Fantasy Sex Roleplaying Game Releases October 2003

[Zeddan]

She and Margaret Weis should be convicted for crimes against sword and sorcery.

She = He

Common Error

 

[bwgwl]

wow.

i'd have to say i'm really surprised by the tenor of this thread and the reaction to this upcoming product.

a lot of people who are absolutely blasting this book are many of the same people i've seen before supporting the Book of Vile Darkness.

so... demon worship, human sacrifice, and torture are OK and good to include in one's games, but consensual sex and eroticism are not?

most of the negative comments i've read on this thread about this book are pretty much exactly the same things i was thinking to myself when the BoVD got published.

what kind of messed up world are we living in where violence is acceptable and sexuality is not?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Yeah, good one mate, keep blowing that hot air. Pretend that Dragonlance did nothing for the development of D&D. Pretend that Ravenloft did nothing, Desert of Desolation did nothing, Rahasia did nothing.

Again, this, like Valar's upcoming book, is a matter of taste. Adventure wise, I found Desert of Desolation to be excellent. The rest of their adventures came across as tasteless and far too easy to solve. Their Dragonlance books seemed over-simplified and childish when I first read them at the age of 13. While I certainly admit that elements of their work is decent (I own Sovereign Stone, after all), overall it's uninspiring to me, often full of watered-down themes with the elements I'm most interested in shoved into the background, out-staged by the melodramatic angst of their characters.

So, indeed, you are right, they did contribute to the development of D&D. However, I'd say we disagree as to whether that contribution was for good or for ill.

D&D has it's roots in pulp swords & sorcery fantasy, but I don't associate it with Gor-like themes, and when it's atmosphere is attached to such bollocks, there's no way back. It's a one-way street.

But is it being attached? First, it's a 3rd Party product, so none of the advertising or content can even mention D&D. Second, it doesn't seem to be a d20 product, so there's nothing to outwardly associate it to D&D or even AU for that matter.

As such, it's strictly just an RPG, and even if it was designed with an entirely different game engine it would still be associated to RPGs as a whole.

 

[Felon]

No, that's not what I mean, and you know it. I don't think I have to elaborate, given the theme of the product that this thread is all about. Have a bit of a think about what I might mean given that context.

Lemme see, some people don't like the premise of the product so without even knowing about the actual content folks are willing to go ahead with flaming the designers of such products and calling them "parasites".

He.

Sorry, like Zeddan said, common mistake...especially after reading his Y-chromosone-deficient work. You absolutely sure?

Yeah, good one mate, keep blowing that hot air. Pretend that Dragonlance did nothing for the development of D&D.

I didn't say they did nothing. They DID do something: they gelded fantasy and "developed" it into something more Happy-Meal-friendly.

D&D has it's roots in pulp swords & sorcery fantasy, but I don't associate it with Gor-like themes, and when it's atmosphere is attached to such bollocks, there's no way back. It's a one-way street.

What do you base that on? Why just a few days ago, people were bemoaning a lurid cover from a Mind Flayer book, and how such artwork was undoing years of effort spent watering-down fantasy into something bland and inoffensive.

It's not mature content, it's about nekkid elves. It's lame content.

More accurately, it's content you aren't really all that informed about at this stage.

 

[mkarol]

what kind of messed up world are we living in where violence is acceptable and sexuality is not?

That seems consistant with the U.S. sense of (im)morality. Maybe when the Europeans wake up in a few hours they will comment the other way.

 

[Angcuru]

That seems consistant with the U.S. sense of (im)morality. Maybe when the Europeans wake up in a few hours they will comment the other way.

Wellll..... that's only the 'moral' minority that actually bothers to speak up. Y'know, Women's Christian Temperance Union, ect. If you were to ask the other 95% of us in the US, we like the sex and as for violence...it's entertainment as long as it's fake. If things keep heading in the direction they are nowadays, eventually all the movies coming out of Hollywood will consist of buck-naked supermodels riding down the highway on Harleys humping and spraying hot metal into crowds of children simultaneously. So....how are things in Europe?

 

[Olive]

This product is obviously a case for tightening-up the Open Gaming License. Clearly, this sort of thing was neither foreseen nor intended by WOTC.

I pretty sure that a) they can't and b) if it's open, then it's open. WotC propably wouldn't have wanted Afganistan d20 either, but it happened.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Oh, dear god, this is really funny.

No it's not.

 

[Piratecat]

Angcuru, a gentle reminder: please don't hijack with political themes. This isn't a conversation about American vs European morality.

 

[rounser]

Lemme see, some people don't like the premise of the product so without even knowing about the actual content folks are willing to go ahead with flaming the designers of such products and calling them "parasites".

You don't need to know the content to criticise a theme, and that theme is made pretty clear by the press release.

This theme adds nothing constructive to D&D, IMO, and is actually destructive to the atmosphere of the game and it's reputation. That behaviour could be called parasitic - you're weakening something communal for personal benefit. You don't see it that way, that's fine - it's just my observation, and one that I only support tenuously.

Sorry, like Zeddan said, common mistake...especially after reading his Y-chromosone-deficient work. You absolutely sure?

More hot air.

I didn't say they did nothing. They DID do something: they gelded fantasy and "developed" it into something more Happy-Meal-friendly.

More ignorance.

What do you base that on? Why just a few days ago, people were bemoaning a lurid cover from a Mind Flayer book, and how such artwork was undoing years of effort spent watering-down fantasy into something bland and inoffensive.

Swords and sorcery fantasy without these themes is bland?

More accurately, it's content you aren't really all that informed about at this stage.

I know it's theme, though, and I can criticise it on that level.

(Note on where I stand wrt vile etc.: I wasn't one of those who railed against the BoVD. I did later rail against some of the content in Porphyry House Horror, and that's a different kettle of fish, IMO.)