WotC Responds!!!

[kenjib]

not to mention looses the company a lot of respect in the community.

Which, by association of it's employees, also might effect WotC's reputation. This is one of the reasons that many companies put anti-competition clauses in employment contracts (some even continuing in effect for a time period after termination of employment!).

 

[jdavis]

Hey, if it works once, why not twice? Remember the pre-print Book of Vile Darkness' official ad copy that suggested rape and prostitution before freelancer Monte (who is completely without fault) stepped in to clarify that the info was wrong? Remember all of the free advertising it generated for BoVD, which has since sold very well?

Here we have official ad copy, possibly from a WotC employee in a position to have been related to the BoVD marketting, suggesting things about the book, and then the freelance authors (who are completely without fault) stepping in to clarify that the info was wrong. We now also have stated anticipation from one of the authors that this buzz is positive and will benefit sales (although I think this is just coincidental).

What I really want to know is, who wrote that press release? If this was an intentional publicity stunt, which is still unclear, then I find it highly unethical.

It bothers me that the press release implied that this product was approved by WotC and almost sounds like it is trying to imply WotC is actually attached to this project, it didn't come out and say that but it was written in a way that caused a lot of confusion about that, particuarly when you take into account the WotC response. It was obviously a ploy to get people talking but it brought up a lot of interesting questions as to who's behind this and what is really going on behind the scenes here.

 

[Orcus]

Actually, you just hit on one of my big concerns. I dont know if you guys care about the OGL issues here, but you might have noticed that the press release uses the term "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" and also references other trademarked terms. This is of course a HUGE potential violation of the OGL. There are only two possible situations (neither of which seem understandable):

1. The release violates the OGL, which seems strange since AV is the guy involved in ensuring compliance with the license from WotC's end; or

2. WotC gave permission for them to use the phrase "compatible with D&D", which would also be strange since they have distanced themselves from the product.

But then you all might not be as interested in that stuff as I am being both a lawyer and a d20 game producer.

Clark

 

[jdavis]

Hardly. With your little "and/or" you're trying to imply that love and lust can be separated and still qualify as erotic. Bzzzt. Wrong. Indulging in the loving act of doing the dishes for your grandmother after she bakes you some cookies ain't erotic. Not even close.



Pornography isn't just a "representation" but a representation meant to arouse. I must admit that posting a definition on the internet only to then contradict it or "tweak" it in a way to serve a point is big pet peeve of mine, so I think its best to just wrap this discussion up.



From GKestrel on andycollins.net, one of the two authors of the book:

"It's all about good rules, beautiful or evocative images, and creating an atmosphere of sexuality (though flavor text)."

An "atmosphere of sexuality" with beautiful and evocative images. That's not "The Miracle of Life" on Nova, its Playboy with game rules. Porn.

By what you are saying then everything from the Victoria Secrets catalog to Soap Operas to half the videos on Mtv would be considered pornography. If it's a representation meant to arouse then that definition covers the vast majority of American entertainment. Any commercial that puts scantily clad women drinking a Coke and looking sexy is meant to arouse, is it porn? Your lumping Lifetime movies with XXX movies here under your definition. So what if it is porn by definition, lots of relationship books and self help books would be considered porn by that same definiton, One of my wife's favorite shows (Sex in the City on HBO) would be considered porn by that definition, heck by that definiton any picture of people romantically kissing could be considered pornography. Also you seem to be totally deadset in attacking pornography as horrible, and that is just a opinion. Not everybody thinks Pornography is evil, especially when you use blanket definitions of it. You would have to define what is considered sexually explicit and then you have to realize that that is a matter of taste and preference, then you have to realize that there are several levels to this, it's why there is a rating system for movies and TV. Your arguement seems to be: 1.This is Pornography as defined in a dictionary, (and this is based on what somebody said it would be, it's not even created yet, at this time it doesn't even exist to be judged). 2. Pornography is bad. 3. This book is bad. That seems to be the entirety of your logic thread here, you have just decided that because it fit a definition of something you thought was bad that it was bad and should not exist.

 

[Winterthorn]

{Snip}...

But then you all might not be as interested in that stuff as I am being both a lawyer and a d20 game producer.

Clark

Orcus is a lawyer?! *blink*, *blink*

Hey Orcus... does that mean yer a Devil's Advocate? (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

-W.

PS: Gawd, it' 5:00am EDT and I'm still awake. Nighty-nite then...

