Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[Wayside]

Obviously this is different. Greyhawk isn't ethically offensive to people. It's much different to not read an article on Greyhawk than to not want the magazine in your house when they print vile content.

So again, should Paizo print content that is likely to shrink its circulation?

For one, Greyhawk is ethically offensive to me. It's offensive to an ethics of intellectualism.

Also, I don't think the argument should be 'Paizo should do what's in its best interests as far as making money is concerned; vile content will cause them to lose money, so vile content must DIE.' Do you take your hobby seriously or not? If you do then the commercial side of it is basically irrelevant. If not, well, there's always PokeMonopoly.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Do you take your hobby seriously or not? If you do then the commercial side of it is basically irrelevant. If not, well, there's always PokeMonopoly.

No offense, but that is quite possibly the most ludicrous thing I've heard all week. Without the commercial side, there is no new support material. If the new support material dries up, we end up with less players. Less players means less games. Less games means the hobby effectively dies.

If you don't care about the creation of new material, that's one thing, but to declare it irrelevant flies in the face of the reality of the current gaming community.

 

[SemperJase]

Do you take your hobby seriously or not? If you do then the commercial side of it is basically irrelevant. If not, well, there's always PokeMonopoly.

Actually, I don't take D&D seriously. For my wife and I D&D is a social outlet. We do it purely for fun. That is one reason I don't like vile content. In addition to being distasteful, it just isn't fun for us.

Since I enjoy the game as fun and would like to more easily meet other people who enjoy the game, the commercial side of D&D is important. If the game becomes more exclusionary fewer people will play it. The more commercially successful it is, the easier it is to meet people who play the kind of game we enjoy.

I hope that D&D becomes wildly popular. I don't see that happening with more emphasis on the darker side of gaming. WotC and Paizo should leave that niche to White Wolf and concentrate on a popular game. You can't be all things to all people.

The best way to grow the game (IMNSHO) is to focus on the fun aspects of gaming to grow its popularity.

 

[boschdevil]

Also, I don't think the argument should be 'Paizo should do what's in its best interests as far as making money is concerned; vile content will cause them to lose money, so vile content must DIE.' Do you take your hobby seriously or not? If you do then the commercial side of it is basically irrelevant. If not, well, there's always PokeMonopoly.

Ah, but the problem is if the commercial side doesn't work, then the companies don't stay open. If the companies aren't open, it makes it extremely difficult for new players to join. Sure, you'll be able to continue your game with your current resources, but usually only for a while. Without new players gaming coupled with natural gamer attrition (I found god, my new wife doesn't want me to waste time, etc.), then the gaming groups slowly dwindle to the point they no longer exist. If taking my gaming "seriously" leads me to a path that may be reckless for the future of my gaming system, then I would say taking gaming "seriously" is irrelevant. After all, it is a game, not real life.

 

[boschdevil]

I hope that D&D becomes wildly popular. I don't see that happening with more emphasis on the darker side of gaming. WotC and Paizo should leave that niche to White Wolf and concentrate on a popular game. You can't be all things to all people.

In my opinion, this is a good point, and I hope something that WotC and Paizo realize. You're not going to be able to make everyone happy.

 

[El Ravager]

I am pro vile. I have neither the Dungeon nor Dragon issue that contained "Vile" content, but I do own the BoVD. On the whole, the BoVD did not impress me much with its "vileness". It just wasn't that vile. Sure some of the descriptions were kinda gross, but overall, it wasn't that "Vile".

So, why am I pro vile? Because, while some of it is a little out there, the vast majority of isn't. More importantly it details a few things that are pretty staple in fantasy such as ritual sacrifice and possession. Now, with the BoVD, these are "Vile" and including them is suddenly a controversy. Things that were taken for granted now have rules and all of a sudden bother people.

Here is an example.

Issue 87 of Dungeon was published over a year before the BoVD. The adventure Cradle of Madness involved a ritual sacrifice. It was No Big Deal. I don't recall any threads popping up about how Dungeon was deteriorating and people were canceling their subscriptions and, while I am missing a few issues after it, I do not recall any letters sent in to the magazine complaining.

Now, had the issue been published after the BoVD and the rules for sacrifice been used and maybe the cult leader been given a vile feat or vile spell, this would have been a "Vile" issue that children couldn't read and would cause people to cancel subscriptions.

Ridiculous.

Now certain things have a "Vile" label that they didn't have before and are suddenly taboo. In my opinion, most of the gross and unsettling text in the BoVD was in descriptions of feats and spells - things that wouldn't actually be printed in the magazine issue that they are used in, only the names of the spells and feats would be actually printed in the magazine.

