WotC Responds!!!

[SemperJase]

Bendris,

I read your sig and found it to be ironic:

"There are aspects of fantasy roleplaying that rules, inadvertently, can actually take away.
~Monte Cook"

You don't find a rulebook of this nature to fit into this category?

I'm still wondering why this book is necessary as a rules addition to d20? What could it possibly add.

I also figured out another reason I disagree with the book. Sex by its nature is not a group function. It is better suited to offstage attention if at all.

Clearly this is not a rules addition, but rather a fetish book.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Bendris,

I read your sig and found it to be ironic:

"There are aspects of fantasy roleplaying that rules, inadvertently, can actually take away.
~Monte Cook"

You don't find a rulebook of this nature to fit into this category?

I'm still wondering why this book is necessary as a rules addition to d20? What could it possibly add.

I also figured out another reason I disagree with the book. Sex by its nature is not a group function. It is better suited to offstage attention if at all.

Clearly this is not a rules addition, but rather a fetish book.

So your litmus test on whether or not a book should be published is whether the new rules addition is necessary? By that criterion, how much of the d20 library should not have been released? I can think of several publishers that should close their doors by that criterion alone.

Besides, sex can be a group function; and if it's not a fetish you're interested in, then by all means feel free not to include it in your game. I guess I'm failing to see why this book's release is a big deal.

 

[fusangite]

Hunter says,

This book is not going to be anymore available to children than a non-gaming related book on Erotic Fantasy, of which their are tons.

That simply isn't true. Other pornographic products can be consumed independently of mainstream materials. This supplement is a supplement; in other words, it is completely dependent and contingent upone D&D. Let me put this question to you: where do you think it will be placed in stores that carry it? Would it not be placed with all the other D&D supplements? Is that not where it is intended to be placed?

As a former child myself (though it has been many...many...years) I can say that children don't need a book like this. Their imagination works just fine without it. When I first started gaming as a pre-pubescent in 1979 my games were full of nekkid elf girls and lusty succubi and ever-so-grateful-for-the-rescue-how-ever-will-I-repay-you maidens.

I'm not suggesting that publishing this book will make children have sexual thoughts they otherwise wouldn't have. Please re-read my post. I am saying something rather different.

This book will most likely be extremely hard for a child to come by...unless some adult buys it and is dumb enough to leave it lying around where a kid can pick it up. But that's their problem, not the publishers.

It sure as hell is the publishers' problem. If their hearts were set on making erotic gaming materials, there are several things they could have done to mitigate this: (1) not make the product part of D&D, (2) market it as a sex game not a natural sexual adjunct to a non-sexual game.

Pirate Queen Eliza says,

V: tM springs instantly to mind. D&D books all feature large, glossy illustrations of sexually attractive, sexily-clad, phallic-object-waving and idealized characters, often in alluring poses.

Society does not view allusions to sex as being identical to depictions of sex. If it did, Maxim and Penthouse would be next to eachother on the magazine shelf. But they're not. Are they? Everywhere you look, you can see that society applies different standards to allusions to sexuality than it does to depictions of sexuality. You can call this hypocritical, fair enough. But to suggest that these two very differently-received things are identical does a disservice to this discussion.

 

[SemperJase]

So your litmus test on whether or not a book should be published is whether the new rules addition is necessary?

That would be part of it. What does it add to the game? As Monte Cook pointed out, some material actually takes away from the game.

I ask again, are gamers so inexperienced or socially inept that they need a supplement to add this content?

Then again, after reading the press release, this is not really a supplement. Its an excuse to publish nudy pics. Juvenile and degrading to the hobby and its participants (IMO).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography

Pornography:

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.

So while all pornography might not be erotica, all erotica is most certainly porn. As well as many beer commercials, music videos and so on.

Erotic
1 : of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire <erotic art>
2 : strongly marked or affected by sexual desire

Pornography
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

So, we can see here that, within the context of actual definitions, Erotica is related to the emotional state, while Pornography is related to the actual depiction of the act (your Dictionary.com definition also makes this distinction). I find it laughable that The Joy of Sex is construed as porn, but since you've brought definitions into this, I'll trust Webster and go with it.

At any rate, that which is erotic is related to the feelings, desires, wants, invitation there of, and willingness to indulge in loving and/or lustful acts. Pornographatic is that which is an actual representation of the act itself. This isn't a matter of opinion, but derived directly from the definitions above (personally, I find porn more related to wanton behavior driven by lust rather than love or, perhaps, even caring, but that's me, so irrelevant).

It's already been stated by one of the authors that this product is not the later, but rather is a set of rules ralated to the former. It is a book about including sexuality into the game. Yes, that will include sex. Yes, that will include fetishes. Yes, that will include sex magic. Yes, that will include homosexuality. And it will probably also include a great deal of other things we have yet to hear about.

The point remains, calling it "porn" prior to even having a true sample of what it will contain (and the image included in the press release is no more pornagraphic than the picture of Lidda in her tight leather corsette) is tentamount to pre-judging the book based entirely on personal bias. Such judgement, after all, cannot be based on fact because, when it comes down to it, the only facts known are those which one of the authors herself has stated, which isn't much because she is still held to a degree by her NDA.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You don't find a rulebook of this nature to fit into this category?

