Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mkletch" data-source="post: 840524" data-attributes="member: 3396">A: It really depended on what the content was.  Eliminating any chance to define vile/mature within this thread really hobbles the question.B: Probably.  Depends on definition of mature/vile.C: Probably.  Depends on definition of mature/vile.D: Probably.  Depends on definition of mature/vile.E: Maybe.  Depends on definition of mature/vile.If mature/vile means dealing with mature themes and philosophies, mature plot lines, characters with possibly controversial motivations/actions/histories, sure.  The chance goes way up.  If mature/vile means using overwrought descriptions and artwork in an effort to legitimize what would otherwise be simply immature silliness, then no way.IMO the BoVD was closer to the latter, but not so much that I did not buy it.  Does that please WotC?  Probably; they got my buck.  However, it really sours any possibility of my buying further products in that line.  BoVD gave me prestige classes that are powerful but not terribly interesting, spells that, without the colorful descriptions do not even deserve the [Evil] descriptor, and definitions of evil that simply exceed normal, credible boundaries (a guy that simply breaks into a pawn shop at 4am to clear out the jewelry cabinet is hardly vile or evil).With an analogy to the d20 STL requirement of 5% open content, perhaps 5% of the BoVD is useful to me (monsters, sacrifices, magic items).  My reaction is that the 'mature' label on the BoVD was a tactic to drive sales.  BoVD was the first, and first impressions mean a lot.  Even if the products in this new line were actually 'mature' and interesting, it would take a lot of convincing to sell me on it.What else would there be?  Adventures?  A dark campaign setting?  These would help.  More alignment books (the Book of Frenzied Confusion and the Book of Amazing Rigidity).  Nuh-uh.  The short answer, which I probably should have put at the top of the post, is that there are simply too many variables.  Any conclusions drawn from this thread (and others like it on other boards) would be based on unclear premises and a miniscule sample.  Sure there is some interest, but probably not enough.  The 'mature' line would be the 'Chainmail' of 2004.-Fletch!</blockquote>

Verification