# WotC Responds!!!



## BlackWych (Apr 29, 2003)

Check it out folks:

WotC Responds!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Apr 29, 2003)

Interesting. Could this be the beginning of the end of outside freelancing using the OGL within WotC?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Apr 29, 2003)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> *Interesting. Could this be the beginning of the end of outside freelancing using the OGL within WotC? *




Seriously doubtful. This is most likely just a way of distancing WotC and Hasbro from this product line, give AV's level of importance in the D&D product line.


----------



## kenjib (Apr 29, 2003)

Great point.  Are they really saying what they mean, or are they just *wink* *wink* covering their butt.

If they really mean it, it looks like some interesting political in-fighting may be afoot down at HQ!!!   



			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Seriously doubtful. This is most likely just a way of distancing WotC and Hasbro from this product line, give AV's level of importance in the D&D product line. *


----------



## Cedric (Apr 29, 2003)

This is just well written legalese. You can tell the well written variety from the normal variety in that the well written legalese sounds very sincere and seems to be couched in some moral ground. 

Nonetheless...it's just another way of saying, this isn't our fault.

Cedric


----------



## Aaron2 (Apr 29, 2003)

The way I see it, WOTC has three ways of responding to this

A- Buy the company that is producing the book and shelve it.

B- "Erotic Fantansy, don't know what your talking about. You must be thinking of some other game." The same thing happend with "GURPS teenage girl wrestling."*

C- Keep track of who worked on this book and blacklist them. Serious cold-shoulder time.


Aaron

*Oops, too late.


----------



## Chauzu (Apr 29, 2003)

Roleplaying sex... yeeeaahh... right...


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 29, 2003)

Chauzu said:
			
		

> *Roleplaying sex... yeeeaahh... right...  *




I'm sure it will appeal to those gamers who have as much experience with actual sex as they have with actual elves.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 29, 2003)

This is just getting weirder and weirder.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Apr 29, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *This is just getting weirder and weirder. *




And your picture is getting sexier and sexier.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 29, 2003)

He's going to be on the book's cover!


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 29, 2003)

*Cut from the WotC press release...*



> We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate



 as opposed to, say, the necrophilia and impregnation by demon sperm we depict in our product, the Book of Vile Darkness (on sale for $29.95 at your local bookstore), as these are clearly the very pinnacle of sexual decorum subject matter 







> and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its {EDITOR'S NOTE: Presumably the antecedent of "it" is "sexually graphic subject matter"} use with the Dungeons & Dragons game



 as you should instead buy the Book of Vile Darkness (on sale for $29.95 at your local bookstore) for all your d20 sex and fetish needs.

Sheesh.  Talk about your "Kettle, this is pot - you're black."

--The Sigil


----------



## Liquid Snake (Apr 29, 2003)

*Erotic Book*

Who's making this book?


----------



## Olive (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Cut from the WotC press release...*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> * as opposed to, say, the necrophilia and impregnation by demon sperm we depict in our product, the Book of Vile Darkness (on sale for $29.95 at your local bookstore), as these are clearly the very pinnacle of sexual decorum subject matter  as you should instead buy the Book of Vile Darkness (on sale for $29.95 at your local bookstore) for all your d20 sex and fetish needs.
> 
> Sheesh.  Talk about your "Kettle, this is pot - you're black."
> 
> --The Sigil *




Piratecat already said it better <a href="http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49333&perpage=40&pagenumber=4">here</a>:



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *have you actually read the BoVD? I was surprised how non-vile most of it was; with the exception of rolling my eyes at a few items and one spell, it didn't bother me in the least. More importantly, it provided me with a plethora of good gaming rules and plot hooks. As a result, I have to think that your comparison - however pithy - is flawed.
> 
> Will the Book of Erotic Fantasy match the BoVD is fun, usable game rules? I have trouble seeing how. Thus, I'll be surprised if I purchase it. Mostly, I just find the concept sort of embarrassing for our industry. *




Apart from 1 feat and 2 spells (and the spells are really pretty low key) there's no mention of sex in the BoVD. As you really should know the searing seed spell was from Dragon, not the BoVD, and no where in the BoVD does it show depictions of sex acts, or include rules for them.
edit: fix HTML


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 29, 2003)

So is this thing like a G.U.C.K. or something along those lines, or is it like the Encyclopedia Arcane : Nymphology?

