Fantasy Sex Roleplaying Game Releases October 2003

[rounser]

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

That's true. I'm allowed to say I'd rather it didn't change in that way though.

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.

Stop making analogies that don't apply. My opinion that this book's themes will damage D&D has nothing to do with prying into anyone's business whatsoever. The content isn't forced on me, but it'll enter and affect the game of D&D anyway, and I'd rather that didn't happen to D&D.

And again, what matters if people expand the scope of D&D? Even WotC said it is about options, not restrictions.

Like most simplistic rules or assumptions, I think it breaks down if you extend it too far. Take the "crunch good, fluff bad" that they also use as a rule of thumb. Extended to it's logical conclusion, I also think that publication purely in this vein damages D&D, but you don't see people comparing that opinion to prying into the business of neighbors, do you?

Or do you want to ban evil PCs as well?

No. You'll have to do better than that.

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).

Again, I don't care about you or what you buy. How I think it will affect the game, and whether I'd rather it were published or not is unrelated to that.

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.

Your enjoyment has nothing to do with my opinion that this sort of theme will change D&D in a way I don't like.

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.

Here, I can cut and paste. Stop making analogies that don't apply. My opinion that this book's themes will damage D&D has nothing to do with prying into anyone's business whatsoever. The content isn't forced on me, but it'll enter and affect the game of D&D anyway, and I'd rather that didn't happen to D&D.

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

No I don't. I keep repeating it, and you keep ignoring it. I'm of the opinion that D&D would be better off without the book, whereas you're of the opinion that you'd like to enjoy it. That's fine - there's no conflict here, see?

No further questions, your honor.

Your arrogance even exceeds your inability to listen. Case dismissed.

 

[Belen]

It's not about what people play in the privacy of their homes. It's not even about your right to buy and purchase such material.

The argument here is the blatant connection to WOTC, especially the Dungeons and Dragons brand label that should cause all our hackles to rise.

Let's give an example: This weekend, I plan to propose to the woman I love. And while she games now, when I first met her, she did not and had a VERY negative view of the hobby, especially the name Dungeons and Dragons. For me, I was lucky enough that she kept an open mind. However, I can guarantee you that had the BoEF existed when I met her, then I never would have gotten to the point where I could propose to her.

People may rant and rave about mainstreaming DnD, but that argument is completely bunk. By providing a somewhat less arcane image, we are gaining new players, especially women to the game. I think this is a GOOD thing. It brings fresh, innovative ideas to the table.

If you want a BoEF, then fine. Make it on your own and add it to your game as long as you know that your players can deal with it. That's why we're in a creative hobby. We do not need a standarized set of rules for sexual encounters.

We do not need a bondage image for the game because that's not what we're about.

It's a game to test imagination, teamework, and friendship. I mean, can you really tell me that whips and chains will make a meaningful encounter!?

As a GM, do you want to look a male player in the face and say:

GM (Female NPC): I put on my leather mask and spank him.
Player (looking at male GM): Oh heck no....

Dave

 

[Piratecat]

This has degenerated to a few people bickering. Consider it closed.

Wait - you don't have to consider it anything. It IS closed.