BoVD Thoughts

[Knightcrawler]

I think the basic premiss of the BovD is sound. Something that will provide more mature material. I just think the way that WotC has gone about it is flawed.

I lived and gamed through the eighties. Suffering through BADD and all the related groups. Parents burning of throwing out their kids roleplaying books (burning seemed a very popular method of destruction). All those things and many others.

The culture is much different now than it was in the 80's. There are a plethora of roleplaying games and companies. New ones seem to come into being all the time. And White Wolf has taken gaming to a level that WotC couldn't even dream of, at least concerning mature material.

My problem is that with putting all the new "mature" material in to one book makes it easy for those of us that want such material. It also brings unwanted publicity and attention back to D&D. I would have much preferred if WotC had started including some more mature material in their most recent releases. Its done quietly that way and usually in such amounts that no group is going to freak from the material in any one book.

I'm not going to get on anyones case for not using the BoVD. Its a choice. If it fits your campaign then use it. If not then don't use it. Its that simple. THe fact that the book hasn't even been released makes many of the dicussions that have appearded here rather humerous. I'm taking a wait and see stand. It could be usefull and then again it may not. After all its just a book.

 

[derverdammte]

I like the idea of game mechanics for evil acts. Besides, it's by Monte Cook, which means I'm going to buy it almost by default. I have never seen a bad product with his name on it--even the pamphlet in the "Elminster's Ecologies" box set that he did was good.

I have one concern, however. How do we know what content was altered/added after the MS left his hands? We already know that the editors at WotC wanted "viler" content. This wouldn't be the first time that someone made an editorial decision to make things more "over the top" after the brains behind the project thought they were finished--"Caligula," anyone?

That said, though, I'm still going to buy it. Monte Cook's name is an indicator, to me, that it'll be a quality product. I'm pretty sure I have all the material he's ever written for D&D, and all of it is good. So even if content was added without his consent, I'll probably still find some excellent material in the book; after all, they're not going to completely rewrite it and still keep his name on it.

As far as the other concerns go, I have to shrug. WotC is already putting it out, which makes any debates on whether they should moot. And I'd rather wait and see what happens to the public perception of the game than make unfounded speculations on it to begin with.

On that topic, has anyone ever seen "Satanism: The Seduction of America's Youth," by Bob Larson? There's a chapter called "Ghoulish Games" that gives the most insane Pat Pulling rant a run for its money. We're talking unmatched misinterpretation of the game content, plus all the confusions and mistakes typically made by the BADD people and their ilk.

(BADD = Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons, a group founded by Pat Pulling. To read more about her, look here: http://www.rpg.net/252/quellen/stackpole/pulling_report.html -- Also, if anyone knows of a current URL for BADD, can you post it here, or email it to me? I'd appreciate it.)

 

[derverdammte]

Buttercup has expressed what are, less or more, my feelings too. Except that if I thought there was a real danger of BADDlike groups damaging D&D (which I don't), I would be concerned, not because I particularly care about how fundamentalists view my hobby, but because economical damage to publishers is a very bad thing for the hobby itself.

Remember, though--even if they're buying the books to burn them, or to gather "research" for anti-D&D articles, they're still buying them, and that means sales.

 

[Knightcrawler]

I have to repley to something that Buttercup said of the people from group A. Its not that we actually care about what some of the nuts out there think about D&D. Its what they may actually try.

The fear and lies spread in the 80's by such groups as BADD made it very hard to be a gamer. Now I like to think that we live in an more enlightened time. But there are always those that are looking for something to destroy.

If you did not game in the eighties then you can't entirely know what it was like. If you did I apologize for this. But like I said before gamers were a very hunted and hounded breed in the 80's. It was often difficult to find any gamers much less enough for a group. Kids had to hide their books from their parents. All sorts of things.

Go and watch "Mazes & Monsters" to get a feel of how much of what much of the general publics opinion of D&D was. While its not actually a bad movie it shows the reactionary mood of the time. Watched today its actually a little funny.

