D&D 4E Who has rights to BoEF, and are they in on the 4e OGL

[Desdichado]

First part of the point I have been trying to make:
In the long term, if Wizards of the Coast fails to attract new gamers to D&D, the current customer base will eventually die off. People who are born after the original customer base will eventually replace them. I am pretty sure that at one point, they will be children.

No argument there. The only problem I do have is 1) D&D has never explicitly tried to appeal to children (an in fact the topless pictures in early books suggests that children were never part of their marketing strategy) and yet in the 80s it attracted a large number of them. 2) I'm completely unaware of any RPG that specifically targets children that has been successful. 3) This kind of self-censorship may be a good thing; or it may be a repeat of 2e's self-censoring. 4) That is often cited as one reason why 2e underperformed in the market. 5) Ergo it's possible that this focus on "community standards" will hurt sales of D&D. 6) Killing sales now on a completely unproven (and IMO inherently unlikely) strategy of trying to recruit kids who will be big buyers several years down the road is...at best... extremely counterproductive.

Who knows exactly how it can play out? I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here and trying to envision the worst possible scenario, and I don't see anything that actively prevents the worst possible scenario from happening.

Do I think the "community standards" are going to kill D&D? No, probably not. If it's more about quality control than content control, if anything, it's probably a really good thing. But otherwise I see it as at best neutral, at worst harmful.

Second part of the point I am trying to make:
Content such as that found in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, and to borrow a term from Clockwork Orange, 'Ultra Violence', is not what makes D&D an appealing past time. Both forms of content can actually be quite entertaining, but they are not exactly exclusive to D&D. Furthermore, such content is often more effectively delivered through other mediums. I know that I did not start playing D&D simply to get access to that kind of content. I presume that most of the current customer base of D&D got into the hobby for reasons similar to mine, a general enjoyment of fantasy fiction.

Oh, I agree. I've already made a pretty flippant (but accurate nonetheless) post that it's very nearly the last thing I want to roleplay with the guys in my group (possibly only beaten in that regard by my aversion for roleplaying an anal probing scene in a modern conspiracy type game.) But here's the deal... we're assuming and speculating that that's what the "community standards" will deal with, but we don't know that. The fact that the clause is in the license means that it can be used for all kinds of things down the road that the current batch of WotC employees may not even foresee.

It may be small, but it's still a risk that any potential OGC publisher needs to consider. It's a point---possibly a very tiny one, but one that could add up with others---against entering the market.

The point:
Getting people into D&D while they are young is not in a bad idea. I am not talking about accomodating 1% of a potential new player pool while alienating 90% of the current player pool. What I am talking about is taking steps to make sure you do not alienate 1% of a new player base by letting a 3rd party produce content that would harm the brand image. It may not seem like much, but I am sure there are a number of people on this board who may have had friends that had parents who were overprotective of this sort of thing.

And I'm sure that's exactly their thought too. Whether or not their brand image is harmed by 3rd party products remains to be seen, IMO. It's entirely possible that their brand image is harmed by this measure being debated in the fanbase than by what some third party publication could do.

If some nutjob out there decides to score points on D&D again by declaring it evil, I would rather not give them ammunition like the Book of Erotic Fantasy when that book does not even really add much to the game for most players.

I couldn't care less what some nutjob decides to do.

If you mean otherwise rational but uninformed people deciding the D&D is bad for "the children of America" or something, I think that's pretty unlikely. Who's going to go after D&D when you've got Grand Theft Auto to target instead?

And since the children of America aren't really the target audience of D&D anyway, and despite the fact that many of us began playing as children, it never has been, the issue is easily sidestepped by saying, "well duh---this isn't marketed for children; if you don't want your children to have it, don't let them. Do you buy them R-rated movies or M-rated video games? Same thing here."

Anyway... like I said, I'm being a bit devil's advocate. I don't want to see another BoEF anymore than you do. However, I'm a bit more uneasy with WotC specifically trying to forbid.. I dunno. Something kinda nebulous. Who knows what they'll later decide doesn't live up to "community standards?"

 

[Ranger REG]

My point is this, however. The D&D game is owned by Wizards, which in turn is owned by Hasbro. The last thing Hasbro wants is to be hit with a lawsuit by some enraged parent that finds out their precious little snowflake is reading pornographic material in a game that is marketed towards an audience of 12 and up. Also, forgetting the sex angle, the standards also keep other things away from the game, such as a D&D adventure that would promote racism by doing something along the lines of making a recognizable ethnic minority the monster to be killed for fun and sport.

I also think the last thing that D&D needs to do right now is find a way to put itself back into the cross hairs of conservative parents groups.

Oh, joy. They're good at organizing a group, but they're not good at parenting their own children, just trying to get the government to "babysit"?

PA-THE-TIC.

Any FLGS retailer who does NOT display the BoEF behind the counter -- or anywhere out of reach of minors -- have turds for brain AND personality. As for mail-order or online ordering businesses, I'm sure there are procedures that check if the customer is of age-appropriate.

 

[bgaesop]

I started playing when I was 10, I'm getting my 13 year old younger brother to play now, I think the BoEF was a really terrible supplement (though to be fair I didn't read it cover to cover, just flipped through it at borders) and I think that censoring it would be an absolutely terrible idea. There are different markets out there that I'm not a part of, and while for instance I'm not a furry and wouldn't want to play as one I am not going to protest the release of Jade Claw. Live and let live, you know? Anyone who's offended by (what I saw as) the relatively mild content of the BoEF being offered to consenting adults will probably be equally offended by my old gay Half-Elf Ranger.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Oh, joy. They're good at organizing a group, but they're not good at parenting their own children, just trying to get the government to "babysit"?

