Book of Vile Darkness

[jester47]

I really think that BoVD is more of a marketing gimmick more than anything. WotC is looking to increase D&D sales by attracting players of certain games (*cough* White Wolf *cough*) who prefer dark and more "mature" gamers. One of the things that has always turned a lot of the aforementioned players off to D&D was the reputation that D&D was a "kiddie" game, or a "hack n' slash" game. BoVD is Wizard's way of attracting those players to D&D.
With that said, I would really like to know if such a book is really necessary? Although cultists sacrifing people, demonic pacts, and selling one's soul have been in many a D&D campaign, are specific rules really needed for them?

<snippage>

I think you are right about it being a marketing gimmick, but just a little bit. WotC knows who playes their game and in reality I think it is a pretty mature bunch. I would even go as far to say that the White Wolf crowd is actually more inmature simply because they want to be more mature in thier game. That is, it takes maturity to be ok with somthing not being really cool all the time. But I think the BoVD is a resource that we have been doing without for a long time. The rules are not needed just as rules for breaking items in the game are not really needed. But they are nice to have around.

I once ran an encounte where some tharizdun cultists had armor that if you wore it it had the ability to corrupt. The mechanic I came up with was half baked and really did not work too well. And it was the party's paladin that was using it! I would have loved to have rules for magic items that corrupt at that time. It would have been great and saved me some time and bad design experience. I hope such rules are in the BoVD.

Aaron.

 

[sword-dancer]

El Ravager Says:



Monte Says:

Well, the book handles horrible things ranging from torture to drug addiction. Sadism, self-mutilation, and selling one's soul. Sacrifice and disease. Spells so awful that they corrupt you when you cast them--in body and/or soul.

Some of these topics (and more that I haven't even mentioned) are "mature audiences" material. You'll find frank discussions of the evil that men (and women) do. This isn't there to encourage such things, even as player characters, but so that it can be used for villains. There is a section on playing evil characters, but that's not the main focus of the book.



Aaron.

Could I say Rifts?

 

[Furn_Darkside]

nevermind..

 

[sword-dancer]

Were you one of those who said that? That's like people telling me I was sick because I read a lot of Steven King and other horror authors. Idiots. To say that writing of the macabre is "unhealthy" reveals one as a moron.

You are sick if you cold stand to read stephen king books.
This is an horrible and boring writer.




















Or had I experienced even worser translation than d&d novels?

 

[Furn_Darkside]

You are sick if you cold stand to read stephen king books.
This is an horrible and boring writer.

So horrible and boring that he has sold many many books.

Err.. right.

FD

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You are sick if you cold stand to read stephen king books.
This is an horrible and boring writer.

Or had I experienced even worser translation than d&d novels?

Probably. I don't like King much, but he's not that bad a writer. You probably read a horrible and boring translator.

 

[Al]

Wouldn't those be football mums over there Al?

Aaron.

Quite so: hence 'so-called' 'soccer mums'

 

[Zappo]

You are sick if you cold stand to read stephen king books.
This is an horrible and boring writer.

I don't like him too, but considering the sheer number of copies he sells, I think you can't say he's bad.

 

[Darkness]

I don't like him too, but considering the sheer number of copies he sells, I think you can't say he's bad.

My opinion of him is pretty neutral; I haven't read his any books so far, but I might read one that interests me some day.

Still, sales numbers are not a good measurement of objective quality.

 

[Gargoyle]

My opinion of him is pretty neutral; I haven't read his any books so far, but I might read one that interests me some day.

Still, sales numbers are not a good measurement of objective quality.

What would be? A critic's review? Quality of a work of fiction is subjective, not objective.

I guess I agree with your sentiment, but sales numbers are a good measurement of perceived quality for the market that is buying.

Edit: Clarified what I meant a little...