Sealed Pages in Dragon--Contents inside!

[Tsyr]

This isn't White Wolf or some other fringe company, this is DnD.

I would suggest that White Wolf has long-since left the realm of "fringe company". White Wolf is a major company. I know a lot of stores that only carry stuff from two companies... WotC, and White Wolf. I know of one store that carries WW but no WotC stuff. WW has had TV series and novels based off it's works too; that's something that can really only be said for DnD (Well, ok, it was a sucky movie and an animated TV show, but still...) and WW... I think a couple other companies might have had a handful of novels, but none as many as WW or WotC/TSR.

Actualy, slightly off topic, but I think the "Kindred: The Embraced" TV series was FAR better than either the DnD movie or the DnD cartoon. Sure, they got a few details wrong, but it WORKED. That's not something I can really say for either DnD product.

 

[Benben]

RE: White Wolf being a minor company

In addition, at the nadir of TSR, I believe White Wolf was making more money or was at least a sizable rival.

 

[Nathanael]

Xarlen, as much as you would trivialize the opinions of others, these are legitimate concerns. As I've said, not all gamers find this material harmless... or are a member of B.A.D.D, although I checked and saw that Monte Cook is. Which could explain why you lot loudly decry opinions against this material.

And by linking anyone with any kind of unease with this material to a bunch of zealots who find even dancing to be a sin, you are painting with a very liberal brush and being very insulting. I am a gamer, and I find this material offensive, and by belittling me and others like me by labeling us in such a way as to put us outside, you invalidate your own argument. Hell, on one board, your group were so unable to accept the fact that some gamers could hold the opinion that this material was offensive, you even labelled me a troll! And the Subject was even called 'What are your opinions about the BoVD!'

Gamers are not the moral barometer for America, to be sure, but the community itself is now older. A lot of us have families and more moderate leanings when it comes to our gaming material. Does this invalidate our opinions? I think not. I said that I believe the idea of sex with a corpse and spell rape is disgusting and unecessary for D&D and doesn't need to be advertised in a mainstream gaming magazine. You say it's no more offensive than spitting on the sidewalk. Where exactly do you draw the line, I wonder?

 

[Wicht]

Re: Yeah

(Taken care of it. - Darkness)

(Note: BTW, you might want to consider using the "report this post to a moderator" function instead of merely quoting an offensive post and about it.
- Darkness)

 

[the Jester]

You are right. A wall of G.W.Bs might indeed be funny to behold

How about a wall of Bushes in general?

We could have W, Jeb, George Sr, the twins, Barbara, etc, all in a squirming mass, blocking the hallway and forcing the monsters to pause to deal with it while our party escaped the dungeon.

Or better yet, a Wall of Politicians spell? Could that be in the BoVD?? "Politicians are DEFINITELY a subject we should cover in a supplement, but the Book of Politicians just doesn't sound right. What supplement are we already working on that they'd fit in?"

No offense intended to anyone or any political affiliation here, tongue firmly lodged so far in my cheek it's poking out... After all, who am I?

 

[barsoomcore]

As I've said, not all gamers find this material harmless... or are a member of B.A.D.D, although I checked and saw that Monte Cook is. Which could explain why you lot loudly decry opinions against this material.

1. I am not a member of B.A.D.D. (I don't like any sort of dragons, disposable or otherwise) -- in an earlier post it seemed you thought I was and I didn't really get why. Not that I find the notion all unpleasant or anything, but just for the record.
2. Doesn't B.A.D.D. stand for Bothered About Disposable Dragons -- that is, wanting dragons to be something more than just targets for PCs? I'm curious as to how that explains why they decry opinions against this material. Or are we assuming that B.A.D.D. members are all MC boosters?

Anyway, I doubt you'll find much sympathy for your views in a thread on the contents of the "Darkness" sealed pages. Most of the people posting here are going to be those interested in such things. But look on the bright side: if the countryside does rise up in fury and burns WotC's offices to the ground, at least you'll get to say "I told you so."

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Or better yet, a Wall of Politicians spell?

Ugh, please no, I would lose an adventure to the pc's hacking it to pieces.

FD

 

[Xarlen]

Xarlen, as much as you would trivialize the opinions of others, these are legitimate concerns. As I've said, not all gamers find this material harmless... or are a member of B.A.D.D, although I checked and saw that Monte Cook is. Which could explain why you lot loudly decry opinions against this material.

Monte Cook is What? A gamer? One that finds this Harmless? One that doesn't?

And as it's been pointed out Time and Time again, this isn't going to happen. I'll tell you what. BoVD comes out in a month. If it causes *any* uproar, I will write a seething review about it, and how evil it is, and then I'll eat the title page.

And by linking anyone with any kind of unease with this material to a bunch of zealots who find even dancing to be a sin, you are painting with a very liberal brush and being very insulting.

And you are painting with every bright paint and black list about how wrong it 'Could' be and 'Might' do this, and Overreacting.

