[Poll]Will you buy and use AV's BoEF?

[Desdichado]

What you don't get is that for the most part the whole idea of roleplaying of any kind is silly. Period. It's a question of content, just as with the contents of said book itself. The idea that adults (and I use adults because I am and I game only with adults) are sitting around a table playing pretend anything is just freakin' silly to a whole lot of people, whether they are hacking up orcs or having relations with barmaids. It doesn't matter what the content of the RP is, the intent is still the same thing.

That's an odd thing to say. I think it's quite clear that the content of the RP does indeed matter. If not, we wouldn't be having these discussions about the BoEF.

 

[The Sigil]

My standard argument back...It doesn't change the content of those other books. The jokes in Playboy doesn't change the fact that there are naked women in it anymore than the childish writing of Nymphology changes the fact that there are sex-based PrCs in it.

The flip side of this argument is: "Sexual material is ok as long as we don't have to take it seriously."

hunter1828

*chuckles* I'm not going to disagree with you that the content doesn't change, but that wasn't my point.

My point is that while the act/content can be similar, the treatment of the act/content goes a long way in determining what society deems "acceptable." As an exercise in visualization:

"Whether or not a movie gets a PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, or X rating depends very much on the camera angles involved."

Visualizing examples of each of the above (for the sake of Eric's grandmother) is left as an exercise for the student. Suffice to say you can have a sex scene - or at least a very strong implication of one - in even a PG movie if the camera angles are "right" (e.g., implication is obvious when Mom & Dad wake up to the alarm clock under the covers, and both Mom & Dad's naked shoulders/neck/head/arms are visible - for the sake of Eric's grandmother I won't describe PG-13, etc). The *act* presented doesn't change but the presentation makes a *big* difference in how much "uproar" the scene causes (as reflected in the movie's rating).

The quintessential example that comes to mind is love scene from Titanic - when the camera angle is outside the car, watching the windows fog, and then seeing a hand appear on the glass is clearly "okay" in a PG-13 flick (one could argue that you might even get away with this in a PG film). Now, had the camera angle been INSIDE the car, meticulously detailing the encounter, it could have been X.

Similarly, the presentation of the material in the BoEF is vastly different from that in the other stuff - both in writing and in the use of photography. One should not be surprised, then, that the reaction is much different.

I'm not saying "this is right" - but I *am* saying "this is so."

The flip side of this argument is: "Sexual material is ok as long as we don't have to take it seriously."

Not at all... the argument is simply, "presentation and context is everything" when presenting material - including sexual material. For real fun, try to imagine being asked to teach the "talking frankly to and warning kids all about sex" in a Sunday School class for 12-18 year olds in a very conservative church some time - with the ecclesiastical leaders present and watching your every move! Now THERE'S one where it's REALLY important to keep things in perspective and to have your presentation "just right!"

--The Sigil

 

[Piratecat]

I'll quote a friend of mine...

"If someone leaves my Sunday night game and goes home to pleasure themselves while thiniking about it, then something has gone very, very wrong with my plan"

I absolutely agree. We play on Thursdays.

 

[d4]

That's an odd thing to say. I think it's quite clear that the content of the RP does indeed matter. If not, we wouldn't be having these discussions about the BoEF.

i think the question is, why is violence so much more acceptable than eroticism?

just about every role-playing game has rules for violence. just about every campaign has combat and other violent activities commonly taking place. most people don't bat an eye at that.

i personally think it's a rather sad state of affairs when violence is commonplace but any mention of romance/eroticism/sex/pornography (however you wish to label it) is taboo.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I absolutely agree. We play on Thursdays.

 

[The Sigil]

i think the question is, why is violence so much more acceptable than eroticism?
...
i personally think it's a rather sad state of affairs when violence is commonplace but any mention of romance/eroticism/sex/pornography (however you wish to label it) is taboo.

{Tongue FIRMLY in Cheek}
I blame it on women in general. Take my wife, for instance. She doesn't think that letting me watch football or hockey is bad for our marriage. But she does think that letting me watch eroticism/sex/pornography is bad for our marriage.

Men express their natural agression/testosterone through sex or violence. Since most wives don't want their husbands practicing (even vicariously) sex with random people, they instead encourage their husbands to pratice (preferably vicariously) violence with random people.

