WotC Responds!!!

[Elder-Basilisk]

So what happens when someone within the ranks of the gaming community wants to publish a product that blurs the lines of what had historically been considered proper in the gaming world?

Gamers the world over unite to turn into the very people that the community as a whole has fought for almost thirty years. Perhaps before you condemn a new product, you should stop to look in the mirror. Do you see yourself looking back? Or do you see the very people this industry has silenced by marching forward into the 21st century and claiming legitimacy in a world that would reject them?

This post either presupposes that people should not consider this particular work improper or that no work should ever be considered improper. The first presupposition begs the question of why it should be considered proper or improper--as such it's an assertion not an argument. The second is unlikely to be the case--and if it is, it is unlikely to find many adherents. We all accept that certain things [mention of which is forbidden by the moderators as it is thought to cause discussion to degenerate] are improper subjects for gaming.

The question of what is proper cannot be resolved by saying that "what has historically been considered proper" is irrelevant. Saying that demolishes all possible standards which is something I don't think any of us would want. I'm sure there is a market (maybe not a big one but in the modern world, you don't need a big market to make a profit) for all sorts of OGL settings and games that most people here would agree should not be published. [Insert references to topics banned by the moderators here]. If one has already demolished ideas of propriety to make way for the sex book, how can you resurrect them to defend against any other book?

Now it's an entirely different thing to say "What's wrong with a sex book for gaming" or even "what's wrong with another immature sex book?" Those questions admit the possibility that some limits might be in order--they simply question where those limits are. (And, while we're on this subject, it should be noted that, despite the common observation that sex is a "taboo" subject in North American society, it often seems like there is no other subject that is discussed anywhere and that sex is the one appetite to which at least the dominant shapers of the culture will admit no limits).

To say, OTOH, that anything that blurs the lines of what is proper is acceptable does not admit the possibility that any limits might be in order. Thus, while it justifies this particular sex book, it also justifies any other possible book, no matter how vile. In order to say that it's proper to blur the lines WRT to the depiction of consensual sex but not WRT the meaning of consent, the age of consent, unambiguously nonconsensual sex, or the morality of genocide (some maintain that D&D already does this but there's certainly room for more explicitness in this area) requires respect for the idea of propriety and the concept of limits. Destroying that respect (any more than it has already been destroyed) is not a good idea.

On a slightly different topic, a number of people have said that they wouldn't be comfortable role-playing sex in a typically male gaming group. I don't think I would be comfortable role-playing with a female DM either (or with women in the gaming group) either. Aside from all the interpersonal issues that would have the potential for creating, it seems like there would be an issue with the kind of environment it would create. I can only imagine what many women would think if, upon joining a group, the discovered that they were expected to roleplay out sex scenes with the DM or with other players or even were watching such scenes role-played. If that happened in a workplace, it would be considered a hostile environment and would (I think justifiably) invite a sexual harrassment suit. Now a game isn't a workplace, but I don't think it would make the experience any more pleasant.

 

[Azlan]

If you put that d20 logo on your product, you are agreeing to be bound to a more restrictive agreement. You agree not to do certain things with your product (you can't include character generation or how to apply experience to characters). You are required to do certain things (you must use one of those Mandatory Trademark Use phrases on your product). And then you are allowed to do some optional things (you apparently can use one of those Mandatory Trademark use phrases in your marketing, with certain restrictions).

Myself, if I'm of the mind to buy a product like The Book of Erotic Fantasy, I don't give a fig whether the d20 logo is on it. Of all the things I'm interested in seeing in that book, the d20 logo is the least of them.



(BTW: Just so you know, I have no intentions whatsoever of buying The Book of Erotic Fantasy, even if that elven female in the chainmail bikini looks like the sexy actress who plays on ER and in the erotic-dramatic-comedy movie, Moll Flanders. So, don't think I'm defending the Book of Erotic Fantasy or bashing the Book of Vile Darkness, here.)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm sure it is somewhat hypocritical but as they say, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. I'd rather that they were hypocrites and said other peoples' inappropriate material was innappropriate than they were consistent and said they had no problem with it.

And I think even the most cynical among us would think the same thing. If Richard Nixon had said, "covering up crimes is just fine, after all, I did it and I ought to be consistent so I'm going to make it legal to become an accessory to [insert crime here] after the fact", we would have been justifiably outraged. Similarly, if Mike Tyson were to say that he personally had no problem with rape, it would be consistent but still despicable. Hypocrisy is often preferable to the outright promotion or tacit acceptance of vice.

At the Gaming Report website, someone posted the following in response to WotC's press release...

"Sounds a little hypocritical to me. They find it 'disgusting' but yet they market The Book of Vile Darkness that has necrophilia, rape, torture and other unsavory elements in it.

 

[Psion]

"I'd rather have a book of tasteful erotica rather than a lengthy discussion of how shagging a undead corpse gives a character advantages."

I don't want either.

