Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[Hand of Evil]

And TNN is changing its name to Spike and is targetting the male pop. More vile is just that an ad, shock and awe (trade mark Sony). It is to try and get more readers, it is a buzz word, got you to look kind of thing.

Think about this...

Does vile improve the quality of the product?

 

[Wayside]

And TNN is changing its name to Spike and is targetting the male pop. More vile is just that an ad, shock and awe (trade mark Sony). It is to try and get more readers, it is a buzz word, got you to look kind of thing.

Think about this...

Does vile improve the quality of the product?

Nope. Quality comes in kinds but kind is not a factor in quality. I.e. The Sopranos is quality vile, but the vile is not a factor in the show's quality. Books without vile material aren't good because they lack vile material either.

I'm sure you're 75% right about the shock value, but there seem to be some people genuinely put off by the vile material itself. Whether this is because it's being labelled as vile calls their attention to it in a bad way (prejudices them against it) or not, sadly, we will never know. It's definitely a possibility though.

 

[Razuur]

I must be pretty callosed. I didn't think the magazine or the book was really that vile...

So I don't see the big deal.

Razuur

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Have you even bothered to read Anthony V's post in the other thread? If mature material alienates so many different groups then why would he classify the BoVD as a "bestseller" and even suggest an alternate product line devoted entirely to mature titles?

I'm done arguing this point. Its obvious that the vocal minority isn't going to listen.

Yes the BoVD sells well. I purchased a copy and would likely purchase more from an alternate product line if provided. This does not mean that I wan't it in Dragon/Dungeon or that I think it should be there. Dragon/Dungeon is different from a mature product line, they are the offical magazines of D&D and therefore have a responsibility to all players of the game. As a couple of polls showed most of us started playing in early teenage years or younger. I first subsrcibed to Dragon when I was 14 or 15. Yes the majority of players by far are past thier teens but that is due to 20+ years of teenagers starting to play and continuing to play. Now that there are so many adults there is a place for more mature products, but lets not do it at the expense of bringing new players in. I will buy from a mature line, but I don't want to see the mature in the "core" products. I might be willing to buy a mature "Black Dragon" magazine but like the core books Dragon/Dungeon should be for all ages. Its not a question of mature products or not, but whether the "Core" products that introduce the game should be exclusive or not. Now that we are members of this gaming society lets not close the doors to new members.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, by the time I started playing D&D (13), I had already seen:

-The Godfather
-Night of the Living Dead
-Heavy Metal
-Excalibur
-Caligula
-The Exorcist

I'd already read a half-dozen Cthulu-esque tales and the entire original Conan series.

I had a subscription to Heavy Metal and Epic.

And then I started playing.

In my first game, I played a Paladin that got tortured by a Lich for not renouncing my deity (I think the DM wanted to run an Evil game; I learned the *hard way* later on that he was natorious for allowing Evil PCs pretend to be good and infliltrate otherwise decent groups).

So I read a lot about increasing the accessability of D&D to a younger generation, but in all honesty, I just don't buy it. Parents are either open to such things (in which case there isn't a problem) or they aren't (in which case no amount of ambiguity of subject matter is going to change things).

There is already vileness in the Core rules (Soul sucking demons that use lust to lure their victims? Undead necromancers that exchange their living essence for power? Brain-eating aliens that view other races as cattle and breed-stock?). All BoVD does is go a step further, bringing in elements of cultural myth (notably dark-age "lore" regarding demonology, sex and body fluids with more than a dash of Clive Barker) into the game. Most of this material ends up in games anyway when gamers do any amount of research to bring in more possibilities (it's how it ended up in mine to begin with); BoVD simply establishes the connection and methodology of such within the default setting.

Also, there is a bit of sneering regarding "mature" content. Please note that BoVD is just one release in what is intended to be a group of books. So if your going to sneer at anything, at least do it against the true object of your prejudice ("vile" material, and do include the stuff already in the Core Rules), not an entire line that, thus far, has only one product release thus far. Especially considering that the next release is the BoVD's opposite: The Book of Exalted Deeds.

 

[Dr. NRG]

Huzzah? Man... *NRG forms a square with his hands*

NRG

 

[Psion]

Got your old copy of Vault of the Drow laying around? Reread the description for Erelhui Cinlu. I was 14 when I "went" there, and it certainly didn't twist me any more than Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors did.

Got a copy of Harbinger House? Ritual sacrifice driven by delusions of godhood, anybody?

Got a copy of The Illithiad? Need I go into that particular book of nastiness?

You'll excuse me, of course, if I say I don't find any of that as repugnant as lichloved or corpsebond.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But of course! After all, taste is relative.

