Fantasy Sex Roleplaying Game Releases October 2003

[Bulletproof]

....

And he's producing a product, outside of WotC, mind you,

That remains to be seen. To say that an OGL product is "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" means that someone at WOTC has to approve that use of trademark in their marketing. A.V. is the guy that publishers contact to do the approving, so obviously approving it himself would be a conflict of interest. It's an endorsement IMO.

Who approved it at WOTC? And by approving it, isn't WOTC endorsing it? If not, it sure seems like it. Does Hasbro know about it?

That last question may seem irrelevant, but we know how the media can twist and distort things, and they're not going to mention WOTC, they'll mention Hasbro. And that could be bad for the OGL, which is bad for all gamers. A.V. has given critics a lot of ammo, IMO.

OTOH, maybe whoever created the press release just screwed up and didn't understand the OGL. Like seasong said, it wasn't a very well done release, and to me it almost looks like it slipped out accidently, since VP doesn't seem to even have a website yet.

 

[cildarith]

That remains to be seen.

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=8260&mode=&order=0

They don't want to touch this with a 10' pole!

 

[BlackWych]

Here's the WotC responce:

WotC Responce

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

Warning actual mature content.

Okay people, this is probably not what you are expecting to hear, at least from me, but thinking it over, I don't really have too much of a problem with this, provided it is done right.

I was recently interviewed by a Journalism student who was doing an article for her class on D&D. She knew absolutely nothing on the subject except from what she had learned in her research. After interviewing several people and sitting in on a session, she had a bunch of questions. One was:

"what is the connection, if any, between D&D and porn?"

Everyone protested that while, yes, some of the older art was kind of soft-core, that was changing and there really wasn't any sort of connection. And I agree, ... generally.

But then I realized that my husband and I had, in our bedroom, a copy of a XXXenophile graphic novel that is pretty much D&D porn. We don't use it to game with, but it's a cool book and Phil Foglio does some of the only decent porn for couples, so there you go.

So from a "mature" point of view, if people have a hobby that they invest a goodly percentage of their time and interest in, they might well eventually start thinking about mixing it with other interests, and one of those might be sex.

I was pretty outspoken against the BOVD because it was a) immaturity posing as maturity, and b) presented topics such as rape to be used in D&D games. I'm still against this. But if Anthony V (not going to try to spell), puts out a book that has cool fantasy erotica, both of men and women, in a tasteful way, I'm willing to take a look at it.

Balsamic Dragon

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

Here's the WotC responce:

WotC Responce

Hmmmm. I think I'll check that out ...

"Wizards of the Coast is in no way associated with the product, "The Book of Erotic Fantasy," referenced recently on Gamingreport.com. We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game. While the OGL license allows anyone, even our employees, to produce products that are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards does not approve or control the theme of any third-party D20 product.

For more information about the OGL, see www.wizards.com/d20. "

Shaw Coté
Public Relations Manager
Wizards of the Coast

Gosh. I'm still left up in the air. Do you think they like it or not?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

That remains to be seen. To say that an OGL product is "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" means that someone at WOTC has to approve that use of trademark in their marketing. A.V. is the guy that publishers contact to do the approving, so obviously approving it himself would be a conflict of interest. It's an endorsement IMO.

But is it?

I've gone over it a few times, and there's something I'm not to sure of: Is it a press release, or are we reading it as written by the reporter after communicating with Anthony? If the former, than yeah, there's a question to be raised (although I'm still thinking the sub-label discussed by Anthony Valterra previously is at the heart of this, which would result in automatic approval in some regard, even if it's to "go ahead and do whatever you want."). If the later, than there isn't really a problem since it would be Damon White's miswording of the introductory paragraph regarding it being an OGL game.

 

[Harlock]

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=8260&mode=&order=0

They don't want to touch this with a 10' pole!

Then either they have approved the "compatible with 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons" bit or they have not. If not, AV violated the OGL (unlikely, he's a lawyer and works with the OGL all the time) or he's found a loophole. We'll see how much WotC/Hasbro dissaproves of it by whether or not AV remains employed by them. Personally, I'm with Flexor the Mighty: if this can be traced back to some form of tacit approval by WotC, then I'm pretty much giving up on them.

WotC can deny involvement all it wants, but so far the indications, other than one press release, are that WotC/Hasbro has allowed this. This could really hurt a "Family Friendly" Hasbro. I'd think that alone could earn Valterra a pink slip. I know many companies have clauses that allow outs for people that tarnish the company's image.

 

[Kichwas]

Question from someone who hasn't been paying attention lately:

Anthony Valterra still heads up the RPG division at WotC right?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game.

Alright... "Innapropriate" I can see them saying. But "distasteful"? There are a lot of gamers into D&D because of Erotic Fantasy and have run their game as such for years.

Tsk tsk... Every time these folks take a step forward, they take another one backwards.

 

[Olive]

Seriously, I must admit that I am SHOCKED by the tone of this thread. I thought I would see a lot more "Huzzahs!" Instead, it's been, for the most part, one big indifferent shrug, with almost a resigned sigh... and it appears to be something that not a lot of people feel they want and/or need.

After being hammered on numerous "Vile" threads, my faith in the gaming community is a little stronger today... I guess gamers may want some "mature/peurile" (depending on the view point of the observor) material , but not "blatantly pandering" material.

What I want is rules useful to my game. This book is of no interest to me. Rules for what evil guys actually get for sacrifice, as opposed to doing it for jolies, are what i got from BoVD. I thought it was well thought out and useful. I want usful crunch to expand upon what i want to put in my games.

this book doesn't sound what like what i want from my game, but i also couldn't care less if it is published. i don't think having a range of different topics covered in gaming books is a bad thing.