 

[rackabello]

While the sealed section of the Dragon was not scary or offensive, Monte Cook's article on How Far to Go was what should have been in the sealed section....
Am I passing judgement on a book I haven't seen? Well, I did read the article by Cook in the current issue of Dragon regarding evil and if the author's extrapolation on evil is any indicator of the contents of the book, I think I am working on an educated guess here.

If you haven't read Monte Cook's post on both BoVD and his Dragon article, I think you'll find it of interest, Hellbender, and perhaps be reassured somewhat by it. The link was posted earlier in the thread, and here it is again.

I'm very encouraged by the tone of this new thread. These boards were as 'evil' as I've ever seen them on Friday, but it heartens me to see cooler heads prevail.

 

[hellbender]

Well, I was hoping for a lot more nudity and graphic content then delivered with the "SEALED" section. I want more sex, violence, and purely evil damnation in my game. I dont cater to young children, and I am a adult. My elves don't "frolic" in the woods, and my dwarves aren't like grumpy yet caring grandfathers. They are as vicious and savage as we humans have always been. I also don't really care what churches, priests, nor parents think, because they generally aren't the ones playing RPG's.

Sex, drugs, and rock n' roll....................

Then obviously, you don't need the book, you are already on a deeper level than what the book will deliver. However, don't grab some haughty attitude about those against it.
My gamers aren't children, I too am an adult, and probably old enough to be the father to many posters on this list. I am a professional (having a degree, as a few of my players do), with a sizable amount of disposable income. I have also lived through two years of hell on this miserable dirtball planet in a warzone as a civilian and have seen more than what many little stomachs can handle. Conversely, I don't need more graphic content, I want away from this reality, and I choose to do so in my games. To me, people that need more graphic content need to get out more, the world is a rather horrific place.
Understanding this, I state that I do not care about the book in itself, I am voting with my wallet, buy it, use it, makes no difference to me. I agree with a previous post that I am not that happy with the attention it will draw to our hobby, and don't think it won't. Maybe not large scale, as I have said, but it will turn people awayfrom our hobby, based more on rumor than truth. This book will cause many DM's to provide hours of happiness to their players. Just not my players.

hellbender

 

[Zappo]

Remember, though--even if they're buying the books to burn them, or to gather "research" for anti-D&D articles, they're still buying them, and that means sales.

This reminds me of a book... hmm... it must have been one by Steve Jackson Games, can't remember which one... it had a disclaimer like, "All the spells in this book are very real and working; the authors are convinced satanists and sacrifice children on a regular basis; if you try to diss us we will polymorph your cat into a hydra and fireball your house; what you should do is purchase this book and all the copies and supplements you can find and burn them".

BTW, as I said, I am *not* concerned. I think that anti-D&D groups have become irrelevant, and that even if they weren't, a dark aura can help sales.

 

[derverdammte]

Go and watch "Mazes & Monsters" to get a feel of how much of what much of the general publics opinion of D&D was. While its not actually a bad movie it shows the reactionary mood of the time. Watched today its actually a little funny.

Oh, it's more than a little funny. The best part is seeing Tom Hanks as the lead (what was his name?) who ends up going insane by "losing himself" in his character. Or maybe it was the candlelight ritual D&D--sorry, M&M--sessions. Or maybe it was the caves. Sorry, there's too much in that movie to laugh at.

I remember the climate in the 80s, though. My dad refused to buy me D&D books because he'd heard they caused suicide. Still, in 5th grade, my teacher actually loaned me the red box because "smart kids played D&D." So there's a counter to the prevailing attitude of the time, and it was clearly from a non-gamer (the red box belonged to his son--or grandson, I don't remember).

 

[Psion]

Well I missed the first thread, I thought I'd put my 2 cents in before this one gets shut down...