Of course that most men want both explains both the advent of cheerleaders at sporting events and the so-called "bra-and-panty" matches in Wrestling.

There you have it. It's because women feel there's a greater chance that their men will stray if the man envisions having sex with someone than if he imagines beating the tar out of someone... for some strange reason, I think my wife feels there is a greater chance that I would cheat on her with someone who acts like a porn star rather than with a someone who acts like a linebacker... and you know, there may be something to that.
{/Tongue FIRMLY in Cheek}

--The Sigil

 

[hunter1828]

My point is that while the act/content can be similar, the treatment of the act/content goes a long way in determining what society deems "acceptable."

Valid argument, it has merit, but I don't completely agree from a personal standpoint, though I do from a societal standpoint. Make sense?

Similarly, the presentation of the material in the BoEF is vastly different from that in the other stuff - both in writing and in the use of photography. One should not be surprised, then, that the reaction is much different.

I don't know about writing. Having read the GUCK and Nymphology, and knowing people that have read Naughty & Dice, the only difference seems to me to be the use of childish humor or not. One of the big complaints about the BoEF, other than the images, has been the inclusion of PrCs like the Dominator. I personally find the GUCKs Tentacle Master PrC far more disturbing. But that's just me.

As for the photographs, I've thought all along that the hoopla would be less if the BoEF had used drawings/paintings instead of photos. Not that I think the BoEF should have been done that way, just I think it would have been better received, even if the drawings depicted the exact same things as the photos.

I'm not saying "this is right" - but I *am* saying "this is so."

Point. And it makes perfect sense.

Not at all... the argument is simply, "presentation and context is everything" when presenting material - including sexual material. For real fun, try to imagine being asked to teach the "talking frankly to and warning kids all about sex" in a Sunday School class for 12-18 year olds in a very conservative church some time - with the ecclesiastical leaders present and watching your every move! Now THERE'S one where it's REALLY important to keep things in perspective and to have your presentation "just right!"

--The Sigil

Having grown up Southern Baptist, I sure wouldn't envy the peson stuck with that "lesson"!

hunter1828

 

[hunter1828]

I'll quote a friend of mine...

"If someone leaves my Sunday night game and goes home to pleasure themselves while thiniking about it, then something has gone very, very wrong with my plan"

LOL! Even I agree with that.

hunter1828

 

[Gez]

As to why GUCK, Naughty & Dice, AE: Nymphology, etc. have not been ridiculed and villified as the BoEF has... I think it's really self-evident.

Indeed, it's self-evident. The BOEF is new, so we're talking about it now.

Naughty & Dice is not d20-centric, so it's less known here.

The GUCK is the conversion of an old netbook. It's been there for years. People don't discuss about it anymore, except those that are working on it in the appropriate design thread. Besides, the fact that's the whole work-in-progress of it is available freely on said thread, everybody know what's in. There was even polls on the general forum about what proportion of seriousness/silliness was most wanted.

Finally, Nymphology got its share of ridicule, but it's another old product. And since it was meant as a joke anyway, it was only logical.

 

[Teflon Billy]

i think the question is, why is violence so much more acceptable than eroticism?

No, the question is "Will you buy and use AV's BoEF?"

What the varying acceptabilities of Sex and Violece are is not the question at hand.

just about every role-playing game has rules for violence. just about every campaign has combat and other violent activities commonly taking place. most people don't bat an eye at that.

True, but the fiction and heroic myth from which D&D draws it's inspiration is much more violence-heavy than sex-heavy; particularly in the "description of the action" sphere of things

i personally think it's a rather sad state of affairs when violence is commonplace but any mention of romance/eroticism/sex/pornography (however you wish to label it) is taboo.

Heh, I don't want to poke you too hard in the ribs D4, but the above statement is basically the rallying cry of both Larry Flynt (Hustler) and the late Bob Guccione (Penthouse).

(I will leave the call to each individual's internal jury: Artists or Pornographers?)

It is also a really common foundation for porn apologists the world over ("Why is the act of love worse than the act of murder?")

To quote The Sigil (above actually)..."I'm not saying 'this is right' - but I am saying 'this is so'."