Johnny Wilson on Dragon 300 at www.gamingreport.com

[Vrylakos]

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=5446&mode=thread&order=0

Some interesting info contained therein.

VRYLAKOS

 

[Grazzt]

That's Johhny Wilson doing the talking (or so says the letter).

 

[Darkness]

That's Johhny Wilson doing the talking (or so says the letter).

Agreed: Johnny Wilson.

 

[Vrylakos]

Heh... I've been reading too many threads. Thanks for the correction, even though I corrected it before I read your posts. You folks are fast!

VRYLAKOS

 

[Khan the Warlord]

The best part of that letter:

Even a well-known former writer for Dragon and Dungeon has lamented the
inclusion of such horrific and disgusting elements within our pages, crying
out with crocodile tears for an era of innocence that became so mundane, so
unchallenging that the publisher of the world's greatest role-playing game
had to be sold to a competitor. Indeed, that era was so banal that other
role-playing systems stole gamers away from Dungeons & Dragons with systems
and backgrounds that were significantly grittier than the self-censored D&D
world.

My own friends have asked me the age-old question, Was this coverage really
necessary? with the same rhetorical implication that they used to ask me
about violence in video games. They believe the coverage wasn't necessary and
that violence in video games (and movies, television, comic books and books)
isnít necessary. Yet, the truth is that in order to be truly heroic, one has
to triumph over that which is truly evil. Can we, or even SHOULD we,
self-censor the world of role-playing so that the evil creatures and villains
that parties encounter seem less horrific than the monstrous winged minions
of an Osama bin Laden in real life? Part of the ageless appeal of The Lord of
the Rings trilogy is that the evil is so palpable that the overall triumph
offers hope whether against the backdrops of the rise of Nazi Germany when
many first encountered the books, the televised horrors of the Vietnam
Conflict when I encountered them, or the slaughter of innocents we remember
from 9/11/01. Even in the midst of horrific evil, it is the HOPE that counts.

If there is a value to publishing a guide to the atrocities and perversions
that put the VILE in EVIL, this is it: Evil CAN be defeated! A corollary to
that which is played out many times in D&D campaigns and fantasy literature
is that Evil is never really as strong as it looks.

 

[Glyfair]

Ummmm..."In the same sense that R-rated movies don't usually make as much money as PG-13 movies."

Actually, this is incorrect. Yes, the top movies tend to not to be PG-13, overall R movies make more money than lower rated movies. Why do you think so many studios specifically change movies to make sure they get the "R" rating.


Glyfair of Glamis

 

[The Serge]

I think he's on point...

 

[JeffB]

Too bad that LotR wasn't published until several years AFTER the FALL of Nazi Germany..

 

[Default Name Player]

Ummmm..."In the same sense that R-rated movies don't usually make as much money as PG-13 movies."

Actually, this is incorrect. Yes, the top movies tend to not to be PG-13, overall R movies make more money than lower rated movies. Why do you think so many studios specifically change movies to make sure they get the "R" rating.


Glyfair of Glamis

Actually, it's the opposite of what you're saying that's true. The Top 10 grossing movies in 2002 (to date) is (from www.the-movie-times.com):

1. Spider-Man (PG-13)
2. Star Wars Episode II (PG)
3. Signs (PG-13)
4. Austin Powers: Goldmember (PG-13)
5. Men in Black II (PG-13)
6. Ice Age (PG)
7. Scoob-Doo (PG)
8. Lilo & Stitch (PG)
9. XXX (PG-13)
10. Minority Report (PG-13)

In 2002, of the Top 10 grossing movies:
6 PG-13
4 PG
0 R

Let's take it one year back to 2001:
1. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (PG)
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (PG-13)
3. Shrek (PG)
4. Monster's Inc. (G)
5. Rush Hour 2 (PG-13)
6. The Mummy Returns (PG-13)
7. Pearl Harbor (PG-13)
8. Ocean's Eleven (PG-13)
9. Jurassic Park III (PG-13)
10. Planet of the Apes (PG-13)

In 2001, of the Top 10 grossing movies:
7 PG-13
2 PG
1 G
0 R

Alot of studios deliberately cut their mainstream, general movies to get a PG-13 rating in order to reach the larger audience. I remember when the PG-13 rating was introduced (when I was 13, actually) and thought how ridulous the rating was at the time, but it seems to be the target rating for movies nowadays.

The PG-13 allows movies to get away with adult themes, like violence, that would still interest the adults while still enabling admittance of the younger crowd into the theater as well.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Was Mr. Wilson's letter intended for public posting? In the event it was, then I will say I came to a full stop when I read the following:

Even a well-known former writer for Dragon and Dungeon has lamented the inclusion of such horrific and disgusting elements within our pages, crying out with crocodile tears for an era of innocence that became so mundane, so unchallenging that the publisher of the world's greatest role-playing game had to be sold to a competitor. Indeed, that era was so banal that other role-playing systems stole gamers away from Dungeons & Dragons with systems and backgrounds that were significantly grittier than the self-censored D&D world.

Forgive me, but I'm having a bit of trouble with the logical premises here. Leaving aside the unsubtle jab at the mentioned well-known writer, this statement seems to claim that D&D lost market share in the 90s because D&D was too "innocent"; specifically (and here I am trying to read between the lines a bit), (a) D&D rules had no "gritty" (read "vile") content and (b) D&D villains weren't "gritty" enough. Is there a market survey that supports the causational link here, or should we read this as a statement of opinion?

For the rest, I completely agree with the editorial policy that mandates including "vile" content only in sealed sections of Dungeon and Dragon. Bravo to the publishers for taking a stand. I can forgive what I see as two gaffes in that regard because issue #300 was the first try at sealed content: (1) the article Mr. Wilson admits was "as offensive (or more so) as anything within the sealed section," and (2) the "blood-splattered" cover of said sealed section, which I personally found inappropriate, cheesy, and unnecessary (surely "mature" content deserves a more mature graphical treatment, just as it received an appreciably mature narrative treatment).

Thanks for listening. YMMV. HAND.