Hell, on one board, your group were so unable to accept the fact that some gamers could hold the opinion that this material was offensive, you even labelled me a troll!

I am not a spokesman for B.A.D.D. I am not a mascot. I am not the entire group presonified as one. I am Me. And I Did not call you a troll. You got a problem with me? Fine. But if you have a problem with someone whom shares my same afiliation, Take it up with them.

Or are you lumping me with some other people, and invalidating your arguement?

And the Subject was even called 'What are your opinions about the BoVD!'

Not this thread. You jumped on the panic wagon.

And, wern't you the same guy who was complaining that the MM has naughty bits on their creatures?

Gamers are not the moral barometer for America, to be sure, but the community itself is now older. A lot of us have families and more moderate leanings when it comes to our gaming material. Does this invalidate our opinions? I think not. I said that I believe the idea of sex with a corpse and spell rape is disgusting and unecessary for D&D and doesn't need to be advertised in a mainstream gaming magazine. You say it's no more offensive than spitting on the sidewalk. Where exactly do you draw the line, I wonder? [/B]

I said no such thing. Where did I say it was or was not offensive? You're assuming I'm thinking this, or not. And, I draw the line differently then you.

No, it doesn't invalidate your opinon. Your opinon is weighted every time you decide not to purchase an item, not to turn on a television program, and not to let anyone play with the material therein said book.

A gaming magazine that is rated Above 18, for this issue. A magazine with a sealed part, that Tells parents not to get this. A sealed part that has a warning label. The magazine isn't selling to Kendergardeners, and waving it in their face.

 

[the Jester]

'Mature content' in my campaigns

Just to throw out something else here, I thought people might be interested in some 'mature content' type of stuff that has been in my campaigns at various point.

I have a god of rape, perversion, necrophilia and cowardice.

Said god was once a pc, waaaay back in the 1e days. He played up the sick and twisted stuff IN A VERY FUNNY WAY.

There were several subsequent pcs over the years who played priests of Froth (the god) and many of them developed unique Frothian spells. Everything from Froth's golden showers (acid damage, but you have to expose yourself) to Sticks to Phalli.

There was a pc priest of Juiblex (also in the days of 1e) who was a cannibal, who betrayed and killed the entire party and ate them.

More recently, in an orcish game I ran, there were several instances of unconscious pcs being raped, which led to the formation of the "Don't Touch Me In My No-No Place" club in the party.

All in good fun, all very funny.

Now, I know such topics aren't funny in real life, but neither are assassination, poison, killng animal or murder. Neither is killing babies. These things happen all the time in dnd, even if the babies are baby goblins and orcs. Even if the murders involve raiding bandit camps at night. Even if the animal killing involves wolves or sharks. Not funny in real life. Nope. Not FUN in rl, either.

But in dnd, all these things can be- and, if they're in a game at all, SHOULD BE- fun. Maybe funny, too.

Because that's what it's all about: FUN.

If these things aren't fun for you, don't use them. Don't buy the new Dragon, or the BoVD. But if they are, hey, more power to ya.

As to whether this will cause a great public outcry: I'm with the crowd of sincerely doubters. Because there's Vampire to complain about, which, contrary to what somebody posted above, is published by something that's FAR from a fringe company. I don't think there's been much of an outcry against V:tM, even though "those crazy kids" are dressing up and acting like vampires in the streets.

Heck, I'd say the public is much more aware of rpgs than they were in the anti-dnd days of the 80's; I was there. I remember those days. And they kinda sucked for the hobby. But I liken it to the anti-videogaming movement.

All these fun things, corrupting the youth of Athens.

I really don't think there's gonna be an outcry to speak of, because there already would be (over WoD stuff) if there was gonna be. After all, the LARPers take it much further than dnd ever has, with their dressing up and going into (semi) public places to play.

Sure, some people will point the finger and scream "EVIL" but those folks are _already doing it_ and nobody cares. Jack Chick is still around, folks- and he's a joke.

Maybe I'm wrong; I hope not. I certainly don't think whatever outcry there may be will be enough to outlaw our hobby or anything ridiculous like that, though.

Okay, I'm done.

 

[Grazzt]

Just my 2-cents....

The article in question was not really a preview of the BoVD (maybe a little, but not really), but something to run along with it.

Now what if the BoVD isn't as evil or as vile as peeps seem to think it is? I mean, the article in question is pretty tame (definitely not as evil or vile as peeps were speculating it would be). Maybe the book isnt as vile or evil as peeps think its gonna be either. I mean, you can be vile and evil without stooping to "shock tactics". The article (maggots.....evil or just gross?) seems to border on "grossness" rather than vileness/evilness.

So, perhaps the article has nothing really to do with the book. Perhaps the book is a lot tamer than many think it will be; mature rating or no mature rating; which lends itself to another question- who is putting the label on the book? WotC? Or some outside ratings committee...

Just my opinion, but I dont believe the book will be as vile and evil as people think it will be.