Should there be a "Vile/Mature" line of products?

[Wraithdrit]

I posted a long post in the 'other thread' only to have the thread locked from beneath me (peers at PirateCat ). But my point is that if we are talking a mature line being like the difference between DC and Vertigo, then I am all for it.

We are talking the difference between D&D and Vampire/CoC. Now I understand that Vampire will get many people bent out of shape, but if you really read the books and ignore the munchkin goth powergamers that are attracted to it, there is a large level of intelligence put into the background, story, and material.

I would be very interested in a line of mature products that dealt with mature themes intelligently. Moral decisions with appropriate consequences in a realistic fantasy setting (heh... yes its an oxymoron by definition, I just mean a setting with real thought and consequences put in it).

Now don't get me wrong. I know that the blood sweat and tears of many great writers have written many a good campaign setting for D&D. I am not implying that they are not good. But none of them have a very adult or mature flavor since they are written around a system that inherently has its hands tied.

So I would support, contribute to, and evangelize such a line if it where mature (like vertigo) not vile (gross/sex for gross/sex sake).

Could any setting be made mature by these standards? Sure, but I would be interested in a prepackaged setting/ruleset that dealt with this.

- Wraith

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Once again, I'll reiterate the purpose of the "Mature Content" labelling:

It's not that the material is itself mature, but that mature people can, and will, use the material in such a manner opposite of the condensending manner in which the material's detractors like to address it.

That said...

One final thing..... new gamers are the lifeblood of our hobby and the only way to gain new gamers would be to recruit among middle and high school students, yet I do not see ANYONE making that attempt.

Considering I'm 33, the last thing I need is the headache I'd get from hanging out with a teenager. No, I'm serious.

Kid acts out against his parents; Who gets blamed? "It's that guy you play games with, isn't it?"

Kid does weird things in school; Who gets blamed? "It's that guy you play games with, isn't it?"

Kid runs away (for whatever reason); Who gets blamed? "It's that guy you play games with, isn't it?"

In the sue-happy culture of modern America, the last thing I need is to become the scapegoat for someone else's bad parenting or, even worse, bare the brunt of responsibility when someone else leads the kid astray or does something totally screwed-up. Does anyone in this thread really want that headache? Because that's exactly the risk you seem to expect many of us to take.

Yes, current gamers seem to be older, but let us all think back to when we started. I was 15 and I'll bet a fair number of you were that age or younger. Shouldn't we all be doing something to influence the younger generation?

I was 12. I was introduced to the game by someone that was 12. When I was 13, I introduced 13 year olds to the game. When I was 17, I introduced 17 year olds to the game. When I was 25, I introduced 21-30 year olds to the game.

I feel no sense of obligation in introducing younger kids to the game except the three I've born into the world, and possibly their friends (by merit of attraction, not due to intentional promotion). It's up to them, if they like the game, to introduce others of their age group (and even then, I'll still have dim-wit parents to deal with, I just won't look like somebody lurking around the school yard going "Psst! Hey, kid, wanna RPG?").

 

[Belen]

Ah, you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that we should go out and recruit younger players for our games. I am saying that WOTC should work to make the game available for younger gamers and try to market to younger gamers.

If they have a "mature" line, then they should have an equally "young adult" line of products. In any event, I do not see where everyone thinks that the current products are not mature. Yes, no one comes out and says it in the books, but mature people deal with mature issues in game and vice versa.

I just do not see a reason to produce a line of mature crunch. We make the game what it is.

 

[Tiefling]

If they have a "mature" line, then they should have an equally "young adult" line of products. In any event, I do not see where everyone thinks that the current products are not mature. Yes, no one comes out and says it in the books, but mature people deal with mature issues in game and vice versa.

Huh? Everything else is the "Young Adult" line. It's like asking why there isn't a "Men's Channel" when there's a "Women's Channel."

 

[Knight Otu]

As for the Sigil's first question, yes, a distinct line would be a good idea.

