Fantasy Sex Roleplaying Game Releases October 2003

[Kilmore]

what kind of messed up world are we living in where violence is acceptable and sexuality is not? [/B]

A world where violence is a social activity and sex is private. For better or for worse.

 

[Tiefling]

There must be some catalytic effect of messageboards that causes people to get very vocal about things that mean nothing and will never have a tenth of the impact that people predict they will.

But I'll be damned if I know why.

 

[Harlock]

So, it's okay to have an alternative lifestyle, as long as no one
ever discovers it? It's one thing to criticise someone's work (which by the way, doesn't exist yet). It's another thing to say
that someone deserves criticism because they made their sex life
public.

As for the photographer being graphic:
1) Most of those pictures were not bloody, animal-head-filled, or violent. Most were just straightforward pictures. But if you have some problem with artists who cover such topics, then I guess Pablo Picasso wouldn't measure up to your standards either... Guernica)

2) Even if the pictures were overly violent... Haven't you noticed after killing hundreds of monsters and people that D&D is ALL ABOUT violence? Violence IS the solution to most of your problems in D&D. Why not have someone who understands the subject matter?

I was never arguing that you didn't have the right to speak up
against this product. I don't think anyone was. However,
I have the right to speak up against you speaking up against
this product

You misunderstand me. I was not criticising the work, I was criticising that apparently S&M and the occult are listed as "previous work experience" for this project. That bodes ill to me. Also, no one discovered this and "outted" Valterra. He chose to take this out of his bedroom. As far as Picasso, sorry, I never liked him. I prefer him to Chagal as far as modern art goes, but that picture was a painting and a very unrealistic one at that. It hardly compares to snapshot realism of photography. Kind of the difference between abstract nudes and a WWII pin-up painted on the side of an airplane.

Violence is the mainstream solution to D&D, I agree. I'm also allowed to dislike that aspect of the game. I prefer the roleplaying and a more gritty aspect of death as a finality. I think taking away the raise dead and ressurect spells goes a long way to cure the "attack first, probe later" mentality so prevalent in the game (lookie! An actual discussion of game rules and mechanics in this thread, woohoo!)

As for saying you were never arguing that I didn't have the right to speak up against this product, I never said you were. I was making a blanket statement trying to remind folks on all sides to think beore they post so the mods don't shut it down. That goes for me too. Double for me since I said it, I suppose. Anyway, no worries, I wasn't picking on anyone specifically for the great majority of that post, which is why I had the italicized disclaimer at its beginning. It was more a response to what I felt was the spirit of this thread at that time.

EDIT: Oh, no problems Green Knight and as far as the LARPing this book publically at cons, I'm with you.

 

[Oni]

I can imagine all kinds of stuff in this book that could be used in a game:

1. Rules for seduction for beautiful evil witches and such. Can your paladin resist?

2. Magical spells that require sexual components.

3. Magical spells that enhance one's sexuality or beauty in various ways.

4. Anatomical details for various races. Just where do elves have hair, for example? How long is their gestation period? What is their cultural view on homosexuality? Abortion? Pre-marital sex? Polygamy? Etc.

5. Rules for strengthening one's abilities through indulgence or abstinence from sex.

6. Rules for sex and fertility goddesses.

7. Evil magic devices that involve sexual torture.

8. Good magic devices that can restore sexual purity.

9. Rules on sexual rites and beliefs in various religions. I can imagine, for example, that some good religions would be very promiscuous while others are very abstinent. Evil religions would also be varied. I can imagine an evil religion that forbids all fertility and all pleasure (including sex).

10. Etc.

While some of these seem fairly reasonable to me, I have to say these aren't the sorts of things I thought of when I read the press release. Quite frankly the press release left a very bad taste in my mouth. I mean Arwen naked, Conan's sexual prowess....what in the heck, thats just childish. Not to mention the listing of AV's supposed qualifications. Given the things the press release touted, I get the impression that the final product could have skewed view for sure.

 

[rounser]

No, you just can't be all that open-minded to do so.

I'm going to release a kids show with a press release with equivalent themes to those for this book. You'd say that the parents who'd object would be closeminded. That's a whole truckload of nonsense in my book.

Depends on what's replacing it, I suppose. If it's replaced with a lot of gully-dwarf-and-tinker-gnome-filled adolescent garbage, then I'd have to say yes. I have to ask you out of morbid curiosity, if nothing else: what exactly would you describe as the good qualities that works like the Dragonlance saga replaced R-rated sexual and violent content with? Are you going to say those stories are more imaginative, better-crafted than, say, Fritz Leiber's spicy tales? More cerebral, with all those 12-year-olds reading them? What are the strengths of those books, whose sole purpose seemed to be to capture readers who were just outgrowing Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys, introducing one sy lame cutesy one-note-joke critter after another? Tell me fantasy is just as rich with Tasselhoff Burfoot than it was with Karl Wagner's Kane.

I wasn't even discussing the books, nor their "literary merit". Dragonlances' modules offered enough progression for the state-of-the-art of AD&D (which includes artwork and the mistakes made in the railroading), and your petty attacks on how well written the Dragonlance books are is just more hot air.

Sure, and forfeit any right to accuse other people of ignorance and hot air.

You're criticising a known quantity whose contents some of us know, and I consider your assessment ignorant, your lack of knowledge of Tracy's gender suggests you're ignorant, and I do indeed label your vacous namecalling in place of a sensible argument "hot air". To pretend that we know nothing about the tone of this product after that press release, and that it's therefore immune from criticism of it's "tenor", is nonsense.

