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

[barsoomcore]

And Baroomscore:
Regarding your flame on comment, why? This thread has been the epitomy of calm rational debate to this point.

Well, regardless of what we consider the epitome of calm, rational debate, it doesn't do any good to put the suit AFTER you're swallowed by lava, now does it?

 

[herald]

To rounser:

They both work on D&D.


Hickamn doesn't work on D&D. When is the last time he turned out a game?

Hickman Wrote at best one decent module and the Dragonlance novel series. The Ravenloft Champaign was someone elses idea and work.

Oh dear.

Hey, don't hold back, if you have new and better information than I do, put it out there.



Monte hasn't touched any of Hickman's work. Hickman can't even hold his own against Monte as a game designer. (This is the way I feel) Monte has out produced him in so many ways it's not worth mentioning.


Oh dear oh dear.

Like I said, if you have facts, bring them. But I'm a 35 year old man. I'm a little old to be your dear.


And do us a favor, before you take me out of context again, do you have a point to refute me. or are you just trying to get this thread closed by trolling?

 

[The Sigil]

A very articulate post, Son of Thunder. Nice and controlled, even if the opinions therein are in disagreement with others'. Some comments.

Does the gaming industry know what customer service is? Can a company afford to lose a longtime loyal fan of D&D, even if it’s just one fan? Here’s my opinion on this. It seems to me that the entire industry is going to a “Screw you” attitude. And by that I mean the prevailing attitude seems to be, “I’m doing this book, or article or what have you, and I don’t give a rats rosy red behind what you think”, or “White Wolf’s done stuff like this for years, why not Wizards?”

That I can't really speak to. I'll tell you that as a small publisher, I don't do my books based on public opinion, though - I do them based on, "what do I (a) find lacking in the system and (b) think I am capable of doing well?" That necessarily limits me. If we had a way to measure the typical gamer in advance, I'm sure we would - unfortunately, the only real way of measuring if we have read the community correctly comes when we have already produced something and look at the sales figures.

Even the publishers of Dungeon and Dragon Magazines have the same attitude. Just read Johnny Wilson’s comments and his condescending tone to Tracy Hickman, a man who will have published more game materials and novels than a lot of us put together. Mr. Wilson seems to make it clear that the squeaky cleanliness of AD&D is what drove gamers to “grittier stuff”; and to make TSR go down the hole. From my observations it was management of the game lines and greediness on the part of executives that caused the downfall of TSR in the 90’s.

I could not have put this better myself. The comments themselves did not disturb me so much as the tone of the comments.

... finally it’s to the point of my greatest culling of the issues with 300. I must have culled out 20 pages. The only articles I liked in the issue were fiendish dragons and risen dead article. I now know that I will have to trim out the adventures that’s supposed to be sealed in the next issue of Dungeon. Why do I tell you this? Because I think the material is unnecessary in my game, and no, I’m not trying to tell you it’s unnecessary in your game. I have a son that’s already interested in the game and he’s only 14 months old. He’ll sit on my lap and roll dice as I’m DMing. I don’t want him to see such crap in my gaming magazines when he’s old enough to look at them. And no, I’m not some right wing moral extremist nut. I understand some gamers desire to have ‘vile’ elements in their game. I would also like the same courtesy shown towards me that I don’t want to have ‘vile’ content in my game. So, just don’t buy it you say. I won’t, thank you very much, but I didn’t have much choice when my subscription of Dragon came.

I agree whole-heartedly here. As I mentioned in one of the original (flame-closed) threads, to me this was the equivalent of opening up Time Magazine and having a sealed Playboy centerfold in the center. The audience was all wrong. Any magazine that (in theory) is meant to be a magazine suitable for a large segment of a community needs to be moderate to conservative IMO. There are conservative magazines in which I should expect hyper-conservatism. There are liberal magazines in which I should expect hyper-liberalism. In a moderate magazine, I should expect neither - a moderate magazine should tread safely down the center. IMO, Dragon claims to be a moderate magazine - which means my expectation is that it will stay away from "fringe" material. And IMO it failed miserably in that. Books are a different story - each book is targeted at a certain segment and needs only to maintain a certain tone and style within the book.

That said, the difference between Dragon and BoVD is just that - Dragon is a magazine and I expect a certain type and style of material when I subscribe. The BoVD doesn't bother me - that has a definite target audience and that audience has the choice whether or not to purchase it after leafing through it. I think the main object of Dragon and Dungeon readers who are up in arms is that they were not offered the choice - they feel (perhaps rightly) that they aren't getting what they paid for (or were baited-and-switched).

I find it interesting that the flame argument basically boiled down to this:
1.) Someone (call him "Subscriber A") found material unnecessary and/or offensive, going counter to their expectations of the magazine. These expectations are NOT unrealistic, but rather reflect the experiences the person has had with past issues of the magazine up until that point. The subscriber has every right to complain when something breaks convention in a way that makes him uncomfortable, because it nearly amounts to a "bait-and-switch." Moral principles and other arguments aside, this is basically a matter of taste (the reason for your taste may vary - and it's not important for this discussion).
2.) Someone else (Subscriber B) takes umbrage with the fact that Subscriber A took offense to the material. Actually, he takes offense to the fact that Subscriber A made known his disappointment (or perhaps the tone/manner in which Subscriber A made his disappointment known). Subscriber B, it should be noted, also has expectations for the magazine, based upon his experiences with it, and to him the material was not offensive and/or unnecessary. Subscriber B decries Subscriber A for trying to impose a set of tastes upon him that Subscriber B does not have.
3.) Subscriber A decries Subscriber B for trying to impose a set of tastes upon HIM that Subscriber A does not have.

