Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[tburdett]

Yes, Conquest is a great 'game useful' show that gives a lot of interesting information. The recent S.W.A.T. episode was a real source of inspiration in getting my d20 Modern game prepared. It's nice to hear that I'm not the only one watching the show!

I generally avoid watching anything that is not on the History Channel, Animal Planet, the Discovery channels, the cartoon only channels, or the news channels. There's too many other things to do than sit in front of the TV. Like spending time with the family, reading, working on my campaign, or sitting in front of the computer. TV, except for my 'must watch' Conquest, is extremely far down the priority list.

That is one thing that I really like about EN World. The rules prohibiting profanity and the active moderation to see that those rules are obeyed. There are a number of places that I would like to visit, but avoid, because these rules do not apply there. If this place was 'vile' or 'profane', I would not be willing or able to participate.

 

[Wayside]

This is supposed to be a game about fantasies and a break from "real-life." If this is what you fantasize about then someone has a problem.

The game is supposed to be about whatever I want it to be about. I don't read books as a way of taking a break from "real-life;" I read them as way of intensifying it. The same goes for playing this particular kind of game. My very active fantasy life, on the other hand, is totally distinct from D&D .

I totally sympathize with parents wanting to filter the material availible to their kids. This is not a degree of that that I agree with, but I think the one good argument against more vile material in Dungeon/Dragon is that a lot of people consider them core publications, hence, publications that should be suitable for ALL players. Whether the magazines are core or not anymore is another debate though.

 

[Nasma]

If anyone is interested, here is a thread by Blackdirge that I would highly recommend reading. It incorporates BoVD rules throughout and is, in my opinion at least, exellent. Just remember that Grummok is, and is supposed to be, evil.

I thought that I'd link to this so that people can see how the BoVD can be used without being too gratuitous (Madamme Hunnek perhaps excluded).

Another, maybe even better, example is another of Blackdirge's threads Your Weekly, Suped Up, Buffed Out Classic Monster Thread, just check out the Nameless, it is near the bottom.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

If anyone is interested, here is a thread by Blackdirge that I would highly recommend reading. It incorporates BoVD rules throughout and is, in my opinion at least, exellent. Just remember that Grummok is, and is supposed to be, evil.

I thought that I'd link to this so that people can see how the BoVD can be used without being too gratuitous (Madamme Hunnek perhaps excluded).

Another, maybe even better, example is another of Blackdirge's threads Your Weekly, Suped Up, Buffed Out Classic Monster Thread, just check out the Nameless, it is near the bottom.

Wow, Nasma. Thanks for the plug.

Both threads make use of rules from the BoVD and deal with "mature" themes, I will let you decide if they are gratuitous. Coincendentally the Grummok thread is pretty much exactly what my campaign looks and feels like, save that the PCs are good aligned.

Dirge

 

[Arnwyn]

Ultimately, the only answer to the question "should Dungeon (and I'll throw in Dragon) magazine publish more 'vile' content" is: "does it make Paizo more money?". If yes, then yes, there should be more "vile". If no, then there shouldn't be.

Reasons, such as "morality" concerns, are a non-issue. If one doesn't like it, then they should not read it, or subscribe to it (and not subscribing doesn't matter, because - based on the premise above - if they are publishing "vile" then it makes them more money than not publishing it, and those people have been factored in). Everything out there has content that some person won't like - that's life. So to say "I won't buy it because it doesn't meet my needs/is morally wrong" is fine. But saying "they shouldn't publish it because it doesn't meet my needs/is morally wrong" is a patently unreasonable comment. (Yeah, it's semantics, I guess, since when they say the latter, they probably mean the former.)

It's really that simple. Unfortunately, no one on this messageboard is even remotely qualified to determine whether "vile" in Dungeon/Dragon will sell or not - only qualified and competent market research professionals will even have a chance at getting this information.

However, it's a heck of a lot of fun to speculate!