but I only ask myself is it a GOOD STORY and will it make GOOD ROLEPLAYING?

 

[Zappo]

Kahuna, I don't think that inserting an article or two in a magazine every odd issue or so can be considered "switching content on you". And it's not like those articles are about fishing, they are still about fantasy roleplaying even if you don't like them.

Also, I don't quite understand why an article with "vile" content which you don't like is "actively annoying", while an article with (fighter) content which a (mage) fan doesn't like isn't. I mean, the content is vile, yeah, but not so vile that it jumps at you from the pages.

 

[boschdevil]

As Kahuna Burger pointed out, vile articles are actively annoying pages. Articles about (fighters) aren't...

Unless you're a bit weird.

Besides, your "argument" is reductio ad absurdum...there seems to be a reasonable section of D&D's audience which doesn't like vile material, and comparing that to not liking something at the core of D&D like (fighters) is, well, "proving" a point which doesn't apply here, IMO.

Yep, I agree, and would only include the following: articles about (fighters) isn't likely to offend his young gamer's parents while article about Vile may. Hence, parents may not let young gamers keep subscriptions with such magazines.

To me, this hurts two-fold. First, it decreases the subsciption pool for Dungeon, which already was hurting due to that they had to combine Poly and Dungeon to keep the magazine viable.

Second, it decreases the future population of gamers that may come into this game. Gamers (or should I say former gamers) walk away from this game everyday due to a variety of reasons. Without new gamers, this gamer pool will continue to decline. To me, this is a big issue since I have found D&D is a hard game to play by yourself.

Please note that I'm not saying that I have any personal problems about Vile material and hence this is the reasoning for my actions. I just want what is in the long term best interest for the game.

 

[Endur]

• I like "vile" material, and I will buy "vile" material for my one campaign.
• "Vile" material should be kept out of core/popular D&D products.

[/B]

Keep in mind, by vile material I like about half of what has been published in the BOVD, dragon, and dungeon. The other half was "over the top" gratuitous yuck.

For instance, the Dragon "Vile" sealed section was a complete waste in my opinion. I didn't find anything interesting in there nor will I ever use any of those materials nor did I even find it to be "adult" content.

In contrast, the Living Greyhawk section on the Vault of the Drow was much more mature and wasn't sealed and is something I will actually use in the future.

In the recent George RR Martin story, some of the pseudo-pirates were using "swear" words -- it wasn't overdone, but it was appropriate to the story.

If Dragon had an article on how a GM could role-play a "Pirate" and it included manerisms and swear words, I would think that would be appropriate material.

The vile material that was in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (Demonic grafts, etc.) made perfect sense in context.

About half of the vile content in the Dungeon sealed section made sense for the story, the other half was just thrown in because the author wanted to use as much content from the BOVD as possible.

I had no objections to most of the content in BOVD, especially since the whole work was clearly labeled mature. Some of the spells were a little over the top in their graphic descriptions, and some of the black/white drawings at the beginnings of the chapters were intense.

People talk about White Wolf and the World of Darkness. But please remember that even when players play a creature of darkness (vampire, were-wolf, etc.) in White Wolf, they generally aren't playing a Chaotic Evil creature. Instead, they are playing a character who has this terrible curse and they are trying to survive and find an escape from the terrible curse. Almost like playing a D&D lycanthrope afflicted character, who knows that he will change on the nights of the full moon and begs his companions to restrain him so that he can't injure anyone.

Tom

 

[boschdevil]

[*]I have no strong desire to use "vile" material, and I will not buy it.
[*]"Vile" material should be kept out of the core D&D books.
[*]"Vile" material should be kept out of popular D&D supplements and magazines.

Please forgive me for changing the first note. I just wanted to make sure that it is conveyed that my desire not to use Vile material is not due to a hatred of the material and more due to a lack of interest of using it.

 

[shadow]

Vile Vile VILE!!!
*Heh heh heh*
Yes, rules for rape, prostitution, masturbation, necrophilia, and bestiality! Cool! *Heh heh heh*

Seriously, I can run a "mature" campaign without resorting to stupid gross out tactics.

 

[Darke]

Yeah, and please no rules about killing! We don't like killing! It's so vile to kill!

*hehe

das Darke

 

[Ukyo the undead]

As for you pro-"vile"-ers, please cease to intentionally confuse the terms "adult" or "mature" content with the idea that liking these forms of content makes you adult or mature. It's often quite the opposite.

I will second that.


I really think the Dragon Magazine should not be using vile rules or putting vile materials, even sealed, just because people underage will buy the magazine, will unseal it, use it, think they are very mature and adult because of it, and much probably that will reach his/her mother/father ears and eyes, and then we will have another anti D&D wave.

We must be responsible. D&D was really in great need of a vile book? So the the BoVD came out. Why should put more vile content in a general D&D magazine?

And I refuse to call the contents "mature", simply because this word give the BoVD an cloudy aura, that makes the criticizes about it labeled "unmature" on the spot.