Does the material in the BoVD have the potential to offend without adding to the game? Yes. Does it have the potential to be used in a context that adds to a story without being overly gratuitous and offensive? In my opinion, the answers yes as well.

I guess I am only pro vile if the "mature" content is used in a mature way. In my opinion this sort of material has been used in the past in a mature way before it was known as "vile" and that possibility remains, with our without the "vile" label.

I have stopped buying Dragon regularly for completely separate reasons from this issue. Even if Dungeon used "vile" material in an inappropriate way, I would continue my subscription. I would either ignore the articles or edit them to suit my needs.

My reaction as a parent wouldn't be much different than what I have written above, but this post is long enough so I will not get into it.

Sorry for the long winded post.

========
El Rav

 

[Tiefling]

I hope that D&D becomes wildly popular. I don't see that happening with more emphasis on the darker side of gaming. WotC and Paizo should leave that niche to White Wolf and concentrate on a popular game. You can't be all things to all people.

God I hope not. Bad things would happen if D&D became mainstream.

 

[SemperJase]

God I hope not. Bad things would happen if D&D became mainstream.

It seems that this kind of sentiment is one of the reasons D&D players are seen as geeks.

I see only good things happening to D&D if it were to become as popular as Monopoly or Clue. For instance, we wouldn't be seen as geeks.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It seems that this kind of sentiment is one of the reasons D&D players are seen as geeks.

I see only good things happening to D&D if it were to become as popular as Monopoly or Clue. For instance, we wouldn't be seen as geeks.

So your issue with vileness is that you're concerned with your self-image?

 

[Azzy]

I disagree, Henry. There is no need to go into detail in order to be gratuitous; the presence of an ugly idea is often enough.

Shall be sanitise the news as well?

I didn't have to have it described to me in detail to find the idea of a bound, insane ogre mage who enjoys being dissected by sadistic bar patrons distasteful and gratuitous. I didn't need graphic descriptions of a polymorphed monster being raped by pirates to find that an ugly idea either.

The point is not that I'm offended by this stuff, but that I don't like the tone it illicits.

I AM offended by that stuff, but I do like the tone it illicits. A healthy disgust and revoltion to that which is evil. That's part of what makes good guys good. It's what makes some bad guys become good--evil is something only the most truely depraved can look in the eyes and not be repulsed.

I don't want a game with that feel to it, nor do I really want to read it. That doesn't make me a prude any more than it makes the people who like it blood-hungry perverts. It's a matter of taste....or lack of taste, as the case may be.

I don't mean this to be rude, but it's there in the real world. It was there under the Third Reich, it was under the now-diposed dictator in the Middle East, its there within the serial killers and rapists that plague own own cities. It's not pretty, nor should it be. If it doesn't raise your hackles, you don't deserve to claim the title of human. I think we can agree to that.

If you don't want that type of content in your game, more power to you. But those of us that do have that sort of content in our games are not necessarily sick, depraved or without taste or decency.

The greater the evil of the villian, the greater the good of the heroes. Heroes that have to overcome greater obstacles tend to diserve the title "hero" better than any else.

Part of gaming is catharsis, and, as you said, wish fullfillment. It's probably the only way most of us have of lashing out against that sort of evil, ourselves.

The knee-jerk response to my complaint here is "okay, you don't like it, don't open the sealed section then", but it's still taking away pages from those of us who don't want that content. Big deal, you may say, and I'd agree to an extent...but alongside Polyhedron there's more magazine that some of us are paying for and don't want. Dungeon has a history of being the best deal in gaming, and it's a pity to see that formula getting watered down from bread & butter D&D adventures into...other stuff which you can take or leave. I thought that was Dragon's job, and I don't subscribe to Dragon for a reason.

I'm sorry, but this sceams, "Me, me, me!!!!"

To take things to their extremes, if Dungeon or Dragon ran articles with slapstick comedy themes or articles that are all pinwheels and butterflies, while it may be safe for the younger audience, I would be rolling my eyes. It would be more magazine that I would be paying for and don't want.

Should that sort of thing be there? Sure. For those that want it. I don't, but if it happens (and usually slapstick appears in April issues), I'm not going to complain. These magazines cater to a wide audience, and not all of the content is going to appeal to everybody--just take what you like and ignore what you don't like. If you feel that that's a knee-jerk response, then you're only thinking of yourself.