Dungeon magazine says maybe more vile. Huzzah!

[Mercule]

I really don't have a problem with the idea of "vile" or "mature" content in a game. As a DM, I've actually used rape and descriptions of human experimentation as plot devices. I've used "mature" ideas well, when nothing else really illustrates the scene I'm trying to set. I've also used "mature" ideas inappropriately and paid the price.

The funny thing is that "mature" content does not always mean mature stories. Quite often it means the opposite. Done too often or without context, "mature" content is one of the most immature things that can be added to a game/movie/whatever. It's basically mental masturbation (and I do mean that).

A mature person doesn't throw "mature" or "vile" content in just to do it. Any sort of vague description, such as "the remnants of unspeakable acts of human violation and torture" works just as well as something more graphic 95%+ of the time. The only reason to throw in something more is if it really is important as a plot device and/or you want to do something with the issues surrounding the action/environment itself.

If an adventure contains a rape, for example, does it include it because the PCs are supposed to help the woman cope with what happened (or cope with it themselves, if they are a PC)? Or, is it just in there because it sounded like something interesting to have the bad guy do? The former can be a good thing. The latter shows real immaturity on the part of the DM/group/author.

Basically, if a group's (or adventure's) style of play is dungeon crawls and killing orcs/dragons/demons, then any introduction of "mature" content is really going to be puerile and immature. If the group is more cerebral, then inclusion of "mature" themes can add some spice to the game. Even in the best of cases, though, "mature" content needs to be infrequent or it loses its value.

Part of my concern is that any inclusion of "mature" content in Dragon or Dungeon is going to be botched. The format of the magazines is such that they don't lend themselves well to such things (which is not a bad thing IMHO). I could see something in one of the Wizard's Workshop articles, but I'm be suspicious of it anywhere else.

The very use of the word "vile" as a promotion only makes me more doubtful. "Vile" carries the connotation that something horrible is done gratuitously. So "vile content" immediately drives home the idea of gratuitously nasty content.

 

[Darrin Drader]

It's basically mental masturbation (and I do mean that).

[Meta] Gratuitously restate mental masturbation. [/Meta]

 

[Mercule]

[Meta] Gratuitously restate mental masturbation. [/Meta]

Ladies and gentlemen: Allow me to present Exhibit A!


Note to admins: I'm so very sorry.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Ladies and gentlemen: Allow me to present Exhibit A!

No problem. I asked for that one.

 

[Alzrius]

I usually try to stay away from these discussions, but I feel like piping up here.

This has been said before, but the people who don't like the Vile don't have to use it. Worred about what your kids will think? No problem, just don't play those adventures. There's still how many issues with no Vile content? You're set.

On the issue of what makes better villains, namely the examples given...we've had that. We've had the Darth Vader and Hitler-esque villains before. We've had bad guys who were evil but not Vile, per se. Now we're looking into something different. It's not the end of those other types of villainy, its the beginning of a new brand of it in D&D.

Vile content won't be everywhere, and it won't cover any significant portion of the game. It's yet another of the "options, not restrictions" theme of the new edition. Now there can be fantasy adventures and material thats Vile, and not so Vile. Pick and choose. Every single thing won't be what you'll like, but then, what ever is? Paizo can't please all of the people all of the time, nor should they try. Instead, they're diversifying what they deliver each month as the months pass, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[boschdevil]

Really don't prefer either side.

This subject at times make me feel like I'm in a situation when I'm in the Eastern front during World War II and trying to decide whether it is a better idea to fight for the bloodthirsty leader Hitler or the bloodthirsty leader Stalin. Both sides have characteristics that make me cringe whenever I think of them.

For the anti-BVD group arguments, sometimes I feel like I'm listening to the minister in "Footloose" explaining to me that dancing is bad and unholy and that all it will do is bring down all of society. While we're at it, let us get all of our controversial books together and have a weenie roast while we burn the books.

For the pro-BVD group, I find it somewhat interesting that the title that they want to give the BVD material is "mature." Personally, when I heard that the were going to do a book like this, the first idea that flashed in my head was people I knew in my 9th grade math class that loved to draw illustrations of people who were getting their heads sheared off of their bodies.

After saying this, if I really was forced to take a side in tis argument, I would say that I'd probably still lean anti-BVD. My main reasoning for this is that I want to give the game a mainstream appeal so young players wouldn't have to hide their books from their parents for fear that they would be banned from such activities.