The GUCK has actual usefulness, if you can stop thinking of sexuality as automatically being immature.  I found the book to be rather useful, since it has rules for spellcasting effecting the caster's pregnancy, as well as guidelines for statting out 2 character's offpsring.  Something like this is very useful.

HOWEVER, if this 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' is just a pornoholic's guide to D&D, I'll steer clear of it.


----------



## Henry (Apr 30, 2003)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> *The way I see it, WOTC has three ways of responding to this...
> *




Actually, there is option 4 - exactly what they did, which is to distance themselves from the product. This statement does not imply in any way that Anthony is in trouble, blacklisted, or bought out. It implies that management wants to be associated with this in now way, shape or form. 

My reply: So what? Some people seem to be looking at this product like it's WotC's "fault" - if there is anything to be faulted. The OGL has many consequences, good and bad, Whether you think it is one or the other is up to the individual.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Cut from the WotC press release...*



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> Apart from 1 feat and 2 spells (and the spells are really pretty low key) there's no mention of sex in the BoVD. As you really should know the searing seed spell was from Dragon, not the BoVD, and no where in the BoVD does it show depictions of sex acts, or include rules for them.



You missed the point... I was trying to turn the press release into a parody commercial for the BoVD.  I guess I'm not very funny today.



--The Sigil


----------



## Dareoon Dalandrove (Apr 30, 2003)

I wonder if someone's job might be in danger


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

Personally, I have a problem with WOTC's response.  I have no problem with them distancing themselves from the product, but to do so with such (ignorant) virulence is quite disturbing.  They have placed themselves as the moral judges of what people can play.  And they have no right to say anything is inappropriate now that they have opened the OGL to _all_ products. 

They could have put the restriction in the OGL before it was published, but they did not.  No use crying over spilt milk.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 30, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, there is option 4 - exactly what they did, which is to distance themselves from the product. This statement does not imply in any way that Anthony is in trouble, blacklisted, or bought out. It implies that management wants to be associated with this in now way, shape or form.
> 
> My reply: So what? Some people seem to be looking at this product like it's WotC's "fault" - if there is anything to be faulted. The OGL has many consequences, good and bad, Whether you think it is one or the other is up to the individual. *



The only thing that I will say is "WotC's fault" will be favoritism towards individuals that work for the company if AV doesn't get reamed for referencing D&D in his ad copy.

By the OGL, he's certainly allowed to do this (EDIT: by which I mean "put out a product of this nature", not "reference the D&D brand").  And it's not WotC's fault - however, allowing him to associate his product with D&D _by explicit reference to the D&D brand name_ is a form of endorsment if he doesn't get his wrist slapped.

--The Sigil


----------



## BOZ (Apr 30, 2003)

it doesn't sound like they're condemning it or trying to stop its production.

it just sounds like they are distancing themselves from it, to keep people from associating them to the book.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Cut from the WotC press release...*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> You missed the point... I was trying to turn the press release into a parody commercial for the BoVD.  I guess I'm not very funny today.
> *




Whoops. It didn't come off that way. But hey - you're usually funny!


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> My reply: So what? Some people seem to be looking at this product like it's WotC's "fault" - if there is anything to be faulted. The OGL has many consequences, good and bad, Whether you think it is one or the other is up to the individual. *



Last I checked, the OGL and the _d20_STL have no moral restriction. You can pretty much use the rules system for any kind of genre game you wish to publish.

Question do we need that form of censorship included into the license?

Even our own esteemed US Constitution protect free speech and expression, even if a particular expression does not jive with the more conservative members of society.

Nevertheless, I'm afraid there will be a revision to the _d20_STL and Trademark Usage Guide to include a mandatory legal disclaimer. For now, it would be voluntary, something Anthony Valterra and Valar Press would seriously have to consider.


