Existing "Mature" Themes in already published products

[Erik Mona]

>>>
This was called River of Blood, IIRC, (quite the hubbub) and was one of Mister Mona's creations, as well. Wasn't it, Erik?
>>>

Oh, yes.

--Erik

 

[Nightfall]

Not that many would notice this, but besides BoVD, there's also Champions of Darkness from Ravenloft. Ravenloft folks! Now THAT'S mature gaming since 2nd! But I'm certainly looking forward to seeing what Champions has to offer me.

Btw, Erik, AotA WAS evil AND mature!

 

[Aeolius]

Ravenloft folks! Now THAT'S mature gaming since 2nd!

Actually, Ravenloft began as a series of 1e AD&D modules.

 

[Nightfall]

Right BUT I was talking the CAMPAIGN setting, not the modules themselves Aeo.

 

[Aeolius]

Right BUT I was talking the CAMPAIGN setting, not the modules themselves Aeo.

hrmmm.... splitting hairs...nahh... Now, splitting HARES or splitting HEIRS...not THAT'S vile!

My Night Hag Family Tree most likely has at least one root in Ravenloft, at any rate. Though the majority of vampires in my campaign are ixitxachitl.

 

[Pseudonym]

When the Kalamar campaign setting first came out for 3E, some people were up in arms about the descriptions of the priesthoods of some of the evil deities, particularly the Vicelord. It seems rather silly in hindsight, but some suggested that the campaign book should have had a warning lable on its cover due to the "mature" nature.

A tempest in a teapot, but were it not for some hysterical poster on the FR mailing list, I never would have given the Kalamar setting a second thought. His ranting made me want to see it for myself. I left my FLGS with the campaign setting and have been playing Kalamar ever since.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

I remember throwing a little flak over how dumb I thought phantasmal lover was.

Does that count?

I must have missed the tantrum.

When I read that spell description, I remember wondering if DM's worldwide would be pulling out Playboy magazines for visual aids, making the players kiss the photo's...

heh.

What? Giants VS Atlanta game on? Be right there...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think that the difference between most of the other products (Queen of Lies, Legions of Hell, River of Blood (one of my favorite LG scenarios incidentally) and the BOVD is that in the first class of materials, the mature topics are included as a portion of the whole. If Kingdoms of Kalamar deals with the rituals of the vice-lord's clerics or River of Blood deals with the perverted religious rituals of Xvarts, those are a part of a larger world and a bigger story. On the other hand, if the hype is to be believed, BOVD is supposed to be exclusively about how to have vile and disgusting campaigns and has been marketed in such a way that one might expect the antagonists from River of Blood to be the protagonists in a campaign based upon the BOVD.

Well, that and BOVD, is a much bigger product with much more hype and publicity all of which specifically centers upon its supposed "maturity". The same is not true of the other materials.

 

[Monte At Home]

On the other hand, if the hype is to be believed, BOVD is supposed to be exclusively about how to have vile and disgusting campaigns and has been marketed in such a way that one might expect the antagonists from River of Blood to be the protagonists in a campaign based upon the BOVD.

If that is indeed the hype, don't believe it.

 

[Mark]

Oh, yes.

Seems a bit anti-climactic to have you take it in stride when I considered it quite a turning point for the RPGA and myself. Quite frankly, I considered the publication of that module as a potential elevation of the maturity level of the LG wing of the RPGA, but the backlash surprised the hell out of me. The backlash is the main reason I chose to no longer pursue DMing engagements with the RPGA.

LG was, IMHO, the last bastion of solid, old-school role-playing for RPGA play, but I considered the umbrage shown River of Blood as a sign that a large portion of the LG RPGA players weren't interested in mature themed modules. I had entered into the RPGA, and specifically the LG wing, with the perception that most of the people who wanted a more "role-play intense" environment were doing the same (as far as which wind of the RPGA they chose). This seems to be the case from those on this board who have been vocal thus far, but it also seems that those who held GH in high regard abandoned the RPGA as having left them in the lurch (chatdemon if you've ever had a chance to tell me I am wrong, or support me, here it is).

The feeling I got from that showing of umbrage was that at least some of those who had latched onto LG via the RPGA were simply looking for a "stepped-downed" version of the other RPGA venues rather than being the old-school RPGA players ready to take the next step in role-playing, and move toward deeper subject matter and richer characterizations. It's a major reason I stepped up my own production of CMG material. People involved in the RPGA LG (who spoke out), for the most part, seemed to misunderstand what it was you (Erik) were trying to do with the module and I lost interest in swimming against that same tide of discontent (and other obstacles within my own region which seemed so deeply intrenched as to be insurmountable).

I think that the difference between most of the other products (Queen of Lies, Legions of Hell, River of Blood (one of my favorite LG scenarios incidentally) and the BOVD is that in the first class of materials, the mature topics are included as a portion of the whole. If Kingdoms of Kalamar deals with the rituals of the vice-lord's clerics or River of Blood deals with the perverted religious rituals of Xvarts, those are a part of a larger world and a bigger story. On the other hand, if the hype is to be believed, BOVD is supposed to be exclusively about how to have vile and disgusting campaigns and has been marketed in such a way that one might expect the antagonists from River of Blood to be the protagonists in a campaign based upon the BOVD.

Well, that and BOVD, is a much bigger product with much more hype and publicity all of which specifically centers upon its supposed "maturity". The same is not true of the other materials.

If that is indeed the hype, don't believe it.

Let me take on both of those at once. First of all, I think that Monte is disregarding his own Line of Sight (regarding entering the fray of controversy), mostly because (I believe) he has read far too much of the conjecture surrounding the pending release of BoVD. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but this short-handed comment in not your usual form, and certainly not satisfying to Elder-Basilisk, who I believe is trying to sympathise with your position.

Nevertheless, the sealed section of Dragon doesn't give a lot to go on, so I can understand how so many people have built up in their own minds where they belive that BoVD is going.

Bottom line for me will be in what hits the stands, not what people think will be forth-coming, so I am neither impressed by the arguments for or against, thus far.

What I do know is that there is certainly plenty of room for thoughtful approaches to plots and characterizations that I will be bringing to the table now and in the future. I hope that what we see in the BoVD includes options that allow, and dare I say, promote, the kind of game that not only tantalizes but inspires and exhibits a purposeful elevation toward a new level both for rules mechanics and role-play situations.