Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[rounser]

Shall be sanitise the news as well?

I don't subscribe to the news.

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.

Good for you.

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.

For some of us, RPGs are an escape.

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.

Didn't say you were.

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.

You don't need pirates raping polymorphed monsters or bars where they dissect ogre mages forever to have evil in your game.

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.

Interesting.

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

I see.

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.

They're not, though.

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.

That must be it.

 

[Wayside]

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.

It's not irrelevant to the fact of the matter, only to the argument. Obviously in the real world the commercial aspect essentially edges all the others out. But whether vile is good or bad has nothing to do with it's marketability (unless you're Paizo's accountant). I don't think that suggestions to the effect that any additional vile material will have a negative impact on the magazines' profitability are valid arguments against the inclusion of that material either. As always, opinions will vary.

There seems to be a lot of worry that vile content will contribute to roleplaying attrition (less like a worry and more like a threat, from some people). If your #1 concern is making D&D as popular as X-Men then being anti-vile makes sense. On the other hand, violence and gore sells plenty, so who's to say even crappy vile material wouldn't bring in more customers than it chases off? Comparisons to high grossing movies are obviously flimsy... D&D isn't Hollywood. Not even close.

In any case I'm personally not worried about the industry's survival. Rpg's may go through some dark ages, but nothing is going to kill them off at this point. I just don't see it happening. And as for content, vile or otherwise, if it's good it will sell. Dune isn't exactly all peaches IIRC.

Oh, and feel free to offend me!

 

[Wayside]

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.

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

That's great too. I think we've all played plenty of beer and pretzels games. Like you, I couldn't imagine having any use for vile material in a game like that. Lately I gravitate toward the serious themes though; for casual play we bust out the Clue or setup a LAN and Warcraft it up. Anyway I didn't realize the discussion had shifted to what is best for getting more people into the game. I know a lot of players game with people they know only as gamers, or play in revolving groups, or can't even find people to play with (so PBEM's or MUD's or whatever), but since I never play without my old group of friends the need to spread the D&D gospel hasn't manifested for me.

 

[Azzy]

Wow, I really got told.

 

[kenjib]

You know, I understand when people who don't like the mature/vile stuff feel insulted when they're called "pansies" and "whiners" but this works on both sides of the fence fellas. A mature game does not have to be about "boobs and gore" and I am a little peeved that my style of play has been reduced to the above description.

I run a mature game that deals with mature themes, sometimes these themes include rape, human sacrifice and other atrocities, but they are always shown for what they are, atrocities. My players enjoy that the villians they come up against are truly evil people that do truly evil things. They certainly don't douse my players in their bodily fluids and then expose themsleves, which is what some people think a vile/mature game mustbe.

I respect the fact that not everyone is comfortable with the type of game I play but please don't assume that just because I like the BoVD that my games are juvenile slasher flicks filled with as much blood, guts and sex as I can cram into them.

Dirge

I made a very clear distinction between what you are describing and what I was describing in the other part of my post -- the other 90% that you didn't quote, that is.

 

[rounser]

Wow, I really got told.

I'm sorry, you weren't worth the effort.

 

[Azzy]

I'm sorry, you weren't worth the effort.

Your dismissiveness speaks volumes.

 

[Wayside]

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.

If the companies are publishing good stuff then their ranking on the vile-o-meter will be inconsequential. And if they're publishing soon to be recycled paper, then any vile material is most likely just going to focus attention on how incredibly bad the product really is. When I'm running a serious game, I take it as seriously as I would a serious book. It's not life in the sense that what goes on in the game is really going on, but it is life in the sense that human experience acquires definition and significance through its being interpreted, and a serious game involves a lot of serious and unique experiences. Figuring out what these experiences mean for characters, and how the characters transform these experiences through the act of interpreting them, isn't just your average game. But that is a whole other metaphysical thing we needn't get in to.

Anyhow, all I meant was that if you take the game seriously at all, you have to set aside the problem of profitability while discussing whether vile material is really necessary or appropriate; in other words, while theorizing. When it comes to publishing something, naturally the market for material becomes the leading factor again. In other words, Boy bands move a lot of product. That goes as little a distance toward proving their greatness as indie rock's far smaller sales figures do toward proving their lameness. The really good stuff is sometimes hard to sell. Just look at how long it took Joyce to get Dubliners into print. EEesh.. poor guy.

 

[rounser]

Your dismissiveness speaks volumes.

You should read between the lines more often; maybe then you could insert the words "summoning monsters and raping them" and "being tortured and perpetually sustained by a ring of regeneration" and "is screwing his familiar" into normal Dungeon adventures, and be happy without special concessions.

 

[Azzy]

You should read between the lines more often; maybe then you could insert the words "summoning monsters and raping them" and "being tortured and perpetually sustained by a ring of regeneration" and "is screwing his familiar" into normal Dungeon adventures, and be happy without special concessions.

Uh huh. You get ever the more quaint each time you post. Are you even trying to be taken seriously?

If that's the extent of what you see "vile" material as, perhaps it's best that you don't use the BoVD. Mind you, I bought the BoVD for the expanded rules on curses, rules for possession, what cultists gain from sacrifices, new monsters, prestige class, spells, etc. Oh, the archfiends being stated out was a bonus, too.

If you believe it's all about "summoning monsters and raping them," I suppose I can see why you're avoiding it. However, that's not what the book is about, so these kind of retorts are weak at best.

For someone who's not saying that those of us that use "vile" material are sickos, you do a lot of implying.