BoVD Thoughts

[hellbender]

The difference? The WotC hype machine. A label that says "mature audiences." (Frankly, there should have been one on Hellbound. There's nothing in Book of Vile Darkness that is worse than the stuff in Hellbound.)

My whole point was, there wasn't a public furor over Hellbound, etc. and there won't be one over BoVD. If there is any hubbub, it is among gamers and game professionals and it was artificially created, by WotC's own marketing.

I urge us all, whether talking about the BoVD or something else, to judge things for their own content, and not by the marketing spin.

I would say the article in the current Dragon, which you wrote, regarding evil, mentioning rape and torture really didn't do much for my ideas on the book. However, as I said, I look forward to other publications by you, one less purchase isn't the end of the world.

For the record, I am not posting more on this subject, the lines are drawn, and people will stand where they will on the issue, there is absolutely no point in getting either side to budge.

hellbender


hellbender

 

[Omega Lord]

Dear god the irony!

LOL (not in response to any post)

I find it amusing to no end that this is the first thread i have started to get more than 50 posts when all of my other threads that actually had game related issues got a handfull of posts at best.

For the record my initial post was not made with the intent to change opinions or offend anyone, it was just to state my thoughts and feelings on this horrendously controversial issue. I, for one, am surprised that this thread hasnt degraded into a flame war (well not quite).

I think the only way I could have gotten a larger response would have been to start a debate on abortion, religion, or something akin to that.

Irony is a wonderful thing is it not?

 

[The Traveler]

Re: Dear god the irony!

I think the only way I could have gotten a larger response would have been to start a debate on abortion, religion, or something akin to that.

Naw, you'd get a much smaller thread, because a mod would shut it down in less than ten posts. Such things are verboten here, and better taken someplace like Nutkinland.

 

[Zappo]

As someone who cowrote something called Hellbound, who watched as Faces of Evil and a Guide to Hell was published, who looks on his shelf by his computer to see Lords of Darkness, and Legions of Hell, and knows that in another room in the house there's a shelf with a book called Denizens of Darkness and other just simply called "Evil," I don't think the name is really risking much.

Monte, please, if you ever decide to leave this valley of tears, get rid of that beforehand, OK?

Jokes apart, if the BoVD is of Hellbound's caliber, then we have nothing to worry about. I've read Hellbound and played through its adventures and there's nothing that could be offensive (well, my players hated the realization of having been manipulated by the Yugoloth all along in Squaring the Circle, and still hate Yugoloths to this date for that).

 

[Blood Jester]

I've stayed completely out of these arguments (other than reading them) but just a note...

Not too long ago we had some very heated debates on theses very boards over what a 'disservice' S&SS had done to the hobby by getting ready to release a book called Relics & Rituals (cue screaming). Ironic isn't it?

 

[Buttercup]

I urge us all, whether talking about the BoVD or something else, to judge things for their own content, and not by the marketing spin.

Originally posted by Furn Darkside
FD- still waiting to see.

Darn rational people! Who do they think they are?

 

[Psion]

Monte at home wrote:
Which was, in fact, the whole point of the article that I wrote which seems to have stirred so many people up.

I thought your article was mature and responsible. In fact, the whole article was about being sensitive to the desires and sensibilities of your audience. A lesson that the editor could have taken to heart.

Let me ask you this, if I may: is there anything in BoVD as tacky as Corpsebond or Searing Seed? Your earlier statements led me to beleive that there would not be... but the mere fact that the Dragon article hyping the book is so tacky gives me reason to worry.

 

[RobNJ]

Re: Re: BoVD Thoughts

One thing that bothers me, and strikes me as one of the main thrusts of those who like the BoVD, is the concept that one has to be "icky" to be evil, and that those that don't address these comments are somehow selling themselves or their players short with the "fluffy bunny version" of D&D.

And, interestingly enough, I am piping up because of all of the, "People who like this sort of game are Beavis & Butthead or, worse, budding sociopathic terrorists,"-sentiment-laden posts. Like I said, I wouldn't enjoy very much a game where evil and good are completely and undeniably clear and all the violence was antiseptic. Not only because it's not interesting, but antiseptic violence, to me, is irresponsible as it ignores the ugliness of violence and its implications. That is not to say I'm right, or that people who do games like this are trying to breed the next wave of Fascist supervillains, but it's a moral problem that I perceive and can't settle within myself.

 

[RobNJ]

In my experience, books with a "mature" label often either don't merit it, or try too hard to be "mature" and just end up being senselessly gross. Take White Wolf's "Black Dog" books for example. Most just get the "mature" label as a CYA measure, and the rest are just splatterpunk. Very rarely do you get a book in which the disturbing content actually furthers the drama. I'd certainly cite White Wolf's "The Shoah" and "Dark Reflections", both Black Dog.

This is kind of frustrating to me. A mature label doesn't mean that the creators think that it's a cut above, intellectually or philosphically. It merely means that it's not fit for all audiences. Of course, labeling something, "Not fit for all audiences," isn't quite as sexy as labeling it, "mature," (not to mention there're too many words) and, "adult," has been co-opted by porno.