I only say this because as an older gamer now, it is really easy for me to say that my parents would have been cool about the BVD content. However, beinghonest with myself, I think that my mother would have experienced some reservations about the game if there was a book available names "Book of Vile Darkness" and the subject matter therein. I really have to tip my hat to the young gamers and parents navigating around all the things I never had to transverse when I was gaming at a young age.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

Every post on this thread was more or less expected... "I am mature, I can handle and want this stuff in my game." Which I can respect, even if I happen to think your right to want this stuff in your game does not extend to the right to jam it down my throat.

Sigil, with all due respect how has vile/mature material been jammed down your throat? One book and two magazines is a tiny fraction of all the D&D stuff out there. You are free to not buy that one book and those two magazines. If WoTC went to an all vile all the time attitude then that would certainly be force feeding you material you don't want. But as things stand the non-vile stuff is in the vast majority. I think at the very most you will see an occaisonal article in dragon or an adventure in dungeon and thats about it. You could easily ignore this stuff and still enjoy the thousands of pages of regular old D&D that will continue to be the main focus of WoTC.

On a side note, I have a question for you. Will you be checking out the Book of Exalted Deeds? I for one can't wait for it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

On a side note, I have a question for you. Will you be checking out the Book of Exalted Deeds? I for one can't wait for it.

As a followup question, if you do plan to get the Book of Exalted Deeds, how do you reconcile the fact that such a proponent of vile material (me) wrote a large chunk of the Book of Exalted Deeds?

 

[Wayside]

The word they're looking for is gratuitous, not unoriginal. It's quite possible to be very original whilst being gratuitous. What I think they mean by unoriginal is that creating gratuitous, offensive and vulgar material is easy and artless. Comedy, for instance, is much harder and rewarding when done right.

I was quoting someone else. It would be presumptuous of me to say what they meant by it. Whatever they meant, however, they did so, as do you, offensively, which I really see no reason for. Everytime this subject comes up the discussion becomes spiteful; whether or not it's because conservatives and anti-consersative reactionaries just can't maintain a decent level of decorum I couldn't really say. Also, I don't think our definitions of comedy mesh, since for you difficulty somehow enters into the equation, whilst I would say comedy is a genre of art, not something that is merely funny. Art is not 'difficult;' Aristophanic comedy, for example. I guess you could call it more thoughtful, if you want.

As for you pro-"vile"-ers, please cease to intentionally confuse the terms "adult" or "mature" content with the idea that liking these forms of content makes you adult or mature. It's often quite the opposite.

The confusion is yours. I've never even skimmed the BoVD, nor do I subsribe to or read Dungeon, or Dragon. I'm not a pro-"vile"-er, I'm an anti-buttmunch. In this case I just happened to come down on that side because TheSigil popped in and (unintentially I'm sure) started the whole tangential "you're immature!" "oh yeah? well you're a pansy!" thing. I suppose I'm on the vile side because I prefer tollerance to censorship, but also the thread was clearly pro-vile in the first place, so why do the anti-vile people feel such a pressing need to troll it? I mean, if you want to have a serious discussion about it, be serious, don't call people names. In the above paragraph, for example, you're tip-toeing around the assertion that 'those who like adult or mature content are most often immature non-adults.' Come on man, there's really no need for that.

And, as for assuming that perusing mature content might trick someone into thinking they're mature, that's not entirely the province of D&D is it? Read any Baudelaire, or Sophocles lately? Sure, there are plenty of immature kids who play D&D, but there are plenty of us thoughtful players too.

 

[rounser]

Also, I don't think our definitions of comedy mesh, since for you difficulty somehow enters into the equation, whilst I would say comedy is a genre of art, not something that is merely funny. Art is not 'difficult;' Aristophanic comedy, for example. I guess you could call it more thoughtful, if you want.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I put it to you that art of worth usually requires talent or dedication to create. You can take any adventure and add rape, torture, mutilation and whatever combinations of sex and death and tastelessness you want, but usually that doesn't make the creation of any worth - if anything, it usually detracts from worth. Look at the RPG.net review of F.A.T.A.L. for proof. Art may not be difficult, but I think there's far more art in evoking a good laugh than inspiring disgust that some find titillating and "edgy".

I'll admit bias - I don't like books like American Psycho, and take a dim view of those who overrate their literary worth because they think they're edgy or challenge norms or some other bollocks. Call a spade a spade, don't intellectualise it. D&D already rides on a pornography of power and violence and wish-fulfilment, so I'm not surprised that a good deal of the audience is interested in such subject matter, but I don't think that's an invitation to spotlight it gratuitously.

I suppose I'm on the vile side because I prefer tollerance to censorship

It's not about censorship, it's about what some of the audience want to read and use, and others don't. Every page of vile content that needs to be ignored steals pages from the non-vilers. Again, enough with the rhetoric, this isn't a free-speech and censorship issue, it's a what-we-want-from-Dungeon issue.