Then the shouting match has begun.

Now, I personally was rather put off by the whole issue of "Mature Content" (which I personally consider a gross misnomer). However, I have heard a lot of the same sentiment quoted by jasper and attributed to Heinlein...

"Not in my court room, clerk find this gentleman a soap box and place it out on the front lawn."

It seems to me that this is Subscriber B's gripe with Subscriber A. However, it cuts both ways... Subscriber B's defense of the material on "moral grounds" such as "who are you to restrict free speech and discussion of this material" also belongs on a soapbox. Arguing in this fashion will serve only to entrench each party more deeply in its own position.

The few clues we got, that were kind of accurate, were: 1) It was a magic item out of the DM’s Guide and 2) It was something gamers have been wanting for a long time. My question pertains to number 2. I have been involved with D&D for well nigh on twenty years now, and I never recall there being a big demand for this type of a book, even within the three to five years leading up to 3rd edition. Did I miss something?

As has been noted by several posters, #2 is the more compelling question.

Is this really something that has been in demand? How does WotC know?

I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but I have been involved with well over 100 gamers in my campaigns over the last 18 or so years. Not one of them has ever said, "you know, I wish there was viler stuff in D&D like there is in (insert book or system here). Wouldn't that be great?" I know I have never even had that thought BEGIN to cross my mind.

Even amongst those who support the inclusion of the material in Dragon #300, I would ask, "did any of you say to yourselves, 'gee, viler material would really make D&D so much better' prior to the BoVD and Dragon 300?" It's not a representative sample, I know, but I truly and honestly do not believe this was the case. Anyone out there who was clamoring for "dirtier, grittier" games and rules to support them a year ago?

Maybe I'm off-base here, but I think Dragon was wrong to print such material because it is inappropriate for the established tone and image of the magazine - in the same way it would be wrong for Time to print a Playboy spread. Note that this is not because I am claiming that printing a Playboy spread is in and of itself wrong but because that is not what is expected nor desired from Time... in the same way "Vileness" was neither expected nor desired from Dragon, IMO (again, PRIOR to the fact, not after it - and IMO once the decision was made and it was announced that we would see Vile Content in 300, that's "after the fact" - even if I hadn't received the hard copy yet). I also have a hard time thinking that there was a demand for this type of thing before WotC created one by saying, "this is coming."

Please leave aside the question of whether "printing Vile content" is morally right or wrong in and of itself. My question is, "was printing Vile content in Dragon Magazine appropriate?" (Note: not right/wrong, but "appropriate") Again, I believe that such material is VERY inappropriate in Dragon Magazine, though it IS appropriate in the BoVD or the Netbook of Carnal Knowledge and other such publications.

I'm interested to see what others have to say on this. We can leave moral debates elsewhere, as they will lead to flaming and thread closure.

--The Sigil

 

[Mallus]

Semi-hijak...

Since children, especially boys, naturally play games that include fantasies of physical force (like cops & robbers), it is valuable to direct those fantasies to socially beneficial behavior.

Like killing everything with a different {evil} alignment?

Alright that was a cheap opening salvo, but it does get to heart of the matter. If you want to use the game to impart moral lessons {and I think that's perfectly valid, though I play with an older set and we prefer to 'raise moral questions'}, then that demands a highly sophisticated and nuanced campaign, one that isn't at all like traditional high fantasy.

The trouble with a game that uses the black and white moral schema thats the hallmark of fantasy literature as a teaching tool is that the students may actually try and apply the lesson to the real world. All criminals don't belong to an evil subrace of humanity as described on page 34 of PHB. All our nations {current} enemies aren't peopled by fiends from Abyssal Layer 665...

The better way to use the game as a teaching tool would be to make it far more realistic; full of complex conflicts and antagonists rather then clear-cut villians.

 

[jasamcarl]

I think Son of Thunder's opinion is on the whole irrational. I expect nothing more from a game company than to give me my dollar's worth on the options i choose to take. I always find it quite frustrating when certain individuals comment on a company's strategy to the point where they say something can't even be published and in fact want to DENY OTHERS CERTAIN OPTIONS. This type of industry punditry is mostly the province of a certain counter-culture fanboy clique which i loathe...

Its a consumer relationship....if you think there is a moral component to it, you have problems...

 

[Ashtal]

Let's not call other people's opinions 'irrational', please. It doesn't lend well to a calm discussion.

 

[Ashtal]

An interesting article that may be old to you, but I just ran across it, is an interview with the magazine folks regarding the 'Vile' content:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1841.html

 

[Grazzt]

This same friend had complaints about another product by Necromancer Games, and he got into an argument with Orcus himself.

Was this on ENWorld or the Necro-boards? I would be most curious to see it as I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about this.

And since your "friend" allegedly got into it with the guys at SSS and Orcus (Necromancer), it seems your friend might have a "social behavior" problem of sorts not the SSS or Necro guys.

 

[rounser]

Like I said, if you have facts, bring them.

Not facts, just opinions, and our opinions of what Hickman has added to the game differ drastically, to the point where I assumed that you must be ignorant of his contributions to understate them so much.

I don't see the point in directly comparing his work to that of Cook. We're talking serious apples and oranges here....but that's not a fact either, just an opinion.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

I don't know, I thought the sealed section of Dragon 300 was pretty tame. If the book of vile darkness is anything like that I'm not too worried about it. I think WOTC has a ways to go before they even get close to the "vileness" that White Wolf (black dog) has had in some of there stuff, anybody see clanbook Baali, Yech.

I personally don't need any more vileness in my campaign and will probably buy the book of vile darkness just for curiosity's sake.


Dirge