Sacred Prostitute preview from BoEF

DaveMage · Oct 13, 2003

*Checks watch*

Yep, it's just about time for another one of these discussions...

Carnifex · Oct 13, 2003

DaveMage said:
*Checks watch*

Yep, it's just about time for another one of these discussions...

Heheh.

*dons fire-retardant suit*.

Don't want to get caught as a bystander in the flames, after all...

MrFilthyIke · Oct 13, 2003

Religion, Politics, and Sex always generate debate, have been for thousands of years...why should it stop now?

MerakSpielman · Oct 13, 2003

Not to be a spoilsport, but shouldn't this really be in the d20 System / OGL Games forum?

Oh, and my 2cp... I like what I've seen of the content much better than what I've seen of the art. I run a dark/mature campaign, and there could concievably be bits I would use from BoEF, though it would not be central to the game.

Mirth · Oct 13, 2003

With all this talk of little bits and tight niches ... I've got to go take a shower, a cold shower.

Mirth "Where the heck is hong anyway?" Oy Vay

fusangite · Oct 13, 2003

Kudos to Wizards for changing their D20 license agreement to exclude BOEF. I feel much better about its publication now that this step has been taken.

I'll also agree that RPGs have been modeling prostitutes for decades and that this is no big deal. I think Runequest published stuff on a prostitute cult by the mid 80s.

hunter1828 · Oct 13, 2003

fusangite said:
Kudos to Wizards for changing their D20 license agreement to exclude BOEF. I feel much better about its publication now that this step has been taken.

The process to change the d20 STL was begun long before the announcement of the BoEF by the Valar Project. The change in the d20 STL is one of the reasons that Anthony Valterra left WotC in the first place. Valar knew this was coming and was hoping to get the BoEF out before the change took place. It didn't happen, the change took place, so the BoEF is going to published as OGL only. No other changes to the book. So, WotC changing the license had no real impact other than an OGL logo on the cover instead of a d20 and removing the words "Dungeons" and "Dragons". But the book is still being published with all internal contents unchanged.

hunter1828

shadow · Oct 13, 2003

What bothers me is the explicitness of the product. Sure prostitution probably exists in many campaigns (Didn't the 1e DMG have a prostitute as a random encounter?), but Valar is taking everything to a whole new level. When it comes to actually stating everything out, I think it's going a little too far. I'm not sure if this is really mature, or juvenille. Is anyone reminded of Summoner Geeks (the Dead Alewives skit) where that one guy in the kitchen says something like "Are there any chicks there? If there are I WANT TO DO THEM!" The idea of roleplaying out sexual encounters seems more immature and juvenile than "adult".

Also, does anyone else think that Valar has the wrong definition of erotic? From what I've seen on the site, there will be some emphasis on S&M and bondage. I don't know about anyone else, but to me S&M and bondage seem pretty kinky, not the least bit erotic.

MerakSpielman · Oct 13, 2003

From what I understand the (written) content is actually quite well written and non-juvenile. It's presented in a mature fashion. Teens, I think, would get bored with this quickly, since all they really want to do is "Do the chicks!" and they can do that just fine without extra rules. Plus, most teen groups are just a bunch of guys, and getting too sexual in all-hetero guy groups gets old fast.

I DO find most of the art to be not to my tastes, and not well reflective of the spirit of the other content of the book. I fear the art is there primarly to induce shock value and get free advertising from people objecting to it.

This book is not for everybody. I don't know if I'll bother getting a copy or not.

Frankly, though, I'm getting sick of having to wade through a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of the entire book (like anybody's seen the whole thing anyway) when thread-posters are trying to discuss a specific thing. I know I'm contributing to this right now, but I still think Trainz should have been able to start a discussion on this PrC without starting another discussion about whether the book is a good thing or a horrible thing. From here on, let's just talk about the PrC, ok, and if you're anti-BOEF, then just pretend it and the threads about it don't exist.

Trainz · Oct 13, 2003

Thanks Merak.

Yes, I really look forward to that book, I have a mature interest in it, I beleive it can achieve that from what I've seen (and the previews are quite extensive).

I'd really like to have a mature discussion about this but... I'm not sure it's possible on these boards. Here are a few of my previous quotes and some replies:

============================================

Trainz said:
That's how I see this book. Like Unearthed Arcana, a book with many options, from which you use the bits that you like.

thundershot said:
Yeah.. the naughty bits.

============================================

Trainz said:
That's how I see this book. Like Unearthed Arcana, a book with many options, from which you use the bits that you like.

theJester said:
Oh, I think I'll "use" the BoEF in an entirely different way than UA.

============================================

Trainz said:
It fills a very thight niche of RPG's, but that niche EXISTS. [...] Like Unearthed Arcana, a book with many options, from which you use the bits that you like.

Mirth said:
With all this talk of little bits and tight niches ... I've got to go take a shower, a cold shower.

============================================

Guys, by behaving like sex-starved teens, you are NOT helping having a mature conversation. If anything, you're helping the BoEF nay-sayers with their position* that this book can only be attractive to smut-lovers.

And they DON'T need help, they have quite enough ammo as it is.

* Please, PLEASE resist the urge to make some inane comment about positions.