Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[boschdevil]

By Paizo (a) combining Dungeon and Polyhedron in order to keep the magazine in existance and (b) cranking up the cost to $7.99 per issue retail, I really wonder how much more "liberating" they can stand ...

 

[tburdett]

I understand that there are those people who place their wants and comforts above the need to do what they feel is right and necessary. I am not one of those people. If I see or feel that something is wrong, I take action.

Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, shame on me. That is my motto.

I felt that it was right and necessary to stop purchasing Dragon because it contained material that I found offensive. I do not intend to support the sale of future 'vile' material or profanity.

I am not, in any way, trying to limit your ability to buy that kind of material if you so desire. I will not, however, buy or support that kind of material myself.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I felt that it was right and necessary to stop purchasing Dragon because it contained material that I found offensive. I do not intend to support the sale of future 'vile' material or profanity.

But by not buying any more issues (none of which contained Vile material), you didn't support any material at all.

In addition, because your players chose not to buy material that they could very well use in future games (either run by someone else or themselves), they've chosen the same lack of support as well as deprived themselves of otherwise viable material. This shows more of a lack of foresight (both yours and theirs) than it does any sense of moral obligation you seem to think you were expressing. By contributing to the drop in sales, you've actually contributed to Paizo looking into making the change they are proposing to make.

Now you want to jump on the band-wagon and complain about it?

 

[tburdett]

Please quote, from any of my messages in this thread, any portion that you consider to be a complaint. I don't see it.

What they have done since that issue, or what they may do in the future, is not relevant because I no longer purchase Dragon.

With that in mind, please understand that I no longer care what they place in the magazine. It is really that simple. I do not care what they have printed since that issue and I do not care what they print in the future. I am no longer a customer. I don't know how I can state it any clearer.

I have not purchased the last few issues of Dungeon because I have been busy dealing with my wife's recovery from a recent surgery and am now preparing for an upcoming surgery for my middle daughter. I did not realize that they had published, or were planning to publish 'vile' material. If they do publish that type of material I will cease to be a customer of that publication as well.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

By contributing to the drop in sales, you've actually contributed to Paizo looking into making the change they are proposing to make.
?

So when sales drop after "Vile" material is regularly included this will encourage Pazio to continue this trend? I'm confused. Even if sales for some reason temporarily rise I suspect that cutting the Magazine off from children will do more harm to sales in the long run.

 

[SemperJase]

All over one little issue? Over material that consisted of less than half of the total pages..? In one issue out of over 300?!

The same can be said of each issue Playboy. Only a fraction of the pages have nudity on them. I still would expect people opposed to that kind of material to not buy the magazine.

It doesn't matter how much of an issue has offensive material. Its that the magazine has ANY material that I find offensive. It was only one issue, but this whole thread is about Dungeon's decision to print more.

 

[boschdevil]

Even if sales for some reason temporarily rise I suspect that cutting the Magazine off from children will do more harm to sales in the long run.

And this is my biggest problem with Vile (or Mature, whatever label you want to give it) material. I really don't have a huge problem with this material, as long as they keep it out of core material, Dungeon Magazine, and Dragon Magazine. If there is such a huge demand, start a new magazine and name it "Headless Honcho" or something. Paizo has already mentioned that they are going to make a magazine for miniatures. While you're at it, make another magazinefor Vile (or Mature) material. Just keep it out of the mainstream D&D publications.

 

[kenjib]

But by not buying any more issues (none of which contained Vile material), you didn't support any material at all.

In addition, because your players chose not to buy material that they could very well use in future games (either run by someone else or themselves), they've chosen the same lack of support as well as deprived themselves of otherwise viable material. This shows more of a lack of foresight (both yours and theirs) than it does any sense of moral obligation you seem to think you were expressing. By contributing to the drop in sales, you've actually contributed to Paizo looking into making the change they are proposing to make.

Now you want to jump on the band-wagon and complain about it?

LOL - Orwellian doublespeak. Yes, people should buy things that offend them to prevent the producers from making even worse things. Makes sense to me.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So when sales drop after "Vile" material is regularly included this will encourage Pazio to continue this trend? I'm confused. Even if sales for some reason temporarily rise I suspect that cutting the Magazine off from children will do more harm to sales in the long run.

The same can be said of Playboy. Only a fraction of the pages have nudity on them. I still would expect people opposed to that kind of material to not buy the magazine.

Well, as the first post in this thread states...

...It seems they received an "overwhwlming" response from those of us who want this kind of material when they said they would not publish any more...

If Paizo feels they will gain more than they will loose, than why worry about a vocal minority on one message board?

It doesn't matter how much of an issue has offensive material. Its that the magazine has ANY material that I find offensive.

And that you find it offensive strikes me as very close-minded; But what worth's an opinion of someone that stopped buying their product over something so petty as an article made to support one product in a single issue? Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about regaining your business either. Being that they stated originally that they weren't going to print more, and yet you didn't buy further issues, means that you've already washed your hands in regards to having a legitament stance about the future direction of the magazine: What they publish, mature content or not, will not change whether or not you purchase more, so your complaint has no relevance since your purchase is already void to them.

While Kenjib would like to say that this is "Orwellian double-speak", it isn't; It's plain and simple economics.

Now, if you had taken it on their word that they wouldn't, then bought more issues based on that belief, only to have them turn around and print more mature content, than you'd have a leg to stand on.

And don't feel like I'm picking on you; I stopped buying Dragon when it stopped being an RP-aid and become more akin to a guide-book for power gamers. But I certainly didn't whine and cry about making myself insignificant to their sales projections, which, consequently, is exactly what you seem to be doing.

 

[Tiefling]

This line of thinking is a stretch. Extending your argument says that because I did NOT buy BoVD, I'm telling you how to play the game.

Not really. If the BoVD had been a book with a lot of useful, non-vile content and five or ten pages of vile content, and you chose not to buy it based on that presence simply because you think it's wrong, then I would say that you're indirectly telling me how to play. Let me explain how I figure that.

No one in this conversation has told anyone how to play the game. No one has told you not to buy BoVD or not to use it.
Your statement infers that I should continue to support I publication I ethically disagree with.

In that case you are forcing your ethics on me.

I do not want to support a publication I do not agree with. That decision places no obligation on you to stop buying the magazine or playing the game your way.

Here's how I see it. I'm operating on the assumption that if you find something offensive, you think that it is morally/ethically flawed in some way. Thinking that some material is morally or ethically flawed kind of suggests that people who use it are similarly flawed, but your opinion of the morality of something is a gut reaction, not a reasoned one, so I won't hold it against you.

However, consider a publication that has a lot of useful, non-offensive content mixed in with a little offensive content. The offensive content clearly isn't intended for you, it's intended for people who have a use for such material. You are absolutely free to ignore it.

If you instead choose not to buy the publication based solely on the fact that you think a small part of it is morally flawed, you're saying that it's wrong to cater in part to a certain subset of gamers who find such material to be useful. It doesn't seem like such a leap of logic to me to suggest that you are therefore saying that said subset of gamers is morally flawed themselves.

We at ENWorld have a history of overreacting to news, and I say that we should wait and see what happens. Either way isn't going to be the end of the hobby as we know it. Let's chill.