I want more Vile!

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I want more Vile!

So if 75% of your customers like plain M&M's, and 25% prefer peanut M&M's, it makes sense to drop the peanut M&M's if 1% of your customer base complains about there being peanut M&M's on the shelf?

That depends.

1.) Will the 25% that prefer peanut buy plain?
2.) If you don't take them off the shelf, will the 1% stop buying altogether?

If (2) is "no" then it really doesn't matter.

If (1) is "yes" and (2) is "yes", then:
A.) You leave the peanut M&Ms. you now have 99% instead of 100% (a loss of 1%) of the market buying.

B.) You remove the peanut M&Ms. All those buying peanut buy plain. You have 100% of your market buying.

From a pure marketing standpoint, given the choice between A and B, you should choose B.

If (1) is "no" and (2) is "yes", then:

A.) You leave the peanut M&Ms. you now have 99% instead of 100% (a loss of 1%) of the market buying.

B.) You remove the peanut M&Ms. All those buying peanut stop. You have 75% of your market buying.

In this case, you should choose A.

The other variable will be discussed in my next post, but clearly, there ARE those who are cancelling subscriptions/boycotting M&Ms. Thus, the question becomes, "will those who like peanut buy plain?" Well, those who claim to like peanut M&Ms have, for the most part, been buying "plain M&Ms" up until the last year (when "peanut M&Ms were introduced") , so there's no reason to think they wouldn't go back to doing so.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I want more Vile!

What if, like me, they say, "do more of this, and I'll get a subscription"? Better yet, what if, like me, they actually do it?

NRG

Then that should be factored in, too.

X and Y and Z are positive numbers.

If you will lose X subscriptions and gain X+Y subscriptions by "doing more" it makes sense to do more. (You gain Y subscriptions)

If you will lose X subscriptions and gain X-Z subscriptions by "doing more" it doesn't make sense... you are losing more than you gain. (You lose Z subscriptions)

I don't know which scenario is the "real" one in the case of Dragon. I'm just kicking around possibilities.

--The Sigil

 

[Utrecht]

Let me ask this - what new Vile content are you looking for?

As Johsua mentioned, they have done a pretty good job of setting the table, and it most likely will fall to the d20 publishers and DMs to flush things out.

 

[Endur]

Actually, a fair amount of the Dragon Living Greyhawk articles has been what I would call "Mature". The articles covering Death Knights and Drow, certainly fit that criterion and would fit in a BOVD campaign.

Likewise, the various articles on evil temptations and so forth would fit right into a BOVD campaign.

Tom

 

[Darrin Drader]

The only difference between the material that was marked "vile" and the standard material we see on a regular basis that is of a darker nature, are the terms "vile" and "mature." Had they not drawn that much attention to these two words in issue 300, there wouldn't have been a controversy. I will admit that the Book of Vile Darkness goes beyond previously published D&D materials, but the information in that book is useful.

One of the things that happened when WotC bought TSR was that they said that D&D would change to include more mature topics. I think this is a definite improvement over the previously embraced "comic code" where evil can never win and sexuality is never overtly discussed. Under the comic code, evil is rarely portrayed as being truly evil. They typically have some megalomaniacal plan, and they occasionally kill a character or two to acheive their goals. Most people agree that 2nd edition sterilized the whole genre to the point where it was uninteresting. How can the struggle between good and evil be interesting, or even worth taking part in, if evil is never truly evil or only incorporates a few limited aspects of evil? True evil is rarely the power monger trying to conquer more lands, or take control of a city's underworld. True evil is when someone comes to your home, takes anything of value, has their way with the women and leaves no one alive unless they abduct them and plan to sacrifice them to their dark gods later.

As for Dragon 300, I found the vile content gross, but hardly vile. The associated Dungeon adventure went much further, but people rarely mention that since so many people don't see a value in published adventures and didn't buy the issue. I won't get started on that subject, as its another rant. The discussion on the origins of evil and the new demons, devils, and daemons in the current issue are much more vile, in my opinion, than Dragon 300 was.

The point being is that the triumph of good over evil seems worthwhile only if what you are fighting is truly evil. Traditionally, evil has been dragons eating villagers in their fields, minor humanoid infestations, and exiled gods running amok. I see nothing wrong with giving us the tools we need to add cultists and their fell ceremonies, demons, devils, and truly vile humans to the list of enemies for the characters to fight. Complaining that the subject matter is too dark and asking that it not be published merely serves to deprive those of us who use this in our games the privilige of having some new source material to draw upon in favor of making the vocal minority happy. I am not a puritan. I don't believe that those values are beneficial to society, and I definitely don't need those values imposed upon a fictional fantasy game. People who are offended by covers are free to remove those covers. They can throw away the unwanted issues or not buy the books that they don't like. If I have to suffer through another issue on gnomes, I want material that I find useful.

Finally, I'm not saying this as some punk college kid. I have a family, but I am not one to blindfold them to the realities of the world and hope they do OK once they turn 18. They are taught right from wrong, and they aren't sheltered from anything that is shown on TV or the news. When they do reach the age where they can make their own decisions, they'll have the knowledge they need to handle situations when they arise.

 

[jasamcarl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I want more Vile!

If you are correct, and just as many "enjoyed" it as "hated" it, I'll throw a question out there...

If those who hate it say, "no more or we'll stop buying," unless those who enjoyed it say, "don't stop or we'll stop buying," it makes business sense to stop. Because those who enjoyed it haven't said they'll stop buying and your market remains the same size. If they do not stop, the market shrinks.

From a strictly business sense, it makes sense to listen to a minority who will cancel if you keep doing X rather than a majority who will not cancel if you stop doing X... because stopping doesn't cause you to lose customers - but continuing does.


I'll just say that this obtusely insults those who were offended by such stuff and leave it at that. This has been beaten to death. Those who liked it tell the "conservatives" to "stop complaining about the content." Please stop complaining about our complaining. We have a right to voice our opinion and attempt to shape the path of Dragon as much as the next guy. Just because our view isn't the same as yours doesn't make it "wrong." And your view isn't "wrong" either - just different.

Let's keep it to, "I liked it" and "I didn't" and quit the "whiny conservatives" or "sinful liberals" stuff. We can be critical of material without being critical of each other.

--The Sigil

Uh, your economic logic is inherently flawed. By not producing a book that has demand, they are loosing the oppurtunity to sell said books outright by stopping. Whether those who refuse to buy could place enough pressure to make that the better of two evils is one thing (which I highly doubt). But to say that they loose nothing by not producing a 'vile' book is ridiculous.