[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[gregweller]

It's been my experience that in intellectual freedom arguements (which I maintain this thread boils down to), when people say that they aren't talking about freedom of expression, they are, and that when they say that people should be free to look at what they want, it's usually followed by a 'but' . So here's my 'but' ...but I really like vileness. And that's every bit a valid opinion as any other. Now for anyone who accepts thevalidity of that opinion, then I will happily accept your opinion. It's as simple as that. But if you don't accept that vileness has it's aesthetic charms, then I'm under no obligation to accept the opinion that 'sweetness and light' does as well.

And yes, I did spend about a half hour making that statement as knotted as I could. (well, that and the time I spent recalling how my faith was restored in the potential of RPGs when I saw the back cover of the Tzimisce Clanbook).

 

[SemperJase]

ok two points:

1) well, my parents certainly didn't pass the game on to me, and i'm pretty sure that none of the people i play with played with their parents either. so i'm not sure why its going to 'rely' on parents passing the game on to grow...

I'm not sure how old you are, but the demographic is getting older. I believe the median age is now in the mid-20s for gamers. That is old enough to have kids. When I started playing, the average age was much younger. The market was very different.

Now WotC needs to take into account what the older generation is going to say about the hobby. Unlike years past, more gamers will be getting their introduction to the game from their parents.

2) current trend? you call two magazines and one book a trend?

Well, there are more publishers than WotC releasing 'vile' content. The WotC/Paizzo trend has admitted by the publisher has been to push the envelope. As WotC is the industry leader, they set the standard hence the criticism for them specifically. Still, the three items you mention is not all inclusive.

Thankfully, WotC and Paizzo seems to indicate this is not a permanent path. We are posting so that they will hopefully make wiser choices in the future.

 

[alsih2o]

We are posting so that they will hopefully make wiser choices in the future.

with all due respect sj, i cancel out your post, by asking for all of it, in drippy goodness.

but at least we are not flamin' eh?

 

[SemperJase]

It's been my experience that in intellectual freedom arguements (which I maintain this thread boils down to), when people say that they aren't talking about freedom of expression, they are, and that when they say that people should be free to look at what they want, it's usually followed by a 'but'

The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.

I also accept your opinion that vile content has an aesthetic value. By that I mean, I accept that as your opnion, even though I believe that opinion is wrong. At the same time you do yourself a disservice to reject a point as untrue just because it is a different stance from yours. The fact that I don't find a vile campaign pleasing has no baring on whether or not a good campaign is pleasing.

So please, let us avoid the "you're trying to reduce my freedom argument." I'm merely trying to convince people to freely change their opinions. Again that is the whole purpose of a message board, right?

 

[SemperJase]

but at least we are not flamin' eh?

That is my intent.You can't really exchange ideas when you flame/insult people.

I have enjoyed this exchange this evening alsihi2o.

 

[RobNJ]

"More adult" - I won't take too much umbrage because I'm sure no offense was intended, but I think the correct term is "more vile."

I didn't want to use "mature" because people misinterpret (I'm not sure if it's purposeful or not) how the word is used. How's this: "I prefer a more not-for-all-audiences game." Pretty clunky but at least it removes the bugaboo of anyone's feelings getting hurt.

do you feel that if Time gave sufficient warning, it would be appropriate for it to drop a Playboy spread into it just because it is read mostly by adults?

That's not really a valid comparison. There was no explicit nudity in Dragon 300. If Time had labeled an article as for "mature" audiences and warned in a previous issue that they'd talk in very nonspecific terms about a necrophilic and/or about semen (again, in very nonspecific terms), yes, I'd regard that as completely appropriate. Moreover, they're a news magazine, I wouldn't feel that they would have to even issue a warning to discuss necrophilia or semen in detail (read: almost complete lack of detail) that Dragon did.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

What I find sort of interesting is that reference was made in the sealed section (the spells) to the addiction rules found in the BOVD -- but didn't Monte say there was no discussion of drugs, prostitution, etc.?

 

[The Sigil]

I didn't want to use "mature" because people misinterpret (I'm not sure if it's purposeful or not) how the word is used. How's this: "I prefer a more not-for-all-audiences game." Pretty clunky but at least it removes the bugaboo of anyone's feelings getting hurt.

LOL - You're right, that is clunky... could we call it an NFAA game? No, then people would get confused with college sports and... well... you're right. There is no good term for it. I think I understood what you were going for, though. A game that's probably not for the 8- and 9- year olds (or even the 13- and 14- year olds) in the audience.

Too many shades of meaning to words in English... perhaps it is "double-plus-ungood" for children under 13, neh?

--The Sigil

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think my wife and I just pegged down how to describe our game:

R with occasional forrays into NC17 depending on specific villains and specific location.



I must say, though... I've got a few items here of note: Demons & Devils, Dragonlords of Melnibon'e, Primal Codex, Of Places Most Foul, AEG's Evil, Demonology: The Dark Road, Secret College of Necromancy... WotC is a tad late in regards to both addressing many of these subjects as well as quantifying them to any degree, to the point that the only real selling points it has left is that it's an "official" 3E product, all in one book as opposed to scattered everywhere, and Monte Cook wrote it, and only the later two has any signifigance to me in all honesty.

My big wonder is: Are they going to actually release adventures with this information in it? And if not, are they going to make the material OGC? Because if it's not supported and no one else can use it, then it takes a major step towards being nothing more than a token effort to capture some of the sales that they are loosing to the grittier content offered by other publishers.

If they really want to impress, we'll see adventures and story lines out of WotC that actually make use out of it, or they green light it for other publishers to take advantage of.

Will I buy it? Yes. Will I make use of it? Only if it's as dark as it's hyped to be.

Otherwise, I've already bought or written all that I really need to, and on every subject they've used to plug it, plus a few more.

 

[Knight Otu]

As it seems, this has not been brought up yet, but I think it could be important to remember.

SemperJase brought up this:

This is where Dragon #300 comes in. In a side bar to Monte Cook's "How far will you take it" article, he suggests that PC's can take BoVD feats in a vile campaign.

and this:

For the record though, I will be passing on BoVD. I certainly will discourage players from using it as a resourse for PC feats as Dragon 300 suggests in the How far will you take it? article.

As I have not seen Dragon #300 yet, I cannot say in what way Monte Cook did not clarify this, but in this thread, he says the following:

The ?vile? game, is, in my personal estimation, a description of taking the game a bit too far. There is a small group of players out there who enjoy gaming in a very dark world, where it?s very difficult, almost impossible, to be a hero. That?s not my cup of tea, but it?s also always my position that people can game however they want. To these players, the Book of Vile Darkness will probably be too tame.

I think that should be kept in mind.

Edit: added another quote