"Family" game?

[SemperJase]

i think part of my point here is that much of core d+d is plenty vile.

You raise a great point and that makes the case that it is vile enough without BoVD.

I suggest that one's world view will be reflected in the campaign that person designs. Without consciously trying to do it, I leave out swords of wounding, vorpal blades, and more graphic descriptions of blood and gore. Thinking back on it when I design an adventure, I don't have to take out these elements as I don't even consider including them in the first place. Although the games I play in focus more on adventure than character development, I try to use the evil characters actions as defining them rather than the gore they produce.

You are correct in pointing out that the core game does include elements that produce gore. I suppose that means they are inherently encouraged to be used in adventures. In that case, I actually edit content from my players.

So what does that say about me?
(thanks for the points, it makes for some good introspection.)

 

[Tsyr]

So what does that say about me?

Nothing other than you enjoy that type of game.

 

[Darkness]

Actually the game was the Sims, but the point still stands.

I disagree: Myst or the Sims might (or might not; I don't know them) have been non-violent - but many other things that sell very well aren't.
Also, there's a reason that Hollywood is cranking out so many action movies, you know...

So: Something doesn't have to be violent to sell well, but in many cases, something might sell better if you add violence.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Originally posted by alsih2o

*snip*
how all would you change the tone and content of those things in the game which denote the various levels of gore and "maturity" for" younger players? teens? adults?
in such matters as:
vorpal blades?

Vorpal blades are a reference to a poem from Through the Lookinglass. If they're mature enough for Alice, they can handle a vorpal blade.

good guys being eaten or swallowed alive?

You make it goopy not gory--Jonah in the Whale and all that. Or you write it off as the end of the character.

(insert weapon) of blood?

Don't use it

(insert weapon) of wounding?

Abstract hit points. It still hurts, you take 1 more point of damage.

poison use?

Monsters get natural poison, but Maleficent poisons Snow White, too.

rend attacks?

Stay abstract, just does more damage.

the blood magus (or supplements in general? they seem to have "stronger content") the "look like a loved one" ability of the kyton?

Don't use them.

and various other stronger level content?

I think you're trying to turn an anthill into the Rocky Mountains, or at least the Applachians. Most of the game is really quite tame when pushed into a more abstract way of thinking.

 

[alsih2o]

So what does that say about me?
(thanks for the points, it makes for some good introspection.)

gotta agree with tsyr here, it just says you are you.

which means, of course, that you aren't me , but then, you probably already knew that

i was just trying to get a grip on everyones position.

most in my group want a graphic description. when handing 28 points of dmg to a creature with 18 hp they wanna hear something about the effects of hitting that hard. but we have been playing together a long time, and we know one anothers comfort level.

i imagine our games would disturb or bore one another, all ahil the system that can do both

 

[alsih2o]

Originally posted by alsih2o


I think you're trying to turn an anthill into the Rocky Mountains, or at least the Applachians. Most of the game is really quite tame when pushed into a more abstract way of thinking.

maybe that is the biggest difference, oh dog of dinkel, i visualize all of this. i have a hard time abstracting it.

maybe it is the training, maybe it is a difference in how our minds work. either way, as i said a moment ago (we were posting at the same time) all hail the system that give 2 such disparate views a game to play.

 

[SemperJase]

So: Something doesn't have to be violent to sell well, but in many cases, something might sell better if you add violence.

That just isn't true

This has been addressed in another thread. Strangely, entertainment publishers continually ignore history when producing.

Hollywood produces more rated R movies than any other rating, yet that rating is the lowest in box office returns. Years ago Samuel Goldwyn (movie mogul) was asked why he didn't produce rated R movies. His reply: "I would rather sell 4 tickets than 2." The public seems to still have this philosophy.

Even video games which have a reputation for violence as a whole sell more copies with games without violence. Myst and the Sims is not a fluke.

 

[Nightfall]

Right and explain to me why Warcraft and Diablo are still on B.Net? Sorry but your explaination don't hold THAT much water as you think.

 

[SemperJase]

Right and explain to me why Warcraft and Diablo are still on B.Net? Sorry but your explaination don't hold THAT much water as you think.

They still have not sold as many copies as Myst or The Sims.

You do have a point though. Video game sales are a bit skewed. The demographic is generally young males. This group has a tendancy to gravitate toward more violent themes.

Still when a game is made that appeals outside is this narrow segment, its sales jump, hence Myst and The Sims.

So the lesson, if you want the 13-25 year old market, make a violent game. If you want real money, make Myst or The Sims.

 

[Cedric]

what do you do with all those edged weapons?

Jeez...never watched the A-Team?

Heh, seriously, there's no reason to describe what each sword blow does. I said it can be a family game, just like Eroll Flynn as Robin Hood could be a family movie.

Somethings are just fine implied...not all of us need them described in graphic detail.

Cedric