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

[MulhorandSage]

Tracy's ability and hjs influence on the hobby is beyond question, IMO; but no one's pedigree is strong enough to mitigate the utter tastelessness of that remark. Passion is not an excuse. If anything, both Johnny and Monte should be commended for the extraordinary civility of their responses, given what Tracy was labeling their work.

Scott Bennie

 

[Maraxle]

Out of curiosity, who wrote the sealed section in Dragon? Was it the same guy that wrote the BoVD?

I think I already filed the issue in my stack of "nothing I need at this time" Dragon issues, and don't feel like digging it out.

 

[Olive]

Out of curiosity, who wrote the sealed section in Dragon? Was it the same guy that wrote the BoVD?

nope, it wasn't. monte cook wrote the BoVD. some other guy whose name i can't remember wrote the dragon article...

 

[Olive]

As this hobby continues to mature and the demographic ages, the hobby's growth will rely on older generations passing it on to their children. Son of Thunder is already questioning if he will be able to do that if WotC (and Paizzo Publishing) continues their current direction. As someone planning on a family, I have that same question.

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...

2) current trend? you call two magazines and one book a trend? what aout the stronghold building trend? there was a dungeon adventure, and dragon issue (which from my understanding had more to do with the actual book that this one), and a book... my ghod, WotC s becoming a stronghold guidebook publisher!!!

put me down in the wanting BoVD camp... i like having mechanics for things... if there's no benefit to human sacrifice then why do it? if there's no benefit to selling ones soul to Asmodeus, then why do it? thats what i think the book will have, and thats why i'm gonna buy it...

 

[tburdett]

The thing that matters the most in our group is "Will the DM use or allow the material that is in this book?"

If the answer is "no" then WotC doesn't sell any copies to my group. We are all adults with families and we don't buy anything that we aren't going to use.

That gives me, as the DM, the ability to decide, in a small way, whether WotC will make any money off of my group of 10 fairly active players and 4 semi-regular players. I realize that 14 books will not make or break WotC, but if enough DM's make the same choice it could send the message that we're not interested in heading down this path with them.

Dragon magazine may have done a Monte Cook and the BoVD a grave disservice if the material presented in the magazine is not representative of the material in the BoVD because it's has cost them, potentially, 14 sales.

 

[Buttercup]

I recommend WotC stay with a marketing plan that this is a "family" game.

The problem with this is, whose definition of 'family' are we going to go with? In a pluralistic society, there are many different kinds of families, with many varying comfort levels for certain issues. My definition might be radically different than yours. Which one should WotC go with? Since politics and religion are verboten subjects here, I won't go into detail, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've got a smashing idea! WOTC can put out a adult 3e game with slaver and torture, sold souls and all the rest. Then they can put out a revised 1e game that is very family friendly!

Ok maybe not...

 

[Dinkeldog]

The thing that matters the most in our group is "Will the DM use or allow the material that is in this book?"

*snip*

Dragon magazine may have done a Monte Cook and the BoVD a grave disservice if the material presented in the magazine is not representative of the material in the BoVD because it's has cost them, potentially, 14 sales.

So are you saying that you've already judged the book sight unseen based on the Dragon issue, or that you're keeping an open mind? Or did you like the tie-in articles or not? Really not sure here.

 

[SemperJase]

The problem with this is, whose definition of 'family' are we going to go with? ... Which one should WotC go with?

Why, mine of course!

I say that half-heartedly. The whole purpose of a discussion board is to sway people's opinion to your way of thinking. So I would be very happy if WotC designed their marketing around my philosophy.

Now realistically I know that won't happen. That doesn't keep me from expressing those views though

 

[tburdett]

I'll expand on what I said to try and clarify my position.

I believe that WotC wanted the readers of Dragon magazine to believe that the material in the sealed section of Dragon was representative of what was going to be in the BoVD.

Monte seems to be saying that this isn't the case. Either he is misrepresenting the BoVD (which I seriously doubt) or WotC is misrepresenting BoVD (which wouldn't surprise me). Hype.

Somebody is lying.

Either way, there are going to be a lot of people who buy the product expecting it to be one thing, when it may be something completely different.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the BoVD is not really very vile, and that the stuff in Dragon was basically a bait and switch tactic. Show vile and depraved and then deliver more of the same old stuff you'd ordinarily see. That may come as a shock to the people who buy the book (especially by pre-order).

I've decided that I'm just not going to take the plunge. My group will not be using the material in the BoVD. My group (14 players and myself) will not be buying the BoVD.

I'm not pre-judging the book, I'm just choosing to pass on the product because I'm tired of these types of marketing games.