Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 1114036" data-attributes="member: 12332">Well it's fine to believe that what one company does doesn't in any way effect the community, that's not how it works.Perhaps you'll enjoy 190 pages of Everything Sexual, but that 190 pages WILL prevent any other products dealing with that sort of material from being published.&nbsp; Will somebody be able to make a conan-style or Heavy Metal style game setting and release it under D20?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; Will somebody be able to release the D20 Cthulhu product now?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; Is that MY fault for believing that the BoEF was a BAD idea?&nbsp; Not in the least.Yes, the BoEF would have possibly failed.&nbsp; On the other hand, the BoEF could have prospered.&nbsp; A thousand thousand gamers could have picked it up and ten thousand parents could have seen &quot;DUNGEONS AND DRAGON ... Book of Erotic Fantasy&quot; and been upset.&nbsp; Do -I- step to the tune of ten thousand parents?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Does HASBRO?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; They have an image.&nbsp; Maybe it's unfortunate in your eyes, but sometimes we have to consider the realities of the situation.&nbsp; Hasbro and it's underling Wizards Of The Coast doesn't want a thousand parents seeing the first thing on a book about RPing porno the words &quot;Dungeons And Dragons&quot;.&nbsp; It's important to them.In a situation like this, you don't rock the frickin' boat just to be rocking the boat, which is what Valar and the BoEF is definately trying to do.&nbsp; Using &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot; in press releases, using the name on the book.&nbsp; Here, I'll come out and say:&nbsp; I'm not a marketing expert, I haven't done any market research into whether a sex-theme sex-rule book would sell better than a full setting that involved some of the rules in a fleshed out format.&nbsp; BUT, I know -I-, personally, would have bought an adult setting book of violence and nudity.&nbsp; Would something more tame have been passed by WotC?&nbsp; Would something not flaunting the D&amp;D name have been passed by WotC?&nbsp; Maybe not.&nbsp; But it probably would have been easier for the upper-ups at Hasbro to not notice something less flagrant.&nbsp; And if they hadn't had something like this shoved under their nose, maybe that hypothetical CoC product might have been made.&nbsp; Maybe some expansions for my hypothetical setting would have been made.&nbsp; Maybe a &quot;Harlots and Harridans&quot; expansion would have been released for that setting,&nbsp; 100+ page book on VDs and sex-themed skills and feats and classes.&nbsp; Maybe I wouldn't have bought it, but at least we'd not be in the position we're in now.--fje</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeapThaumaturgist, post: 1114036, member: 12332"] Well it's fine to believe that what one company does doesn't in any way effect the community, that's not how it works. Perhaps you'll enjoy 190 pages of Everything Sexual, but that 190 pages WILL prevent any other products dealing with that sort of material from being published. Will somebody be able to make a conan-style or Heavy Metal style game setting and release it under D20? Nope. Will somebody be able to release the D20 Cthulhu product now? Nope. Is that MY fault for believing that the BoEF was a BAD idea? Not in the least. Yes, the BoEF would have possibly failed. On the other hand, the BoEF could have prospered. A thousand thousand gamers could have picked it up and ten thousand parents could have seen "DUNGEONS AND DRAGON ... Book of Erotic Fantasy" and been upset. Do -I- step to the tune of ten thousand parents? No. Does HASBRO? Yes. They have an image. Maybe it's unfortunate in your eyes, but sometimes we have to consider the realities of the situation. Hasbro and it's underling Wizards Of The Coast doesn't want a thousand parents seeing the first thing on a book about RPing porno the words "Dungeons And Dragons". It's important to them. In a situation like this, you don't rock the frickin' boat just to be rocking the boat, which is what Valar and the BoEF is definately trying to do. Using "Dungeons and Dragons" in press releases, using the name on the book. Here, I'll come out and say: I'm not a marketing expert, I haven't done any market research into whether a sex-theme sex-rule book would sell better than a full setting that involved some of the rules in a fleshed out format. BUT, I know -I-, personally, would have bought an adult setting book of violence and nudity. Would something more tame have been passed by WotC? Would something not flaunting the D&D name have been passed by WotC? Maybe not. But it probably would have been easier for the upper-ups at Hasbro to not notice something less flagrant. And if they hadn't had something like this shoved under their nose, maybe that hypothetical CoC product might have been made. Maybe some expansions for my hypothetical setting would have been made. Maybe a "Harlots and Harridans" expansion would have been released for that setting, 100+ page book on VDs and sex-themed skills and feats and classes. Maybe I wouldn't have bought it, but at least we'd not be in the position we're in now. --fje [/QUOTE]

Verification