PA-THE-TIC.

I doubt that your parents really had much of an idea of how D&D was played when you started. Mostly, they would not care. But considering 1st edition, how many teen gamers do you think rushed to boast to mom and dad about the pictures of monsters with topless female torsos?

In my experience, parents rarely react with anything other than a full on offensive when they are convinced something negatively affects their children. It does not matter if it is pornography, video games, drugs, or lead contaminated products. It does not matter if the harm is exaggerated. Parents react to all threats by doing what they can to remove them.

If the object in question is something they know their children actually like (porn, drugs, video games), they will not just stop at disallowing their children from using it. They are at least smart enough to know that hardly ever works. They will instead do what they can to outlaw it entirely, or at least make it hard enough to obtain that it may as well be illegal.

There is a reason people like Jack Thompson and Pat Pulling are able to keep turning up. And while there are plenty of things that are worth having those kinds of battles over, the content in BoEM is not one of them. At least with the community standards clause in place, Wizards is in a position to better choose what they will fight for.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Voadam]

My point is this, however. The D&D game is owned by Wizards, which in turn is owned by Hasbro. The last thing Hasbro wants is to be hit with a lawsuit by some enraged parent that finds out their precious little snowflake is reading pornographic material in a game that is marketed towards an audience of 12 and up. Also, forgetting the sex angle, the standards also keep other things away from the game, such as a D&D adventure that would promote racism by doing something along the lines of making a recognizable ethnic minority the monster to be killed for fun and sport.

I also think the last thing that D&D needs to do right now is find a way to put itself back into the cross hairs of conservative parents groups. Dealing with Patricia Pulling and the "D&D is Satan worship" image was bad enough for the game. It had died down by the time I got into the game, but the echos were still there. I would rather not have my hobby get pulled back into that with a "D&D is Satan worship and pornography". BoEM was a fringe product and an expansion, but zealots wont make that distinction any more than they did for the Grand Theft Auto Hot Coffee scandal when the content was not the sort of thing you would find by accident.

END COMMUNICATION

Wait, are you advocating removing all demons and fiends and demon-worshipers and such from the game as well then? Prohibiting their inclusion from use through the license and having WotC not use them themselves?

 

[Voadam]

BoEM was a fringe product and an expansion, but zealots wont make that distinction any more than they did for the Grand Theft Auto Hot Coffee scandal when the content was not the sort of thing you would find by accident.

END COMMUNICATION

I don't remember hearing a single thing about BoEF outside of gamers talking on message boards and it has been in Borders directly mixed in on the D&D shelves for years. No news stories, no outcries about D&D being pornography, etc.

I can't imagine anyone picking up a book with "erotic fantasy" in the title and giving it to their kids just because its a D&D book.

I'm not worried about 3rd party books on fringe topics being a hindrance to new gamers picking up the game.

 

[Voadam]

There is a reason people like Jack Thompson and Pat Pulling are able to keep turning up. And while there are plenty of things that are worth having those kinds of battles over, the content in BoEM is not one of them. At least with the community standards clause in place, Wizards is in a position to better choose what they will fight for.

END COMMUNICATION

BoEF has been on the shelves with D&D for years. I have not see those battles and don't expect to.

By the way, BoEM is Monte Cook's Book of Eldritch Might, not the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

 

[Henry]

I'm completely unaware of any RPG that specifically targets children that has been successful.

I believe if the facts are still correct, that "Pokemon Jr. Emergency" game from about seven years back was in terms of sales volume the most successful RPG to date However, I doubt it's ever played by kids again, now, making it a kind of a fluke.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Wait, are you advocating removing all demons and fiends and demon-worshipers and such from the game as well then? Prohibiting their inclusion from use through the license and having WotC not use them themselves?

Not at all.

What I am advocating is that Wizards prevent 3rd parties from adding content to the game that will add very little value and a great deal of potential problems.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D has never explicitly tried to appeal to children (an in fact the topless pictures in early books suggests that children were never part of their marketing strategy) and yet in the 80s it attracted a large number of them

I don't think this point is entirely accurate, either.

It's never really tried to appeal to the whole 7-10 crowd wholeheartedly, but it has always held a special interest for the 12-22 crowd. Which, given most 12-13 year old's semi-obsession with body parts, doesn't discount the topless appeal.

Talk to most people who play today, and it's evident that they began in middle school, high school, or college.

Add to this the '2nd Generation'. Most people who play D&D today were born in the late 20th Century. The first wave of people who grew up in high school and middle school in the late 70's and early '80's have been settling down and raising families whose kids are fast approaching that ripe age where their parents got into D&D. Many parents let their kids in on D&D even earlier, the "daddy DM" being a story I've heard fairly often. This aligns with a general kid's interest in fantasy. YA and IR fantasy is HUGE, so right about the time these kids are starting to read on their own, starting into the HP series or the Chronicles of Narnia or A Wrinkle In Time, or whatever new fad is brewing, they're becoming interested in playing D&D and being these fantastic creatures and going on swords-and-magic adventures. This is the time when a lot of teenagers, in the '80's read Drizzit novels or the Dragonlance series.

D&D has always started young, and recently, it's skewing younger.

Now, it's possible that this wasn't deliberate at first, but I'm sure by now that it is. Of course, D&D has always been able to 'stride the line,' too. It's not so young-targeted that adults feel that they can't address some meaningful adult issues in the game.

So while I doubt we'll ever really see 'Pre School Paladins Playground,' it would be pretty profoundly dull of D&D to not hit that young, gullible, fantasy-devouring market.