I occasionally am put in the position of defending D&D from people who get the wrong idea about it. That is in part because I don't want people to get the wrong idea about me and my hooby. But it is also because I don't want that out of my hobby.

Now from what monte has said about the book of vile darkness, I have little to fear on this score. He has said that the copy that was in the catalog was off, and even that wasn't too bad. His "what I would do" description sounded like a pretty fun an appropriate book. Evil figures should be evil.

However, if the BoVD is as bad as the worst of the sealed section, I will be disappointed. Searing seed sounds like something out of a hentai tentacle porn flick (or worse, a bad high school game -- I agree with Tracy when he says "mature" usually means the opposite.) I found corpsebond totally out of line -- it seems like it was put in there just for shock value. I get sick of that tactic in modern movies.

Now dragon dissapoints me because I subscribed to it as a straight up gaming mag, not some shock-flick mag or something. My money has already been squandered.

I am holding out hope that BoVD will be more tasteful than that -- it was by a different author, and Monte's article was tasteful. If it isn't, I will be disappointed as a potentially useful supplement will have been tainted by this "edgier than thou" crap. But at least I had the option to pass it by, unlike the Dragon, which I had already committed my money to.

 

[Al]

In Defense of BoVD

I applaud Buttercup's comments, but I just want to add to them.

Regarding Camp A:

What Buttercup says about ignoring the critics is quite correct, but I would go further than that. The fact of the matter is that not only we, but most of the population will ignore them. The ultra-conservative religious right is (in the UK at least) thrashing around in its death throes. Our new Archbishop, Rowan Williams, is a liberal who admires The Simpsons. The evangelical church is increasingly viewed as a bunch of crazy fanatics. Maybe it's different in the South US Bible Belt, but over here, the evangelical church is struggling to survive, and is in no position to try to further invite accusations of fanaticism by lashing out at a game. As for the mainstream conservative press, they are simply not bothered. As has been mentioned, they have far bigger fish to fry. And the press has become more liberal in the past twenty years: in the 80s, most of the big press barons would have been brought up before the 60s; nowadays, this is not true. Certainly in the UK, I can't imagine any coverage whatsoever in any of the major national dailies. Again, I don't know the situation in the US, but I'm just commenting from where I'm sitting.

Regarding Camp B:

Fair enough. Those are your opinions. Firstly, I'd just reiterate Buttercup's comments on censorship: if a book bothers you, don't buy it. There's no need to make a huge fuss over it and try to prevent others buying it though. Secondly, however, I'd pose a question back at you: if you were making a book like this, what would *you* put in it? Now, you can answer that in two ways: the first is to say that you wouldn't make a book like this. The problem with this is it does leave a void. Even in a 'beer and pretzels' type game, it's useful to have some game mechanics on the evil guys. In a mature game, it's almost essential. Most of the sourcebooks have been aimed at the heroes, or at least just vanilla monsters for them to fight, so something which leads the villains to be that little darker won't hurt. To those who say they would but would make it lighter- why? Once the need for a book of this sort has been acknowledged, why not make it (reasonably) comprehensive. You don't have to use all of it: just cherry-pick the pieces you want.

There is a third camp I'd address: the 'lack of imagination' branch. Those who claim that it is superfluous as any good DM can use his imagination to invent mechanics for sacrifice and what have you. Perhaps. But the same argument can be reverse-engineered. Deities and Demigods is 'superfluous' if you can design your own pantheons and salient abilities without reading to refer to it. Tome and Blood is 'superfluous' if you can roll off prestige classes and spells. Indeed, the whole game is needless if you can design your own system (and if you can, good luck to you!) Sure, you can make your own rules for sacrifices and eyeball stats for Asmodeus, but I (personally) would prefer a book detailing them, or at least giving some guidelines.

As for me, I don't know if I'll get the book. I won't get it just because it is THE BOOK OF VILE DARKNESS, any more than I buy any book from its title or rumours. I think I'll just wait for the reviews and comments- then see whether it's worth my money.