WotC Responds!!!

[Dinkeldog]

Right. We're staying OFF the religion subject, remember? Good.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

Edited to delete reply.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

Edited to delete reply.

Wise man.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Re: WotC: Time to part with Mr. Valtera.

OK, why. Its easy to call names and run, why don't you discuss how his affiliation with that organization helps WotC rather than hurts them.

Your statement indicated that he should be released "in part" due to his occult background. Fact is, if that has any connection to his being released, he has a very winnable discrimination suit. Indeed, unless Anthony is in violation of a non-compete contract, it would be hard for WotC to prove that he wasn't released for it. Discrimination laws are very much that way due to the often oral/hidable nature of prejudice and discrimination in the work place.

So, even if his religion did do harm to WotC, which it doesn't, they still couldn't dismiss him on those grounds.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: Re: Irrespective of my own opinion...

It's a book, people. Just a book. And not only that, it's maybe a couple of thousand copies in a pool of hundreds of millions of D&D products in circulation.

Yep.

Doesn't anyone think that this reaction is way, way out of proportion to the potential of this book to actually offend anyone?

Big yep.

I'm far, far more disturbed by this insanity than I could possibly be by the material itself.

Yep.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

o·pen
<Condescention snipped>

---

WOTC made an open license. It is inappropriate for them to come back and make a statement that basically condemns a product that satisfies that license. That is my grounds for saying their statement was overdone.

So you're demanding that they be rhetorically (and not simply in terms of action) consistent with a technical reading of the plain english meaning of OGL? It seems to me that granting a right to produce games under the license doesn't preclude WotC's ability to criticize the use of it. Nor should the fact that the word "open" is in the title mean that they can't legally challenge use of the license if the license grants them legal power to do so in the small print.

In any event, it doesn't seem to me that people have to be or even always ought to be consistent. (Myself, I'm rather glad that most people don't behave or believe entirely in keeping with their principles--if they followed them to the logical conclusions, the world might well be a worse place not a better one). It's been said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Now you may not agree with that but if all you have to offer is another point of view, I see no reason to prefer your point of view to the alternative.

If they had added a line that said something like "Although we find this product inappropriate, we respect the right of third party publishers using the OGL to publish the works they create and leave it to the marketplace of consumers to shape the direction of OGL content" then i wouldn’t have a problem.

In other words, if they feel the need to distance themselves from a work, they should ensure that any criticism comes across in the softest possible terms and recognize an absolute "right" of consumers to shape the market in whatever direction they choose. The consequences of such principles are that real criticism is impermissable (try to imagine Michael Moore or any other critic of the war in Iraq criticizing it in those terms--to do so would undermine the criticism they wished to communicate).

The second consequence is that an absolutization of the rights of consumers to buy whatever they want leaves no room for the criticism of even things that are generally (although not universally--searching the internet will reveal that any imaginable example of perversion or evil has groups of ardent supporters and that some are closer to mainstream acceptance than one might think) agreed to be perverse. [According to the moderators, examples of such things are inappropriate for discussion so I won't mention any here].

My basic problem is that when you open the door , you shouldn’t complain about what comes in! Distance yourself, fine. Say that it isn't for you, fine. But don't harshly criticize the people who _do_ want it, _do_ think it is appropriate, or _do_ want to see something new, novel, unique, or different.

Why shouldn't I or anyone else criticize (harshly or otherwise) people who _do_ want to do something perverse or destructive? I know those are loaded terms but so are new, novel, unique and different--the attitude your posts support precludes any discussion of whether something is perverse and destructive or new, novel, unique, etc. I guess I'm just supposed to accept the view that [Example blocked in deference to moderators] is perverse but this book is unique. In the name of allowing novelty and uniqueness, you are actually excluding large groups of people (anyone who disagrees with you on the merits of criticism) from dialogue. That doesn't sound to me like it's creating diversity and novelty.

At no time in this thread have i discussed the merits of the product to which WOTC was responding (I think), only the response itself. That I do find inappropriate. IMO, YMMV, IAAL (but this communication is for information purposes only), etc. etc. etc.