Unlike others, I'm not pre-judging the material itself until I've actually seen it. However, Monte's comments which I quote were directly related to some rules serving as a quick-function to resolve challenges in a way so as to become a non-challenge (turning undead was his specific example). By the same merit, some WotC designs publicly espouse the use of Skill Checks rather than having any role-playing at all, which to me is a great diservice to both role-playing and the rules.

Quite simply, if I, with my playing style and the people I play with, find that the book adds to the game, I will use it. Maybe I'll use it all. Maybe I'll just use parts. Maybe I'll find a Feat suitable for priestesses of a love goddess. Perhaps a spell that I want to make unique to the followers of the god of lust. Maybe I'll use the Tantric Magic rules for my Druids (I already have similar, but it's only come up twice during 2E, so it's only roughly converted to d20).

Perhaps I'll find it to be as useless as Nymphology.

And even if it is good, I might not even use it just because the way they did it doesn't work right for what I'd want from it. Based on the people involved and the statements made by Ms. Kestrel, I'm more hopeful than not. I praise the book for attempting to accomplish what it is trying to do. If it's trash, I'll rip on it just as assuredly as I rip on any other poorly designed work. But it's not out yet, we have nothing to actually base opinions on regarding its actual value, and determining if the work has merit or not cannot be actually done in a manner that can be described in any was as "informed".

I'm still wondering why this book is necessary as a rules addition to d20? What could it possibly add.

This has been answered by several people (including myself) in one of these threads. I'll but repeat one part, that being that these rules, like most other rules, aren't necessary at all. Beyond that, you can find the other answers easily enough (I believe WizardDru gave the best response by far).

I also figured out another reason I disagree with the book. Sex by its nature is not a group function. It is better suited to offstage attention if at all.

Contradictory. The game is played as a group, thus by your reasoning the subject should never even come up in play in order to be handled "offstage". Also, rules relating to tantric magic will be included. Should this be handled offstage as a matter of course ("The priestess and her cohort dash into the side room; The weather's nice for the rest of the week." ???).

Clearly this is not a rules addition, but rather a fetish book.

As one of the authors indicated, fetishes are to be part of it, but not an entire theme, being that fetishes are a part of sexuality.

 

[hunter1828]

Let me put this question to you: where do you think it will be placed in stores that carry it? Would it not be placed with all the other D&D supplements? Is that not where it is intended to be placed?[/B]

I maintain my position from my original post, which you did quote but either ignored or disagreed with that "I doubt that Barnes & Noble or B.Dalton or Waldenbooks will stock this book on their shelves. I also doubt that many gaming shops will actually carry it, but rather order it for people they know to be of age."

Therefore, I do NOT think this book will placed alongside other D&D/d20 supplements in most stores. There may be some gaming stores that do place it alongside the others, but I really don't think many will. I recently took a trip to my home state of Tennessee and went to a gaming store I used to frequent years ago and found they had the BoVD behind the counter where you had to ask for it, and I think they will do the same with this book, if they carry it at all.

It sure as hell is the publishers' problem. If their hearts were set on making erotic gaming materials, there are several things they could have done to mitigate this: (1) not make the product part of D&D, (2) market it as a sex game not a natural sexual adjunct to a non-sexual game.[/B]

No, it isn't. If an adult buys the BoEF then leaves it where is five year old or ten year old can get it, it is that adult parents problem. Period. Do not try to lay blame for the failings and faults of a parent on the publisher. If a kid ends up actually purchasing a copy of the BoEF it still is NOT the responsibility of the publisher, but rather the responsiblity, or rather the irresponsibility, of the merchant that sells the book to the minor. Period.

hunter1828

 

[SemperJase]

If a kid ends up actually purchasing a copy of the BoEF it still is NOT the responsibility of the publisher, but rather the responsiblity, or rather the irresponsibility, of the merchant that sells the book to the minor. Period.

"I wish that were true" says the tobacco companies as they pay billions of dollars because their products ended up in the hands of children.

 

[fusangite]

Hunter quotes me saying,

It sure as hell is the publishers' problem. If their hearts were set on making erotic gaming materials, there are several things they could have done to mitigate this: (1) not make the product part of D&D, (2) market it as a sex game not a natural sexual adjunct to a non-sexual game.

No, it isn't. If an adult buys the BoEF then leaves it where is five year old or ten year old can get it, it is that adult parents problem. Period. Do not try to lay blame for the failings and faults of a parent on the publisher. If a kid ends up actually purchasing a copy of the BoEF it still is NOT the responsibility of the publisher, but rather the responsiblity, or rather the irresponsibility, of the merchant that sells the book to the minor. Period.

So, if a Pokemon brand cigarettes were introduced, increases in pre-adolescent smoking could be solely attributed to the parents? Give me a break. When you produce a product for an existing market or discourse community especially one of which children are a significant component, you do have some responsibilities. I don't see any sign from the publishers that they have a sense of those responsibilites. This product should not be associated with D&D -- period.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So, if a Pokemon brand cigarettes were introduced, increases in pre-adolescent smoking could be solely attributed to the parents? Give me a break.

Oh, give me a break. This example (and the tobacco companies that got busted) deliberately attempts to market towards minors. I guess after false made-up accusations of elf porn we now get to see a dozen pages go buy while you folks falsely accuse Valar of marketing this product at school kids?

That's just lovely...