Fantasy Sex Roleplaying Game Releases October 2003

[Fenes 2]

Mass combat and rules for social skills aren't comparable to rules for elf bondage, but that's just my opinion.

We have a need for neither, some people want either or both though.

I don't know. You seem pretty worked up about the principle of the thing, so it should matter to you.

I don't care about whether or not it is a publicity stunt - I do enjoy a discussion though.

I was talking about the players as well, including in particular myself. I don't want the D&D I love associated with this stuff in my mind, I don't want to dodge products and conversations, and yeah, personally I care about that more than I care about your right to buy RPG porno. That's why I'm saying I'd rather the product didn't exist.

Well, I don't want the D&D I love associated with hack&slashers, with people who play asexual characters or with people who play it like a tactical wargame in my mind.

Guess what? Despite the fact that I know that a whole load of people plays it like one or the other way I described it the D&D I love is not associated in my mind with them. The D&D I love is played by me with a group of friends, and what others play does not affect it.

Personally, if you can't stand the thought of me enjoying a more adult D&D than you do then I think you should change your way of thinking and feeling.

Again, we're back to principles. Get it through your head - I'd prefer your preferences were ignored and the book didn't exist. My preferences don't amount to censorship though - I can say it's probably bad for the game, bad for what I associate with the game, and I will.

I am not talking about censorship - I am talking about intolerance concerning a matter that does not impact on you in the slightest if only you could stop caring and thinking about how others play their game and what kind of material they buy and talk about.

I'm not saying you should give a toss about what I think. My opinion isn't about you, it's about what I think of what the book offers D&D, and how responsible I think it's creation is.

Ever think how responsible it is to sprout the "for my peace of mind I'd rather you stop doing that stuff in your private homes" speech? Not only for D&D, but for society as a whole?

Edit: Cut some too personal remarks.

 

[herald]

We all know that very little "Vile" content exists in the BoVD. I think this supports Monte's take on how WOTC treated that book.

As for commenting before I see the book, if I find the concept to be disturbing, then I feel that I have the right to speak up before that content can be published. I have a definite problem with how they worded the press release and the lack of response from AV and WOTC people (ie. not faceless company) about this book.

I have looked at the content attached with the release and my reaction stems from actually taking my time to evaluate that content before posting my thoughts on the matter. They included the material as an example of how the book will appear, so I think we do have some justification for our arguments.

Dave

You may feel that you have a right to speak about it. But that's as far as I would go.

I don't feel that you have a right to convice others that it souldn't be printed. It's a privated business decission, and not a public work.

You can act on convicing people not to buy the book after it's published. Everyone is entitled to thier opinions on a finished. That's what reviews are for. But given the limited information you have, it's not enough to draw a conclusion.

You could make the arguement that you don't like the art you've seen. As a matter of fact I'll make that statement now.

I don't like the art that was presented for the project Valar has presented do far. It wasn't pleasing to my eye. I didn't find it titlating, but nor did I find it astheticly pleasing.

I find the picture of the woman depicted as an elf very unnatural, and distorted. Granted, they wanted her to have a more slender appearance, but it seems like a Vargas trick done in reverse. Her head is enlarged to the rest of her body and making me mentally ask; "How on earth does her torso support that big mellon head of her's?"

 

[rounser]

Well, I don't want the D&D I love associated with hack&slashers, with people who play asexual characters or with people who play it like a tactical wargame in my mind.

Stiff biccies - those things have always been part of the game.

uess what? Despite the fact that I know that a whole load of people plays it like one or the other way I described it the D&D I love is not associated in my mind with them. The D&D I love is played by me with a group of friends, and what others play does not affect it.

That's like comparing ignoring someone who annoys you with a high-pitched voice to someone who's engaging in BDSM in the corner. Maybe you find hack & slashers as disturbing to your associations with the game (or moreso) than some others do with bondage (this book) and mass rape and perpetual dissection (Porphyry House Horror), but I doubt it.

Personally, if you can't stand the thought of me enjoying a more adult D&D than you do then I think you should change your way of thinking and feeling.

I don't give a toss about your game or what you enjoy; it's the expansion of D&D's scope into territory I don't like which I'd rather didn't happen. Your "rights" have nothing to do with my opinion.

