Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 1113829" data-attributes="member: 12332">Hrm.&nbsp; I'm of mixed opinions on the whole matter.On one hand, I think a move like this on the part of WotC is bad mojo.&nbsp; The policy is open-ended and rather dangerous and just puts a bad flavor on the d20 community as a whole.&nbsp; Honestly?&nbsp; I think there is a market for &quot;adult&quot; fantasy products.&nbsp; If done properly.&nbsp; I think D&amp;D should have some &quot;adult&quot; products.&nbsp; When I say &quot;adult&quot; I mean more in the vein of Conan the Barbarian and other gritty heroes of yore.&nbsp; Including a little constructive wenching.What does D&amp;D NOT need?&nbsp; Sex feats, a &quot;maintaining sex&quot; skill, etc etc.&nbsp; I stopped off by the BoEF Valar site and, frankly, didn't really like what I saw too much.&nbsp;&nbsp; In one line they talk about aproaching &quot;adult&quot; material in an &quot;adult&quot; way and being as corporate and professional as they can be.&nbsp; Then a link away they talk about the staffs', ahem, &quot;bedroom aids&quot; and penchants for roleplaying &quot;at the table and in the bedroom&quot;. And (though I can see good reasons for it) you have to &quot;sign up&quot; to see the &quot;previews&quot; from the book.&nbsp; On the whole, the tone and content reminded me of a porn site.Then again, that business model is one of the few purely online forms of commerce that is turning a profit, and a huge one.&nbsp; Nookie -sells-.Still other things I find problematic.&nbsp; The big &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot; on the front ... the flaunting nature of that just isn't cool.&nbsp; If Valar wanted to be taken seriously, they'd have produced an &quot;adult&quot; product that sold itself on more than pornographic humor.&nbsp; Had there been a grim &quot;violent&quot; setting book, a dark-world setting, or something like that using their photo-art (even with nude or provocative models) I would have taken them seriously.&nbsp; Honestly?&nbsp; I might have even bought something like that.&nbsp; A serious 18+ setting book, fully fleshed out, with hot models and burly guys with swords hacking apart insane cultists.&nbsp; So, honestly, I think Valar ruined it for everybody.&nbsp; They came by and took a leak in the swimming pool because they could, and now a lifeguard is on duty making sure nobody is running or jumping or playing water-chicken.&nbsp; Had they been more intent on making an &quot;adult&quot; adult product and downplaying the D20 (instead of trying to embarass WotC by putting &quot;Dungeons And Dragons&quot; as big as they could on the front) maybe WotC wouldn't have had a problem with it.&nbsp; Even if they had, I think if Valar were a serious company, they'd realize that a good product would sell on its own merits under OGL and not force WotC to take this sort of step just to keep one product from being made.--fje</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeapThaumaturgist, post: 1113829, member: 12332"] Hrm. I'm of mixed opinions on the whole matter. On one hand, I think a move like this on the part of WotC is bad mojo. The policy is open-ended and rather dangerous and just puts a bad flavor on the d20 community as a whole. Honestly? I think there is a market for "adult" fantasy products. If done properly. I think D&D should have some "adult" products. When I say "adult" I mean more in the vein of Conan the Barbarian and other gritty heroes of yore. Including a little constructive wenching. What does D&D NOT need? Sex feats, a "maintaining sex" skill, etc etc. I stopped off by the BoEF Valar site and, frankly, didn't really like what I saw too much. In one line they talk about aproaching "adult" material in an "adult" way and being as corporate and professional as they can be. Then a link away they talk about the staffs', ahem, "bedroom aids" and penchants for roleplaying "at the table and in the bedroom". And (though I can see good reasons for it) you have to "sign up" to see the "previews" from the book. On the whole, the tone and content reminded me of a porn site. Then again, that business model is one of the few purely online forms of commerce that is turning a profit, and a huge one. Nookie -sells-. Still other things I find problematic. The big "Dungeons and Dragons" on the front ... the flaunting nature of that just isn't cool. If Valar wanted to be taken seriously, they'd have produced an "adult" product that sold itself on more than pornographic humor. Had there been a grim "violent" setting book, a dark-world setting, or something like that using their photo-art (even with nude or provocative models) I would have taken them seriously. Honestly? I might have even bought something like that. A serious 18+ setting book, fully fleshed out, with hot models and burly guys with swords hacking apart insane cultists. So, honestly, I think Valar ruined it for everybody. They came by and took a leak in the swimming pool because they could, and now a lifeguard is on duty making sure nobody is running or jumping or playing water-chicken. Had they been more intent on making an "adult" adult product and downplaying the D20 (instead of trying to embarass WotC by putting "Dungeons And Dragons" as big as they could on the front) maybe WotC wouldn't have had a problem with it. Even if they had, I think if Valar were a serious company, they'd realize that a good product would sell on its own merits under OGL and not force WotC to take this sort of step just to keep one product from being made. --fje [/QUOTE]

Verification