And let's be clear, you don't like splatterpunk, that doesn't mean it's inferior or that people who might enjoy certain such elements in their games are.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know, I think we've kinda talked this one to death. If talking this serves any purpose other than to give the people producing the works some sense of the breadth of opinions out there, I think we've served the purpose. Is there anything I could say that hasn't been said before?

I don't know, but I'm going to say it anyway.

"I agree with Eric here. The stuff in there, with the exception of perhaps one spell (Corpsebond) really didn't warrant a sealed section or even a "Mature Content" notice. Most of the "vileness" wasn't really that vile. It was more "shock" and "gross" and seemed to be handled rather immaturely (IMO)."

Exactly.

More than anything, I think what seems to be offending people is not the content but the way the content seems to be being served up. Alot of the content is just straight forward core type material that D&D and Dragon handles every year (particularly in October). Nothing that needs alot of hype. Nothing that unusual. The majority of it just seems to be oriented a little more toward the gooey and squimish than they'd normally go too, and frankly I've never thought gooey things in and of themselves to be 'mature', 'adult', 'evil', or requiring any other special labeling. Maybe it is because I'm married to an Entomologist, but maggots are just another monster theme to me - no more or less evil than a wolf or serpant. Big deal.

So alot of what disconcerts me is this (I don't know what to call it but lets call it pandering) pandering that is being done to hype the book up to an audience of fairly young people. I mean, labeling the book 'mature', is like labeling it candy. I'd put a side bet on Dragon experiencing the highest rate of shop lifting this month it ever experienced. For the most part this is all harmless, and will be defended as such quite rightly.

So why spend the 5% of the book on things that probably should not be part of a light hearted entertainment format that sets (happily I should add) in the childrens rack of many public libraries? The problem is in many ways simply confusing what is and isn't crossing the line. IF you are going to publish a book that crosses the line, as say Corpsebond does, then you have several responsibilities I think.

One of them is to make sure that you don't mix your sugar and your pollution. Unless you really intend to take them seriously, by say offering tips on how to perform an actual Satanic service in your parlor, why include things like the Arch-Fiends in a book in which you are crossing the line into territory that D&D does not usually stray. And if the book isn't largely different from 'core' D&D why bother with the 5% that isn't?

The other responsibility is to sincerely be as mature and responcible about the material as possible. If you are going to have a source book about things as offensive as rape, child rape, necrophilia, sadism sexual and otherwise, slavery, brain washing, demonology, murder, mutilation, human sacrifice, snuff, perversion, fetishes, addiction, obsessions, insanity, cannibalism, castration, etc. etc. and etc. then you have a responcibility to be somewhat clinical in your description and not glorify the material and treat it as just another form of entertainment. This is the difference between your average slasher flick, a XXX porn movie, and say something like Schindler's List. If everyone wanted to use evil on an artistic canvas for the reasons Schindler's List was made, and with the restraint that was used considering the material, I think there would be less people who felt the need for censorship. Did anyone consider Schindler's List entertaining? I didn't, but that is highly different from not considering it valuable.

If it wasn't someone of the caliber of Monte involved in the project, I'd have little hope for it, though to be honest, I don't consider Monte's strength his philosophical depth and I hope Jonathan Tweet had some input. On the other hand, I do consider Monte's tact to be one of his strengths so maybe it is all for the best.

The last thing that I think you have to do is portray evil honestly. This is one of the areas that is I think going to be most contriversial, because there are differences in opinion over what honest evil is. I think it is pretty obvious what evil is and what its huge limitations are, but there are some (even apparantly on this board) who are enclined to argue that evil is enherently better and more interesting than good. I should be terribly disappointed if the book turns out to be written by someone who agrees with them. Basically, evil should be evil and you shouldn't sugar coat with mechanics that make evil seem the obvious choice for anyone who is power gaming. For instance, I consider it somewhat offensive how much more powerful a Despair is than a Hope (in S&S's CC). If BoVD is filled with mechanics for making evil characters more powerful than good ones, I'll have no use for it nor will I excuse it - even though I recognize how easily it is to fall in this trap when the idea is to have villains that challenge PC's.

I played Vampire for quite a while and enjoyed it. Some of my strongest RP experiences came in the WoD community. But I found the game system wholly and utterly unsatisfying. Not because the mechanics were clunky (although they were), but because the did not contribute to game play. The mechanics of the system (and especially Masquerades successors including the Sabbat), lent themselves not to playing monsters, but to playing Superheroes in monster drag. For all its very good writing (at least in its orginal incarnation), there was absolutely no reason not to become monsterous. Heck, you even became LESS monsterous as you become MORE monsterous in ability despite the flavor text saying that you didn't. The result in the long run was that tired of the setting much quicker than I would have otherwise and went on to GURPS (and ultimately back to D&D).

That problem of the rules not following the philosophy is something I've never had with Chill or CoC, both of which I'm sure cover material more offensive than BoVD will, and very likely both of which will cover it in a way I find less offensive and more mature. I've never once encountered a role player that very much wanted to be a Cthulu cultist or a Mi-go.