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

[The Sigil]

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

If what you're saying is, "I don't think it SHOULD be that way, but I agree that for better or worse, society DOES do it this way," I think you make sense. I happen to disagree slightly... I think that there is and should be a big difference between the reception of the lesson when I sit down with my son and explain the "birds and the bees" than there is should I sit down with my son and pop "Debbie Does Dallas" into the VCR to teach the lesson instead.

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

Having been the person stuck with that lesson - and having just covered "circumcision" ('what does THAT mean?') and "Sodom & Gomorrah" (with the attendant, 'is THAT where the term "sodomy" comes from?') while teaching an Old Testament course to high schoolers this past week, you're right not to envy that person.

--The Sigil

 

[Wicht]

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

I think this question starts out with a misleading premise. Violence is not more socially acceptable than eroticsm. Going out and engaging in a violent act in society will often land you in more trouble than engaging in a sexual act will.

However sex, while accepted as pretty natural by almost everyone, tends to be a pretty personal issue and for most of us is a very private thing. Tied into this is the plain fact that sex is while a physical act, it is also sparked into being by acts of imagination and for lack of a better set of words flirtatious foreplay. Acting sex out in a roleplaying session for some of us crosses that boundary of making a private matter public and is likely for some people to spark certain chemical reactions in their brain that I personally don’t want to be involved with (at least not with them).

On the other hand, while Dungeons and Dragons has imaginary violence, it is not real violence but IMO is more a matter of focused aggression. Aggression through the years has always been socially acceptable, as witnessed by multitudes of athletic contests held annually. Dungeons and Dragons provides a channel by which we can achieve a certain level of adrenaline through the focused competition of mind and wits (and luck). The description of violence becomes merely a vehicle for the aggression. The added elements of storytelling helps satisfy the creative urges of many of us at the same time.

While some elements of storytelling will at times lead into sexual situations within the realm of the story, the private nature of sex coupled with the social dynamics of a game makes it an area we (or at least I) would rather handle discreetly, briefly and without a book of rules. If people want to role-play sex, that’s their (private) business but I would feel uncomfortable with it being done at my gaming table.

 

[hunter1828]

Makes sense. Thanks.

hutner1828

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.

 

[DaveMage]

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.

Yeah, but unlike sex, violence is not something I want to be involved with in real life. That's why violence in games is OK, while sex is something I'd rather do IRL than "pretend".

 

[hunter1828]

Larry Flynt (Hustler) and the late Bob Guccione (Penthouse).

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

One of each. I'll let ya'll wonder which is which.

hunter1828

 

[hunter1828]

I guess one other thing that I can't get past is the number of folks that think that because someone wants to use the BoEF (or one of the other three sources that have been mentioned) they also want to RP sex at the table. While some may, some don't. The PrCs, spells, critters, etc. can still be used without having to graphically describe the sex act. You can still fade to black and leave it to the imagination.

hunter1828

 

[Gez]

I agree that I find sex far more moral than violence.

However, one thing to consider is that sex is typically something intimate, between two persons (hence why "getting intimate with somebody" can be used as an euphemism for sex). While violence is generally public and a mass thing.

(I'm not saying group sex don't exist, but it's somewhat against the norm. Also, domestic violence exist too, sadly.)

When people get married, they make the ceremony in public, and the wedding night in private.

On the other hand, wars and fights are in the open, in bars, streets, or battlefields, involving strangers and foreigners, as well as media reporters who will film the event or write about it.


What I mean with all that is that in a group, and I include a gaming group in that, it's easier to discuss about violence than about sex.

 

[Teflon Billy]

One of each. I'll let ya'll wonder which is which.

hunter1828

If I guess right will you tell me? I'm going to say you chose Guccione as the artist (and If I had to pick one I'd agree)

I think they are both pornographers, but I don't necessarily mean anything bad by that.

 

[kenjib]

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.

I disagree completely that violence is more acceptable than eroticism because you are completely ignoring the context. There is no sad state of affairs, as others have said it's simply that in modern Western culture, warfare has historically been a public affair while sexual relations have been private.

Bringing things that are traditionally kept private to a public venue is inappropriate. Most gaming tables have more of a public social contract. Therefore, violence is fine but eroticism is not. Furthermore, since joking about eroticism is a public affair by modern mores, books that treat the subject humorously are not held to the same scrutiny as books that treat it seriously. A very different social contract is involved.

Now, some groups do have a more private social contract. A group that consists of a husband and wife is a clear example. Some other groups also have an environment where frank discussion of erotic elements is appropriate. For these groups, there is nothing wrong with this book.

However, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of groups do not have this level of intimacy and therefore default to a more public-style social contract. Thus, the strong reaction against this book.

I think this public/private difference goes a long way toward explaing what people see as (IMO incorrectly) a hypocrisy in Western values (often levied against the USA, although realistically it is not limited to it by any means).

As a side note, whether or not public style gamers want their hobby to be associated with more private type activities is another point of conversation - and a very valid one.

 

[TiQuinn]

Actually, the sex act itself (and rules for such things) are only a very small part of the BoEF (and a part I won't use myself).

But this argument is weak. A book of pretend combat involving pretend fantasy races isn't silly.

A book of pretend gods involving pretend fantasy races isn't silly.

A book of pretend magic items involving pretend fantsy races isn't silly.

A book of pretend poisons involving pretend fantasy races isn't silly.

A book of pretend equipment ivolving pretend fantasy races isn't silly.

So why shoule a book of pretend sex invovling pretend fantasy races be different? Just because it's sex, of course...

hunter1828

I checked out the preview at Valar Project, and, personally, it's very silly.

d20 checks to determine how long you can perform in the sack?

Craft (Sex Toy)? How is Craft (Sex Toy) supposed to be taken "seriously"?

Lover's Lice? (Magical V.D.)

The problem that I'm seeing is that mixed in with some possibly useful material is a bunch of puerile nonsense.