 

[jdavis]

Actually, you just hit on one of my big concerns. I dont know if you guys care about the OGL issues here, but you might have noticed that the press release uses the term "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" and also references other trademarked terms. This is of course a HUGE potential violation of the OGL. There are only two possible situations (neither of which seem understandable):

1. The release violates the OGL, which seems strange since AV is the guy involved in ensuring compliance with the license from WotC's end; or

2. WotC gave permission for them to use the phrase "compatible with D&D", which would also be strange since they have distanced themselves from the product.

But then you all might not be as interested in that stuff as I am being both a lawyer and a d20 game producer.

Clark

Actually that's the part that interest me, it's the only part of this arguement that seems to not be based on emotion and personal opinion. I don't know much about the OGL rules but I do know that this seems fishy and that in and of itself is what deserves actual consideration, the rest is just people spouting off and hot air about adult content, neither side of that will ever win or convince the other side of anything it's just a circus side show. The OGL consideration seems to be something that is very wrong with this and could have a actual effect on the gaming industy (unlike the previously mentioned hot air circus which will affect and change nothing in the end).

 

[Zappo]

Re: Listen carefully.

1. None of you have actually seen any content yet.
2. It's only me and Kestrel on these forums who actually have.
3. We've told you what we know, and it doesn't support any of these claims about pornography, etc.

Therefore, all your arguments about porn and blah blah are TOTALLY MOOT because you don't actually know what you're talking about. Why don't you just settle down, step away from the keyboard, and wait until you actually have something to criticize before you go bugnuts? I agree that the press release was awful, but it's just a press release. It didn't actually tell you what's going to be in the book.

Let's wait a bit. We'll know more soon.

Are you really expecting people to be reasonable? That would take all the fun out of arguing!

 

[Kai Lord]

By what you are saying then everything from the Victoria Secrets catalog to Soap Operas to half the videos on Mtv would be considered pornography. If it's a representation meant to arouse then that definition covers the vast majority of American entertainment. Any commercial that puts scantily clad women drinking a Coke and looking sexy is meant to arouse, is it porn? Your lumping Lifetime movies with XXX movies here under your definition. So what if it is porn by definition, lots of relationship books and self help books would be considered porn by that same definiton, One of my wife's favorite shows (Sex in the City on HBO) would be considered porn by that definition, heck by that definiton any picture of people romantically kissing could be considered pornography. Also you seem to be totally deadset in attacking pornography as horrible, and that is just a opinion. Not everybody thinks Pornography is evil, especially when you use blanket definitions of it. You would have to define what is considered sexually explicit and then you have to realize that that is a matter of taste and preference, then you have to realize that there are several levels to this, it's why there is a rating system for movies and TV. Your arguement seems to be: 1.This is Pornography as defined in a dictionary, (and this is based on what somebody said it would be, it's not even created yet, at this time it doesn't even exist to be judged). 2. Pornography is bad. 3. This book is bad. That seems to be the entirety of your logic thread here, you have just decided that because it fit a definition of something you thought was bad that it was bad and should not exist.

I've already covered all of your points, right down to the MTV videos and various "degrees" of pornography.

And "the vast majority of Amercian entertainment" is meant to sexually arouse? So if I walk into a Barnes & Noble the "vast majority" of books are pornographic? And the vast majority of films playing in the multiplexes right now are meant to arouse? Nope, even with the correct definition of pornography this simply is not true.

Rules for implementing sexual situations into D&D are as stupid as an appendix at the end of Lord of the Rings explaining how hobbits get it on. We know how it happens, explicit flavor text and photoshopped fetish art are hardly necessary and extremely distasteful. Based on what has been revealed by the BoEF's publishing company and its own authors and photographer it will simply exist to titilate and be "edgy" and sexual for no other purpose than to be edgy and sexual. Howard Stern and Jerry Springer would be so proud.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Thanks for the link.

2.) The content is said by the author to be "somewhere between Playboy and Penthouse." Well, since I would consider both of those immoral and offensive, based on the author's statements, I would consider the BoEF offensive... sight unseen (assuming I believe the author).

--The Sigil

I guess it is pretty obvious how EXTREME your opinion is on the matter and thus retty irrelevant to the rest of the world.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Let me clarify, I do support the position that AV should be fired.
That is, WotC should fire AV if they do not want themselves to be associated with this kind of material.
....snip....

So let's stop accusing people of infringing other's rights.

Do you not see the complete contradiction and hypocrisy of your two statements?