It is rather intolerant, and it sets a bad precedent for other, more important issues like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and similar rights. It is a long way to the "I don't want to get my neighborhood associated with those deviants, lets do something about it"-attitude, but it is the first step on that road.

You're not paying attention. I'm not censoring you, I'm just stating my preference. If that makes you want to turn thought police on me, you're the one with the problem here.

I am not talking about censorship - I am talking about intolerance concerning a matter that does not impact on you in the slightest but for your admitted inability to stop caring and thinking about how others play their game and what kind of material they buy and talk about.

Why should you care that I'm "intolerant"? I have an opinion that you want to prevent - you're the intolerant one here, pal. And yeah, I think it does impact on D&D as a whole, and I do care about that game and what I associate with it.

Ever think how responsible it is to sprout the "for my peace of mind I'd rather you stop doing that stuff in your private homes" speech? Not only for D&D, but for society as a whole?

You can do whatever you want in your private home, I don't care. I'm saying that the themes of the product in my opinion sound irresponsible, parasitic and likely will do no good for D&D as a whole. For individuals such as yourself, well, you can buy multiple copies, but that's not likely to change my opinion of what the book represents for D&D, and whether I wish it were published or not.

EDITED...

 

[Dr. Harry]

Absolutely agreed!

Indeed, these threads are starting to disturb me... It's akin to saying, "it's okay to play D&D so long as it's suitable to be part of the WGN Power Pack. Inspiration will not be obtained from Heavy Metal, Conan, Gor, Silverglass, or any other unacceptable source, be it fantasy or not, regardless of whether it's what got you into D&D or not."

Really, folks, Erotic Fantasy has been part of the Sword & Sorcery genre for a long time. Heck, even Dracula was risque for its time. I'm more shocked by the lack of acceptance for this aspect of fantasy than I am that the book is in production.

To recognize that this exists is one thing. To hold that an individual has the freedom to engage in activity than a respondant finds repellent or reprehensible is an additional and separate item. I - and *all* of the posts I have read that treat what we can reason about the product and its topic negatively - am willing to go this far. In an abstract sense, I can be glad that the laws allowing the publication of this material exist because of other material that this protection extends to, or just on general principles.

To hold that this means that I must endorse this material or else be labelled as some sort of book-burning reactionary is ludicrous. I am actually quite relieved, myself, at the reaction that this announcement and the chosen photographer have garnered.

To say that something should be allowed to exist is not to say that it is good, or even merely not-bad, and to say that something is bad does not imfringe on anyone else's freedom in any way. To say that something shouldn't be is not to say that it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Personally, I find everything that has been revealed about this project repellent, that I won't buy it, and that I'll stop shopping in stores that choose to carry it - and that is my use of the same freedoms someone printing or eagerly awaiting this book has.

 

[rounser]

To say that something should be allowed to exist is not to say that it is good, or even merely not-bad, and to say that something is bad does not imfringe on anyone else's freedom in any way. To say that something shouldn't be is not to say that it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Thank you for summarising so eloquently, Dr Harry. The amount of outrageously overdramatic rhetoric about rights and censorship and intolerance being thrown around needed to be kicked in the head by just this sort of observation.

 

[Balsamic Dragon]

"Ok there Betsy, hold the pie out a little more, oh yeah, that's it..." <CLICK>
"Now give them a ferocious look, they want your pie Betsy, but you're an orc and you're not letting them have it without a fight <CLICK> that's good, now growl for me<CLICK>..."

Bwahhahahahahaha!
ROTF!

Seriously, the more I think about this, the more I see a comparison with Xxxenophile, which didn't seem to harm Magic or corrupt Magic players. You can have sex games, I just prefer mine to be female gamer friendly

Balsamic Dragon

 

[Piratecat]

Oh get a perspective, get a grip, and drop the thought police routine.... For individuals such as yourself, well, you can buy multiple copies, masturbate over them even, but that's not likely to change my opinion of what the book represents for D&D, and whether I wish it were published or not.

Rounser, does Eric's grandma want to read this? I'm thinking not. Not only that, I *just* reminded people not to indulge in insults or personal attacks. Did you somehow miss that post - along with the age-old rule on these boards? And yes, this is an insult, and it would have been fairly easy to rephrase it.

Look, I know that this is a topic that people feel strongly about, but you need to actually consider what is appropriate here before clicking "Submit." Moderators shouldn't need to babysit this thread.