 

[Psion]

That's part of the problem with "vile"; they've lumped together the borderline tasteless concepts with the useful game mechanics under the one umbrella.

It's like an unwanted side-order.
"Adventures involving possession and corrupted spells and demon princes thanks, hold the mutilation, violation and perverse morbidity please."

Quick! Write this down! I am in complete and total agreement with Rounser here.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't think that with the exception of a few things, BoVD is all that repugnant. It's about dark evil, but that's par for the course in Swords & Sorcery gaming AFAIAC. Some of the art and "lichloved" are about the only things that really bothered me (well, in the BoVD. I actually found MORE things that bothered me in the skinscribed dragon article.)


But to reiterate my position here, I don't think that Dragon and Dungeon should push the boundaries. I can choose whether or not BoVD is appropriate for my game. But Dungeon and Dragon are THE central magazine venues for D&D. They should cater to a broader audience, an audience that in part, either personally or in their family, do not want this sort of material in their household and does not want their subscription money and pagecount squandered because the publisher feels the need to be "edgy."

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Well, by the time I started playing D&D (13), I had already seen:

-The Godfather
-Night of the Living Dead
-Heavy Metal
-Excalibur
-Caligula
-The Exorcist

I'd already read a half-dozen Cthulu-esque tales and the entire original Conan series.

I had a subscription to Heavy Metal and Epic.

And then I started playing.

I was first intoduced to the game at 9 and started playing regularly by 13. At 13 I never saw any of those movies (although I have now, many are great movies) nor subscribed to Heavy Metal or Epic, I had read the LotR but not Lovecraft. My parents wouldn't let me see such things at that age. They looked over the D&D stuff that I bought which was OD&D and were fine with it. If some of the "Vile" stuff had been included then I'm sure they would not have let me play. The point is everyone grew up with different standards and if the game had been "Vile" then there is a posibility I would not be playing today as I would have been forced to find other creative outlets.

In my first game, I played a Paladin that got tortured by a Lich for not renouncing my deity (I think the DM wanted to run an Evil game; I learned the *hard way* later on that he was natorious for allowing Evil PCs pretend to be good and infliltrate otherwise decent groups).

My first game was heroic fantansy of killing monsters not dark bakstabing, but everyone has thier own story.

So I read a lot about increasing the accessability of D&D to a younger generation, but in all honesty, I just don't buy it. Parents are either open to such things (in which case there isn't a problem) or they aren't (in which case no amount of ambiguity of subject matter is going to change things).

It is not an either or situation. There is a wide scale of what parents find acceptable for children or not. Why not make the core products as friendly as possible to as many people on the scale. As I said I was a borderline case, and if D&D was more "Vile" at that time I might not be gaming.

There is already vileness in the Core rules (Soul sucking demons that use lust to lure their victims? Undead necromancers that exchange their living essence for power? Brain-eating aliens that view other races as cattle and breed-stock?). All BoVD does is go a step further, bringing in elements of cultural myth (notably dark-age "lore" regarding demonology, sex and body fluids with more than a dash of Clive Barker) into the game. Most of this material ends up in games anyway when gamers do any amount of research to bring in more possibilities (it's how it ended up in mine to begin with); BoVD simply establishes the connection and methodology of such within the default setting.

The BoVD goes beyond what I find acceptable for children. Personally I would be fine if the Succubus was moved from the MM to the FF. One thing to note though is that in the Core books these ideas are not graphicaly described. Except for a couple of monsters in the MM there is nothing in the core books that is particularly "Vile" or "Mature" and even then it is not graphic. Sure killing is part of D&D but it is not graphic as it uses an abstract called HPs. Its not like Rolemaster with its descriptive critical charts. The concept of killing I don't think is a problem as even before video games kids played cowboys and indians. I think it is more a question of how graphic that depiction is in its effects on kids. The way I like to play D&D was/is always more cartoon vilonce rather than Hellraiser violence to me. This does not mean that I object to myself and others playing more graphicly if we choose, but that I don't want this forced upon me as part of the basic rules.

Also, there is a bit of sneering regarding "mature" content. Please note that BoVD is just one release in what is intended to be a group of books. So if your going to sneer at anything, at least do it against the true object of your prejudice ("vile" material, and do include the stuff already in the Core Rules), not an entire line that, thus far, has only one product release thus far. Especially considering that the next release is the BoVD's opposite: The Book of Exalted Deeds.

As I have said, I am not "sneering" at the BoVD or mature content. I have bought it and will continue to purchace mature products in the future. This does not mean that I can't object to it in core products or Dragon/Dungeon. I want to be able to introduce my children or nephews and neices to this game as soon as they are able to participate, not to have to wait until they are emotionaly ready to handle mature themes.