Of course this statement is disengenuous since there is no "lenghty discussion of how shagging a[sic] undead corpse give a character advantages." There is the requirement and the feat's advantage. Now, Corpsebond in Dragon 300 OTOH, has a more lengthy and tacky description.

Of course, IMO, Lichloved is bad enough.

 

[2WS-Steve]

------------------------------------------
Originally posted by d20Dwarf
Eric,

You forgot option 3, which is that he has special permission to use the trademarks in his products, which raises all sorts of other questions, especially in light of WotC's denouncement of the product.

This is just an option, mind you, not fact.
-------------------------------------------------------


Yeah, and to me so remote a possibility that I didn't include it here (though I think I've mentioned it in earlier posts. Who knows, between all of these threads I can't keep my own thoughts straight!)

Personally this doesn't seem that remote to me at all. WotC has 10 people in RPG R&D, one of them is working on the book, her husband also works in R&D, whoever the unnamed writer may very well work there too, and the head of the WotC RPG division is fronting the project. Who at WotC isn't involved in the project? Makes me wonder what person at WotC besides the press corps could write up the WotC response.

 

[EricNoah]

Myself, if I'm of the mind to buy a product like The Book of Erotic Fantasy, I don't give a fig whether the d20 logo is on it. Of all the things I'm interested in seeing in that book, the d20 logo is the least of them.

Yeah, I know I can barely remember why this was even an issue. But I think it is something like this...

If this book is d20 branded then it will say "Dungeons & Dragons" on its cover and then people will think that this book is a D&D book and thus D&D's name/reputation will be besmirched. Something along those lines. (And the converse argument is if it is to be OGL only, then it can't say D&D on the cover, and thus D&D's reputation isn't a factor.)

 

[mkarol]

If that happened in a workplace, it would be considered a hostile environment and would (I think justifiably) invite a sexual harrassment suit. Now a game isn't a workplace, but I don't think it would make the experience any more pleasant.

What does this have to do with gaming groups?

I do not know about most of you, but I play in a group of friends who actually like each other, know each other, and can handle 'mature' subjects. One recent adventure found our fearless leader tied to a rack and being tortured by a Succubus till he was down to like 3 levels... or some such (8 or so negative levels...). Soon, the party will be venturing into a brothel because of a lead indicating someone (someone EEE-vil) was there recently. Im pretty sure in describing and role playing these events, noone will file suit against me.

 

[Azlan]

If this book is d20 branded then it will say "Dungeons & Dragons" on its cover and then people will think that this book is a D&D book and thus D&D's name/reputation will be besmirched.

Heh. Does it really matter if D&D's name/reputation is "besmirched" in this way? I mean, if someone is really hell-bent on raking D&D over the coals, they have enough material in the Book of Vile Darkness to do it with. (Some of the illustrations, alone, in that book are enough.) And what about the "vile" stuff you find in other popular RPGs, such as Dark Ages: Vampire?

Myself, I grew up in a fundamentalist-Christian home where materials like D&D were contraband. (Well, I'll admit, the efreet on the cover of the original DM's Guide did look like the Devil.) Did that keep me from playing D&D? Not a at all! (I kept my D&D books hidden in my bedroom, along with my KISS albums and my second-hand issues of Playboy and Penthouse.) Even so, I shudder to think how my parents would've reacted to some of the illustrations you find nowadays in role-playing books.

 

[Psion]

Heh. Does it really matter if D&D's name/reputation is "besmirched" in this way?

Perhaps not to you. It does to me.

I don't "hide my light under a bushel" as it were. People who know me generally know I play D&D.

When people offer criticisms, I am proud to be able to show them that which is false.

But when the criticisms are no longer false, that is when I worry. That is when I have to sheepishly admit "yes, there was some bad stuff made for D&D". I could really care less if Jack Chick likes me or respects me. I do care what people who did like and respect me think of me.

Not that I am saying D&D is going to go to hell in a handbasket because of this. I strongly suspect that this product will come and go and be quickly forgotten. But it irks me nonetheless.

 

[kenjib]

Heh - and this proves what? That its a typical RPG book? Heck, if people only bought what they were actually going to use in their games the whole industry would collapse.

No, I was just trying to say that I think sales won't be all that bad. While the target audience for playing erotic rpgs may be a smaller subset than the target audience for mass combat rules, the potential market for a book that includes pictures of naked elves is quite possibly a bit larger than the target audience for mass combat rules.

Let me state it a different way. What are the odds that someone who has absolutely no interest in playing a game using any mass combat rules will buy a book on mass combat? Now, what are the odds that that someone who has absolutely no interest in playing a game with rules for erotic play will buy a book on erotic fantasy, a book which includes doctored photographs of naked elves? I'd wager quite a bit that the percentage of buyers with no real game use will be significantly higher than almost any other kind of rpg book imaginable. Can we be honest here?

That's all I was getting at. I think that the potential sales of this book are a bit larger than the number of people who want to use the rules, even in comparison to other rpg books. I could be wrong, but I feel pretty confident.