Thanks to everyone who HAVE been self-editing. It's extremely appreciated.

 

[Fenes 2]

Stiff biccies - those things have always been part of the game.

So what? People grow up, people change, no reason a game cannot change as well.

That's like comparing ignoring someone who annoys you with a high-pitched voice to someone who's engaging in BDSM in the corner. Maybe you find hack & slashers as disturbing to your associations with the game (or moreso) than bondage (this book) and rape (Porphyry House Horror), but I doubt it.

No, that is like ignoring what happens in your neighbors house - something that is no business of yours anyway as long as no law is broken. Stop trying to pretend that the people who buy such a book will force the content on you by playing at the next corner. They can be even more easily ignored than the the guy with a high-pitched annoying voice.

I don't give a toss about your game or what you enjoy; it's the expansion of D&D's scope into territory I don't like which I'd rather didn't happen. Your "rights" have nothing to do with my opinion.

And again, what matters if people expand the scope of D&D? Even WotC said it is about options, not restrictions. Or do you want to ban evil PCs as well?

You're not paying attention. I'm not censoring you, I'm just stating my preference. If that makes you want to turn thought police on me, you're the one with the problem here.

LOL. I stated already that I have no problem with people playing a different game than I do - I do have a problem with people who, for no reason at all, want to prevent me from buying material I could use in my game (or not... most of the material from any sorcebook I bought, WotC or d20, did not get used in my campaigns). Me, I state that my preference when I say that I will not buy a book, or use a rule - I don't state a preference by wishing no one would buy that book, or use said rule. I don't want to stop anyone from enjoying their game, or buying stuff they like (as long as it is legal) - but you apparently do.

Why should you care that I'm "intolerant"? I have an opinion that you want to prevent - you're the intolerant one here, pal. And yeah, I think it does impact on D&D as a whole, and I do care about that game and what I associate with it.

I don't want to prevent you from having an opinion - I am giving you the counsel to stop worrying about what other people play in the privacy of their homes.

Oh get a perspective, get a grip, and drop the thought police routine. You can do whatever you want in your private home, I don't give a stuff. I'm saying that the product is in my opinion irresponsible, parasitic and will do no good for D&D as a whole. For individuals such as yourself, well, you can buy multiple copies, masturbate over them even, but that's not likely to change my opinion of what the book represents for D&D, and whether I wish it were published or not.

But you give a stuff about me buying whatever I like to play in the privacy of my home.

No further questions, your honor.

 

[herald]

Why should you care that I'm "intolerant"? I have an opinion that you want to prevent - you're the intolerant one here, pal. And yeah, I think it does impact on D&D as a whole, and I do care about that game and what I associate with it.

But you are being intolerant. And no Fenes 2 is not being intolerant of you. If he was he would be right next to you forcing you to read and see everything in the book that hasn't been printed yet.

It is illogical to try and defend your self that doesn't exist yet.

This isn't like a hurricane, or a tornado, or defending yourself from a criminal attack. What we are talking about a book of ideas. Your using the same arguements that people bring up against "Catcher in the Rye", or "Slaughterhouse Five".

I've said it one and I'll say it again. "Debbie does Dallas" didn't ruin the Dallas Cowbows. Even though she showed up in one of the chearleaders costumes in the movie. People are smart enough to see that.

I still go to Disney World even though I know that there is a "Gay Day" event held there. (Note: I could care less what someones prefereance is.) I know that Disney doesn't endorse it, but it happens. I also know that Disney owns ABC TV and I'm often surprised how jokes get by on the "Drew Carry Show". But no one trys and stops them from creating thier shows.

At best this is a mile post for the RPG market. Not an end of the road sign.

 

[Tiefling]

Don't be facetious. Go re-read the stuff about objecting to themes before you've seen the content.

Wrong. You objected to elf bondage, you even objected to it in this very post. That has nothing to do with theme and everything to do with content. Has Valterra stated that there will be elf bondage?

Gladly. It has the potential to change how I perceive the game, for instance. I'm not saying you should care, but you asked for it. And if you're going to make a pithy comeback to that answer after asking for it, you can go jump.

Don't switch the context. We've been talking about the public perception of the game. You know it and I know it, and I didn't think I had to specify that in my response. But I will now. Prove that this will significantly damage the public perception of the game in the way that all the BoVD-doomsayers falsely predicted it would, and will result in a lower influx of players.