Tracy Hickman's view of the Dragon #300 sealed section

[seasong]

He does have a point. There isn't any undoing this. Just as you're not putting b*tch, a**, and sh*t back in the bottle on american tv. (Even though the FCC is in the hands of the ultra conservatives.)

Actually, he doesn't. There were orgiastic movies in the early 20s and before... all of which disappeared and are practically forgotten today.

For that matter, look at the Comics Code that Tracy so obligingly mentions. That is a prime example of stuffing the genie back in the bottle and giving him a boot to the head along the way.

Never underestimate censorship's ability to undo humanity's natural tendency to express itself.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

Forgive the stupid question but IS this the same Tracy Hickman who writes the DragonLance Books?




As far as the "mature" sealed section. Don't make me laugh. I have seen worse things in the Deities and Demigods. Hell if they want to scare readers print the Unlawful Guide to Carnal Knowledge. But come on a few crappy spells, 3 or four stupid monster cults, hardly makes it mature.

The only cool thing in that issue was the 4 new dragons.

Rust is a Must!

 

[Darrin Drader]

Forgive the stupid question but IS this the same Tracy Hickman who writes the DragonLance Books?

One and the same, which brings up an interesting question. Wizards publishes Dragonlance for him and sends hiom a paycheck for his work. Is it really a good idea to be challenging the same people that have been so good to him?

 

[King_Stannis]

....The fact that they're putting out only the Book of Vile Darkness, and not a companion "Good" book, just goes to show that it's one of those pure marketing manuscripts. Oh yeah, it was written by Monte Cook. How could I forget? How "dare" Tracy disagree with someone Monte or another writer put out. Shame on him. Grow up. Tracy and Laura Hickman worked for TSR to create the same worlds that still exist today. They created Ravenloft......

......You haven't sitten down and talked to him about his viewpoints. Just as you loudly proclaimed "I am boycotting all his Sovereign Stone and Dragonlance stuff," he has the right to "boycott" this one particular issue of Dragon Magazine.

Christopher Coyle

i gotta admit, i kind of agreed with the monte cook reference. i think people over here do get a little star-struck when it comes to him. i don't think there'd be near the hype for this book if it weren't for the fact monte was involved. nothing against monte, he's a pretty nice and approacheable guy. though i can see the frustration in chris' comments....monte can do no wrong in many people's eyes.

as for boycotting "sovereign stone" - if anyone is doing that, they are depriving themselves of a pretty good product.

as for the rant itself, i have mixed feelings. all these years i'm on the defensive about D&D being about (generally) good guys defeating evil. BoVD would seem to make that task harder, were it thrust in my face. in the same respect, it'll probably fade into the backround in a half-year. so long as there isn't a rush to "out-gross" each other, things should be okay. i hope.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Lets also not forget the fact that Tracy Hickman is a pretty devoted Christian. Now I don't have a problem with anyone because of their religious beliefs. I really don't. The issue is that Tracy's website delves into reconciling him playing D&D with his strong faith. If someone needs to post all of this in a public forum, isn't that the same as making excuses for their activities? Isn't that also the same as admitting that the activity is wrong in the first place?

Isn't the fact that Richard Dawkins makes excuses for his role in evolutionary theory the same as admitting it's incorrect in the first place? (I suppose it might look a lot to some people like he's putting forward reasons why he's right and intelligent design theorists are wrong but it can justifiably be rephrased this way).

Obviously not. What it does imply is that there is debate as to the correctness of evolutionary theory/correctness of suppressing dissent in the community to which Richard Dawkins addresses his books. In the same way, the fact that Tracy Hickman's website delves into reconciling his gaming with his faith means that there is a real or perceived debate as to the appropriateness of Christians gaming among the community that reads the internet. And obviously, it implies, that he wants to make a contribution to that debate. (And he does make a contribution that goes beyond "All gaming is always good no matter what, it's using your imagination dude!" or "Gaming is the devil's tool for temptation.")

Holding or stating an opinion in a public forum does not necessarily mean that it's incorrect.

I'm not trying to insult Tracy on a personal level here, because I have read a great deal of his work, and I think that he is a gifted author, but why does he feel the need to treat this as though its a personal betrayal?

Probably because he intentionally worked for D&D and used D&D in a manner that was consistent with his beliefs and up until now, the official D&D product line has not included content that directly contradicted his beliefs. Now it does. And as one of the individuals who contributed a great deal towards making D&D what it is today, he understandably feels personally betrayed. That this direct contradiction was revealed to him on Sept 11* (a rather emotionally laden date for him apparently) only added fule to the fire.

*I imagine he knew about this beforehand (who didn't) but hadn't yet seen it. Seeing the magazine probably made real to him what he must have expected and quashed any hopes that the content might not really justify the warning label.

 

[heirodule]

Re: The Comics Code

For example, in one issue of "Plastic Man," according to the original version, PM's sidekick ended up drinking the villain, who was made of water and had been confined in a pitcher. The CCA insisted that they change the dialogue so that it seemed as though he had dumped the villain down the drain and cleaned the pitcher, even though the image of the sidekick holding the pitcher up to his mouth remained intact. As the delightfully droll caption accompanying this anecdote notes, thanks to the CCA's vigilance, no child who read that issue of Plastic Man ever became a cannibal.

Strawman. The concerns wasn't simply that kids would imitate whatever they see, but that a diet of stories where heroes and good guys act unheroic (murdering the villans) would lead kids to disrespect lawful authority and act out. The'd be juvenile delinquents of one stripe or another.

Anyway.

Hickman's rediculous for mailing its like terrorism, but the marketing of the book is disappointing. "How vile will you get" as a teaser plays on the same vain curiosity that leads young kids to all kinds of bad-for-them websites (not just pron)

Sealing the section itself I'd argue was gimmicky, not really "proctective" if a parent needs to pre-screen the mag his kid gets. "ooh I wonder what's in there. I'll borrow my buddies copy...eww! What's this copulating with corpses and seed-spurting stuff?"

 

[The Sigil]

Could Tracy have overreacted any more?

No.

Grow up Tracy and all the fanboys.

Mature material in a..... GASP..... Adult Game! My youngest player is 35. You babies can go cry to your mommas. We like mature ideas and material.

Could you have been any more offensive?

Yeah, probably.

The comments that follow... "you babies can go cry to your mommas" simply indicate a FAR greater lack of maturity than the "babies" you refer to. Classic bullying. Nice work. Way to intelligently and rationally support your position.

--The Sigil

 

[King_Stannis]

Could Tracy have overreacted any more?

No.

Grow up Tracy and all the fanboys.

Mature material in a..... GASP..... Adult Game! My youngest player is 35. You babies can go cry to your mommas. We like mature ideas and material.

funny, i don't recall seeing a warning label on the PHB saying "not for people under the age of 18". what makes you believe it's solely an "adult" game?

 

[paqman]

And, just to toss this in, ever since my group said "no" to evil characters we've been having smoother and funner games.

Note on't take this comment as a provocation, I am stating a fact of our group:

That's funny, since our group sait "no" to good characters, we also have been having smoother and funner games. Guess it is all a thing of points of view

 

[Zappo]

Re: Re: Re: Nice Straw Man!!

If the material in question (the Dragon #300 content) is judged to be "mature," why include it at all?

My question, instead, is: why not include it? IMO, not including it as an act of self-censorship is truly immoral. Not including it deprives everyone of the material, but if it is included those who object are free not to use it.

As for the principles behind the inclusion, I guess it's for money. I respect that. It is their objective as a business, their duty to shareholders, and if evil sells it ultimately is because the consumers buy it.