Say what you want, but all the little disclaimers at the end of your post won't change the fact that you're saying that it's inappropriate for anyone to normatively suggest that something is inappropriate. You presume to be able to set the limits of acceptable dialogue. What's ironic is that the view you're trying to place off limits is the view that some things should be off limits.

 

[Mark]

What's ironic is that the view you're trying to place off limits is the view that some things should be off limits.

*Mark shakes his head from side to side and makes the "wobbity-wobbity-wobble" sound...*

 

[Belen]

I felt a need to speak out in opposition; however, I do not want to start a flame war. Rather, I just want to mention what thebook means to me and how I perceive it, so I hope that people can leave the name calling aside and discuss this in a polite manner.

First, the fact that both you and Mr. Valterra remain attached to WOTC only proves that Valar is not the independent company that you'd like us to believe. Since, AV mentioned starting a private label run by WOTC but for mature products, I see no reason to believe that this is not connected.

Second, how will you keep this material away from kids? It will be impossible to keep gaming material out of the hands of children. Many 18 year old high school students play with kids of younger age. I am certain that they will see no trouble in excepting the money of friends to buy the DnD porn book. You may not care if chidren get the material of not, but as a person living under the rule of the preachers in the bible belt, I have an interest in not seeing public railing against our hobby from the pulpit! Yes, demon-worship may be passe these days, but you are tapping right into the biggest fear among parents: sex.

Third, the book does not even have the good taste to use fantasy art. Whereas many parents may ignore cartoon pictures, I guarantee you that real models will make them look twice. It will be REAL nudity. How can you justify this? What place does eroticism have in a game?

Fourth, the BoEF will only serve to heighten the gamer stereotype of nerds playing the parents basements. It will serve to fuel the image that a bunch of guys with no social life and an inability to get a girlfriend, play this game. It is a stereotype that I have worked against for a decade. It has been bad enough trying to get past people's beliefs and let them see the truth. Most people will see this book and never even take the time to listen!

I am not telling anyone that they cannot make sex part of their game. That is for each group to decide on their own. In fact, the GMs should be the one's making the material! It is a game of imagination afterall. Why do we need RULES for sex? Did you ever consider that by turning sex into a die roll that you are lessening it in real life? Kids who get this book will not truly respect the act if they are "experienced" with in game sex!Because it will be teens, especially virgins who finds this book to be the most desireable.

I am sure that some people will rail against me and bandy names such as troll and puritan. However, it is MY image that concerns me. I love the game of DnD and I hate that I have defend myself, my morality and my honor from people because of the existing stereotype. For those of you who want to say that this book will have no effect, that I am a doomsayer, or that I should not try to censure others for what they do in their private homes, then you are not seeing the point of my argument.

I have no desire to control what you do in your own group. You can still DO it. We do not need a public set of rules for ertocia in DnD. This is simplely a move to create controversy in order to sell a product: DnD.

The only thing that I can do is write Hasbo and WOTC and let them know what I think. In fact, I will be sending multiple letters, including a petition started by my players and circulating around the local game shops and universities. I did not fight the BoVD, but I will not go quietly into the darkness on this issue.

Dave Allen

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Second, how will you keep this material away from kids? It will be impossible to keep gaming material out of the hands of children. Many 18 year old high school students play with kids of younger age. I am certain that they will see no trouble in excepting the money of friends to buy the DnD porn book.

Dave Allen

Nothing personal but this arguement of yours is not thought out at all.

By your logic we should immediatly ban:

alcohol
cigarettes
playboy

As well as anything else you have to be a certain age to purchase because somewhere out there we might find an older person willing to buy it for a younger person.


Thanks for playing, try again later please.

 

[Psion]

Nothing personal but this arguement of yours is not thought out at all.

By your logic we should immediatly ban:

alcohol
cigarettes
playboy

What about that? You don't need to ban any of these to take steps to keep them away from minors. Alcohol and cigarettes require ID as proof of age and has some very stiff penalties for non-compliers. Playboy is often kept in racks behind the checkout stand.

So, your point was? (Without creating a false dichotomy this time.)