 

[mythusmage]

A Few Points

1. On Human Sexuality.

Take a college level course on the subject sometime. Some of the stuff people do to themselves and to others gets burnt bone raw.

2. Innocence

Innocence does not mean the person won't do certain things. As a matter of fact, an innocent is more apt to do certain things because he doesn't understand that they are wrong. You never leave a child alone with the floodgate controls.

3.On Porn

Dirty books are fun.

4. Elves and Sex

Elves don't do porn. They're too tasteful for that. Orcs would do porn, but they're usually too busy participating to run the camera.

Ending this on a serious note, I could go into detail about my stance on sex and sexuality, but this really isn't the place for it. I will say I do feel sorry for people who need something like BDSM to gain some kind of human contact. Maybe if we showed our kids we loved them more, this sort of thing would become vanishingly rare.

Folks, sex isn't about the act, it's about people. It's a way to become closer to others in a lasting way. Forget this and it becomes a rapid descent into extreme behavior.

 

[Harlock]

While some of these seem fairly reasonable to me, I have to say these aren't the sorts of things I thought of when I read the press release. Quite frankly the press release left a very bad taste in my mouth. I mean Arwen naked, Conan's sexual prowess....what in the heck, thats just childish. Not to mention the listing of AV's supposed qualifications. Given the things the press release touted, I get the impression that the final product could have skewed view for sure.

That's how I feel as well, which has me more confused in light of the response from the "model/art person" someone quoted from another board. Given her response I am left thinking this was a cheap publicity stunt akin to the Dragon 300 bit and if it is, I don't appreciate that either.

 

[rounser]

A world where violence is a social activity and sex is private. For better or for worse.

There's a theory that sex is instinctually not done in public because it compromises the possibility for adultery, and the taboos are genetically based. Go figure - and remember, it's just a theory.

 

[Simplicity]

Thing is, violence and gore have no place in a book about eroticism.

Really? Because I'm not sure I agree.

Dracula is a pretty clear example of violence and eroticism.
The story of Bluebeard has similar themes.
You'll be hard pressed to find any modern werewolf movies that don't cover the erotic aspects of lycanthropy. Werewolves are doomed to kill the one they love after all, aren't they?

In fact, horror in general nowadays is pretty inextricably entwined with sexual themes. What made Norman freak out in the Psycho movies? Sexual thoughts. Who did Jason try to kill in Friday the 13th movies? The teenagers having sex... The Scream movies even point it out as a horror movie rule: If you have sex in a horror movie, you're going to die.

Sure, in normal life, I find sex and violence are good to keep separate. Since when is D&D normal life?

 

[Edmonton boy]

I think this press release, and the follow-up from WotC, are part of a carefully planned "troll" of mass media designed to produce coverage of D&D. I say this not because of how "outrageous" the book is, or how "scandalous" it all is, but because there are clues in the press release itself.

First, the use of the Dungeons & Dragons trademark is a dead giveaway that Wizards gave their approval to the announcement. The only reason they would do so is to strengthen the D&D brand; forget all that junk about a special deal with AV or it being part of severance or an attempt to get fired. It's designed to ensure that all the resulting attention is tied back to D&D.

Second, the announcement doesn't just mention D&D, it provides "seed" info that has no purpose except to help a mainstream journalist write an article. There are many, many examples. Here are a few:

"• Dungeons & Dragons™ was created 30 years ago and has 1.6 million players on a monthly basis. It is one of the most recognized brands in America with over 90% aided recognition."

This is not aimed at a d20 audience. It's not aimed at distributors or retailers, or at end consumers. This is aimed directly at the mass media, and designed for easy pickup into the news cycle.

Here's another example:

"• Anthony Valterra helped found a fetish club (Oregon Guild Activists of S/M) and an occult church (Church of the Blood Red Moon) as well as engaging in a wide variety of other unusual adventures. He has used these personal experiences to guide him in the creation of this product.

• Anthony Valterra is available for candid interviews."

This is the journalist's angle--you can almost imagine the tagline: Games are All Grown Up, or Not Just For Kids? The invitation to interview Anthony is another line that's clearly designed to make this story easier to write for your average overworked, underinformed mass media journalist.

Here's another example:

"• Some of the erotic fantasy images that will be in the upcoming product are available to be viewed, used in articles, or previews of the book at request. Some of these images contain no nudity and would be acceptable to mainstream publications."

Why do you even _mention_ mainstream publications in a d20 press release? You don't. This isn't.

Yet another example:
"• “The Book of Erotic Fantasy” is created using Wizard of the Coast’s? “Open Game License.” This license has no approvals and no royalties and is modeled after the Linux “Open Source” movement. This is the first time that a print product has attempted to make use of this philosophy. This radical and innovative idea has revolutionized and revitalized the role-playing game industry by allowing anyone to create products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons? game system. Anthony Valterra has overseen the license for the last three years."

See, you don't need any of this UNLESS you are writing for an entirely new audience (say, Newsweek readers).

I'm sure that Valar is incorporated on its own, and has no formal legal relationship with WotC, but I'm equally sure that it is a puppet company with no purpose besides generating stories about D&D in the mass media.

The real question is: how long before this hits slashdot, and then how long before a mainstream new source picks it up?