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

[Sinistar]

Actually I think The Sigl has it right. I don't think Dragon is the appropriate place for such information. Moral objectives aside, what sort of magazine are we asking for in Dragon?

I actually am looking forward to BoVD. I have wanted some good, mechanical interpretations of some evil acts (drug use, slavery, etc.) for my game so that I can make it more nuanced and in fact realistic. The evil slaver cult has to be slavers for some reason other than because they are evil. Is there profit in it? Etc. That is not for every campaign, even every campaign that I run. But it is something I would like to see. So put me in the camp that has called for BoVD.

But put me in the camp that is AGAINST putting this information in Dragon. I have found the publication to lose credibility and to lose useability by playing to every sensationalistic impulse it can market. Because in the end this is a marketing scheme not a game related issue. The drow bondage queens on the cover, the halfling-clown-faced-assassin-of-joy, the fighter comment. These are all marketing schemes not content providers. My objection to the sealed section of D300 is more because it is hype for hype sake. The same people who complained to Dragon because it was a vehicle for the next WOTC release should be complaining now as it is the same thing. (this includes me..)

 

[Grazzt]

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)...

Dirge

I agree with ya 100%. The sealed section was nothing more than a marketing ploy (a very good one too, as it apparently worked). But the level of vileness in there was more akin to (and I said this in the BoVD/Hickman thread) Jason Vorhees/Michael Myers/Freddy Krueger rather than something like Hellraiser, the Exorcist, or if ya want real-life vileness...Vlad the Impaler.

http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm#Atrocities

 

[SemperJase]

Re: Semi-hijak...

Like killing everything with a different {evil} alignment?

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.

Clever, but you are twisting my view. A "different" alignment is quite a seperate issue from and "evil" alignment.

In my game one does not attack a creature because it is different. It is attacked (if necessary) specifically because it is evil. Your argument can lead to the conclusion that there is no seperation between good and evil aside from a matter of opinion. I disagree.

Your last sentance is a matter of preference. In play many times I prefer simplified good vs. evil. Regardless of simple or complex, it comes to the same thing in the end. It is better for people to pretend to be good and heroic than it is for them to be evil.

 

[BlackMoria]

Dragon is and has been a 'house organ' for its D&D product line.

Think not? Then look at the number of 'theme' issues over the past year. The Drow issue heralding the 'City of the Spider Queen' and the new book series by Salvator. The Epic Theme issue heralding the Epic Level Handbook. The Castles/Strongholds issue heralding The Stronghold Builders Handbook. And it goes on...and on.

So, for The Sigil and others in his camp - With Book of Vile Darkness immiently due, and the given that Dragon was and is a 'house organ' for the D&D and D20 product line, just how are they to showcase the new product without offending your sensibilities?

It is no surprise that 'theme' issues exist. There is probably a correlation between sales of the product and the fact that the product got some coverage in the form of companion articles and the like, which is why 'theme' issues exist.

So, just how where they supposed to do showcase BoVD? Not at all, according to naysayer arguments. And what.... have another product that posts poor sales because of lack of exposure. For a company that is struggling with the bottom line.

IMO, they showcased the theme of the pending BoVD the best way they could without offending more people had they done it another way.

Dragon mainly exist to promote the playing and growth of D&D and WOTC products for D&D. It is not Reader Digest. Some people seem to have overlooked this aspect.

 

[Theuderic]

all these posts because of one man? This is ridiculous this guy is going to come back and say oh my they sure have noticed what ive said! How important I am. Look at the pages and pages of posts you people are feeding this guy and that's exactly what he wants!

 

[Theuderic]

and yes he did get me to post but no more

 

[SemperJase]

all these posts because of one man? This is ridiculous this guy is going to come back and say oh my they sure have noticed what ive said! How important I am. Look at the pages and pages of posts you people are feeding this guy and that's exactly what he wants!

Which guy are you referring to?

 

[herald]

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'm not ignorant of hs contributions. I'm very aware of him. He was outsourced writer. Not a D&D core designer. He certainly didn't mold TSR.

If you want to give platatudes to the originators, fine by me, just give them were they are do. Thank Gygax, Kuntz, Lofka, and even Greenwood (the list could go on and on). But Hickman wasn't even around for OD&D. He was standing on the shoulders on the people who came before them and he didn't even contribute as much as those after him.

The whole point of my post was to point out that these differing points of view could and do have merit, but not be suficent to cancel the other one out. There will be no one direction for this hobby, and that is a good thing. If there wasn't, you could bet your bottom dollar, something else would take it's place.

 

[Theuderic]

Which guy are you referring to?

LOL!

 

[JeffB]

If you want to give platatudes to the originators, fine by me, just give them were they are do. Thank Gygax, Kuntz, Lofka, and even Greenwood (the list could go on and on). But Hickman wasn't even around for OD&D. He was standing on the shoulders on the people who came before them and he didn't even contribute as much as those after him.

.

Picking Nits....

Hickman was putting out stuff right along with Lakofka (who also wasn't involved, at least in having an original pre1E product published uner his authorship)..maybe a years difference..L1 came out in mid to late 1981 and I3 about a year later....hardly anything to raise a point on. And barring Ed's occasional article in The Dragon..his first TSR product was several years after Hickmans first published product (by about 4 to 5 years).

Don't mean to be a butthead, but if you want to use those as facts to back up the argument, you have to know that you are basically wrong on those 2 counts.


We now take you back to ENWORLDS Tuesday Night Fights!