The second question... I'm split on that. Dungeon and Dragon should, in my opinion, be representative for the D&D game as a whole (that also means the D20 market!), and thus should include material that is usable for a wide range of people. What does that mean foe "Vile/Mature" material?

For one, it would increase the breadth of material presented in the magazines, but it would make it less attractive for those who have a dislike for that material. It has been more or less proven that this material creates more reaction (positive or negative) than pretty much every other sort of material. Overall, I think Dragon and Dungeon would best be considered "Core" for the purpose of this discussion (Personally, I think a 1/year regular feature might be interesting - It would give people who want vile material just that, and people who dislike it can skip the issue. Not a perfect solution, but an idea).


As for Anthony Valterra's questions -

Yes, I think there is a market, and i would propably buy the books (of course, i buy pretty much everything WotC ).
I don't think i would overly advertize the products, but I'd propably let people know that "This book might very much be what you are looking for". Defending the line... i usually try not to get into that kind of argument as they tend to get hot pretty quickly, but I guess I'd at least try from time to time.
Participating... maybe.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I just do not see a reason to produce a line of mature crunch. We make the game what it is.

Well, it's like this:

Without BoVD: "I'm evil, and I do all these nasty things because I'm evil, darn-it."

With BoVD: "I'm evil, and I do all these nasty things because it makes me powerful."

In effect, BoVD (and AEG's Evil, and Mongoose's Demonology, etc.) add a new layer to the game, allowing for someone to be evil for more reasons than just "because the Alignment Descriptions say so", providing a sense of motivation other than greed, and reflecting the cost of that choice by "crunching" the corruption that occurs to body and soul.

 

[Belen]

My villains have never been evil because I put a check mark in the evil alignment box. Evil has always brought power whether through greed, lust, hatred, pschological problems.....

In my current campaign, the BBEG was once a lawful good character who was tortured and turned to evil as a minion of a greater power wishing to rule the continent.

The son of the BBEG turned to evil because of wealth and priviledge, when he decided that he wanted the King's granddaughter and that was denied him, then he went nuts and decided to destroy everything because she had spurned him and he had never received a "no" before.

Yet another big bad turned to evil because her deity did not save her and her friends in their greatest time of need. In fact, she ended up worshipping a dark god in order to get revenge on her old order.

I needed the BoVD for none of this. I do not need their form of "mature" crunch. As a GM, I make that stuff up on my own. I do not see where the BoVD would enhance my game at all, thus no one has proved to me that a "mature" line has any need at all.

If WOTC can give me a definition of what they consider mature, examples of the types of products and why the line is needed, then maybe I would have a reason to consider joining the bandwagon.

However, the BoVD did not prove the "mature" concept. Just saying, "we want to do something like this here comic and provide you adult entertainment" is not enough.

 

[Arnwyn]

Should there be a Vile/Mature product line (distinct from the Core line)?
Should Dragon and/or Dungeon be considered "Core" material for purposes of this discussion?

While I think it's naive, shortsighted, and ultimately a little counterproductive to discuss whether there should be a separation of vile/non-vile when you don't want to "sidetrack" the thread into discussing what "vile" is (the poster who talked about killing/murdering was right on the ball), I'll play The Sigil's game.

Yes, there should be a distinct product line. No, Dragon and/or Dungeon should not be considered "Core" material.

As for Anthony's queries:
A) Yes, I think there would likely be an audience (based on your comment that BoVD is still selling well).
B) Yes, I would likely buy it.
C) Yes, I would likely evangelize it, if it were good (much like I evangelize Necromancer Games).
D) Yes, I would likely defend it.
E) Participate? No more than I participate with gaming in general.

 

[Zappo]

My answers to Anthony's queries are all yes.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Just a quandry, Anthony:

Would this proposed label (in theory) be OGL publishers, or would they be producing Closed Content like WotC?