Existing "Mature" Themes in already published products

[Jürgen Hubert]

Darkness, Shmarkness. While I don't have the BoVD yet, I doubt it will come close to Delta Green:Countdown in the sheer quality of evil ideas.

I mean, the only group in it that could truely be called "good" kidnaps people and drills holes into their heads!

 

[qstor]

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 highly disagree with you Mark. I've been playing RPGs and D&D since 1979 when I was 12. I joined the RPGA in Sept. 2000 for Living Greyawk. I was in a RPGA Club in Michigan but did not play RPGA games prior to the start of LG. I played and ran non-RPGA games at the club which was a big part of Living City in Michigan.

I wanted to be part of LG which was new. Living City then and now tends to be more "munchkiny" than some players and parts of LG is/could becoming. I knew that Greyhawk canon was safe in Erik's hands. IIRC since he is still "consulting" with the Circle of Six. I hope that canon is still safe. I really enjoyed his other module "As I lay daying" as well and I continue to hold his Green Ronin monster book and Greyhawk work both web based and non web based in very high regard.

As a lawyer for abused and neglected children in Maryland and as a member of a region where players under 16 are involved in LG, I can safely say that River of Blood as orginally written was NOT good for LG or for WOTC. I believe that the backlash was more about the content of the module then anything else. Other quality modules have been produced in LG that stick to the "old" standards of conduct. I continue to believe that rape, nudity, graphic violence and drug addiction need not be part of D&D. However I stronglyt feel that authors that want to write about such subjects should be not censored, far from it. I just think that WOTC should continue to stick with the standard of conduct within the RPGA and its core products and let third party vendors stick to such topics. I believe that they do so, however at renewed risk of criticism from the Christian Right.

Ok...I'll get off my high horse.

Mike

 

[rounser]

First of all, I think that Monte is disregarding his own Line of Sight (regarding entering the fray of controversy)

Not so sure of that Mark. In that in the line of sight he states that you're allowed to correct a reviewer's factual inaccuracies. If the book doesn't push protagonists equal to RoB's antagonists, then he's working within his own rules to point out that the hype is false.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You know, crazy thought, and perhaps a little hypocritical of me to say this, but maybe we should wait until we've seen more of the BoVD, maybe even until it's released before we start saying it's just appalling nonsense with the subtext that it will turn us all into evil monster/cause the religious right to burn down our homes.

More likely it'll be mildly "vile" material which doesn't even approach the typical level of "maturity" of WW products, let alone the grimness of the Black Dog line.

I would suggest, too, that WW are hardly on their own in producing more "mature" material, virtually all RPGs currently have more "mature" material in them and their settings than D&D...

And know that I think about it, FFS, what is "mature"? Gay people is "mature" now? I guess the fact that gay characters appear in vast numbers of popular prime-time shows hasn't prepared the public for the shocking horror that is two people of the same sex who *really* like each other...?

There's always been bucketloads of slavery, torture, and often fairly horrific violence in RPGs, and frankly, no-one has blinked an eye-lid. It seems very strange to talk about maturity in the context of a game where your PC may well have killed hundreds of sentient beings in bloody and brutal hand-to-hand combat. I suppose that shows how utterly sanitised the combat most people run is...

Drug use again, is that really THAT mature? It's something kids learn about at school, are constantly warned about, is in the media 24-7, so how is that, REALLY, mature and to be restricted?

Seems pretty dodgy to call much "mature", really. "Taboo", perhaps, I could buy that, though mostly it's a D&D taboo, at that...

Maturity is about dealing with complex, "grown-up" themes and issues, not about having some naked Dark Elf sacrificing virgins whilst high on underdark fungi and swearing a lot. Thus "mature" seems entirely the wrong word for this discussion...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

"...with special guest appearance by - Ruin Explorer!"

Anyway, I happen to agree with Ruin on this. The BoVD is likely much more sedate than many seem to think it is.

 

[Aloïsius]

Originally posted by qstor
I continue to believe that rape, nudity, graphic violence and drug addiction need not be part of D&D.

I have some trouble putting mere nudity among things like rape, violence and drug addiction. People are born naked; and they put off clothing everyday, to change them or to take a bath or shower. It ain't offensive in itself; contrarily to rape or other violence. Now, of course, there's a lot of taboos about nudity, and the hugue majority of human beings are esthetically better when fully clothed...

I always find it funny that some people don't have problems with a picture of a demon scything through dozen of people; but makes all sort of scandal when they see a picture of a nymph without brassiere. Frankly, I can't imagine someone traumatized by seeing for real a naked nymph, while I can't imagine much people keeping their sanity after beholding for real a huge scythe-wielding demon reaping dozens of poor people. Of course, I can't really prove my point, since that would require real nymphs and demons...

Also, I agree with Ruin Explorer on that topic.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

You do know that the 1e art had plenty of nudity in it. I do recall that for the old picture of the Succubus, she was topless, and that the original Deities and Demigods had plenty of nude pictures.

And since when did homosexuality every become "mature"? I'm sure every gay pride organization is going to say something in opposition to that.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Frankly, I can't imagine someone traumatized by seeing for real a naked nymph, while I can't imagine much people keeping their sanity after beholding for real a huge scythe-wielding demon reaping dozens of poor people.

That's funny. I can believe both. There are plenty of people who managed to keep their sanity just fine after seeing machine gunners hidden in their sandbagged nests on the bunkers of Normandy gun down dozens of GIs. Plenty of people managed to keep their sanity after watching Richard the Lionhearted hew through large numbers of his enemies' soldiers. Perhaps it would be different for people seeing a demon but it wouldn't be because of anything the demon did--instead it would be because of what the demon was.

On the other hand, if the Monster Manual description is to be believed, a lot of people would be dead--not just traumatized after seeing a real naked nymph.

Of course since neither is likely to happen in real life anytime soon (and certainly not in ways that would be useful for this discussion), I think we'll have to leave this strawman knocked over but unburned.

 

[barsoomcore]

I do recall that for the old picture of the Succubus, she was topless, and that the original Deities and Demigods had plenty of nude pictures.

Topless? That Succubus was posing like a Penthouse Pet. She was even licking her lips, if I recall correctly (and I have to say the memory remains pretty clear even after all this time -- that was a formative experience for me!).

The Type 5 demon, she was topless, but that succubus? Boy howdy.

And then D&DG: Who can forget that fetching portrait of Hecate? Not me, no sir.

 

[Mark]

I highly disagree with you Mark. (etc.)

I'm sure that there are exceptions to the rule but in my experience, a large portion of old school GH players prefer to avoid LG; some wholesale, some that had tried and it and left. You seem to be an exception.

As to what can or cannot/should or should not be included in LG modules, ultimately it is up to the event organizers and DMs at the table to make the call if they wish to skirt particular material. Two people can agree that material should be reasonably tame but when you begin to cite particular examples of material those same two people can discover that their definitions of reasonable vary. It's one thing to say that you personally do not wish to use such material, or play at a table that uses it. It's another thing to say that you think that it should not be available to anyone because of your prefences. I find no problems making mature decisions about what I feel comfortable using, and sometimes will avoid some material if I feel it might be out of place given the make up of a table of players. *shrug*

Not so sure of that Mark. In that in the line of sight he states that you're allowed to correct a reviewer's factual inaccuracies. If the book doesn't push protagonists equal to RoB's antagonists, then he's working within his own rules to point out that the hype is false.

Good point, rounser. In that light, I stand corrected.