----------



## The Sigil (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Cut from the WotC press release...*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Whoops. It didn't come off that way. But hey - you're usually funny!   *



*blushes* Well, you know, looks aren't everything. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 30, 2003)

Edited out comments that violate board rules.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2003)

Hey, Mark, when you're not mentioning something, be sure to actually not mention it next time.  Thanks.


----------



## Olive (Apr 30, 2003)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not to mention the widespread, even endemic censorship of the left, most evident on college campuses nation-wide.
> 
> Of course, I'm not mentioning that, because that would be political.  *




Not that I'm mentioning it either, but it's good to see that you realise the left are being censored.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 30, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Question do we need that form of censorship included into the license?*




Well, considering its WOTC's license, they can include whatever they want.  They're not forcing anyone to use it.


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 30, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Hey, Mark, when you're not mentioning something, be sure to actually not mention it next time.  Thanks. *




Certainly.

I'll even go back and edit the post entirely if you'd like. That's actually a good idea. I think everyone who brought up the issue of which people of what political stripe censor who should all edit their posts.

Thanks for inspiring me to be a better person, sir.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> Well, considering its WOTC's license, they can include whatever they want.  They're not forcing anyone to use it. *



True, but should they?

I mean we haven't seen such restriction done from Microsoft to restrict their Windows code if someone wants to publish a Windows-compatible erotic computer games.

I'm sure those in the Linux community would shrug off any such restriction as well.

I would understand that they do not want to make an endorsement with regards to the _d20 system_ trademarked logo -- which I see as having a mandatory legal disclaimer -- but should the OGL exact the same "moral clause"?


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Even our own esteemed US Constitution protect free speech and expression, even if a particular expression does not jive with the more conservative members of society.
> 
> *




Ah ha, that's what I missed when I was chastising Mark...

Ranger REG, a warning to you too:  we are not going to drag this into a political debate.  If people start blaming "conservatives" or "the left" or whatever for stuff, that's just going to get this thread closed.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 30, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> True, but should they?*




That's for WOTC to decide.  Should they have the right to make that decision?  Certainly.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *I mean we haven't seen such restriction done from Microsoft to restrict their Windows code if someone wants to publish a Windows-compatible erotic computer games.
> 
> I'm sure those in the Linux community would shrug off any such restriction as well.*




This is irrelevant to me because my moral compass is not set by Microsoft or Linux.

And I'm not against any company taking a moral stand on issues that involve their products or licenses.  Not that D&D as developed by WOTC is G-rated in everything it depicts, but good for them for at least having a line to cross.  I would applaud them if they decided to enforce that others do the same in future, after all it is their legal right.


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *I would applaud them if they decided to enforce that others do the same in future, after all it is their legal right. *





Actually, no... no they do not.  See, that is what the 'O' in OGL means... it means open and that WOTC can not tax or deny content they do not like.  Now they _could_ have restricted the license at the outset.  They did not.  And for them to now say "Oopse, this is too far" is rather disingenuous.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> Ah ha, that's what I missed when I was chastising Mark...
> 
> Ranger REG, a warning to you too:  we are not going to drag this into a political debate.  If people start blaming "conservatives" or "the left" or whatever for stuff, that's just going to get this thread closed. *



Forgive me, but one can't help but notice that this discussion will lead into a debate of political, legal or moral nature. Nevertheless, I will cease leading this discussion toward those paths.

But I will say this in a (hopefully) neutral fashion: I personally have no concern if this product come out or what repercussion it will bring to the hobby. It is not my own cup of tea and therefore I won't buy it, but I will not chastise those who do. To each his or her own.

There is no right or wrong way to participate in a roleplaying game, just as long as no one gets hurt or coerced against their will.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 30, 2003)

I hope that WOTC does amend the OGL because of this product. It would be a terrible shame if anyone's first impression of D&D were coloured by this product.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2003)

mkarol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Actually, no... no they do not.  See, that is what the 'O' in OGL means... it means open and that WOTC can not tax or deny content they do not like.  Now they _could_ have restricted the license at the outset.  They did not.  And for them to now say "Oopse, this is too far" is rather disingenuous. *




They may not be able to change the open gaming license, but I do believe they can adjust the requirements of the D20 trademark license agreement whenever they want.  My guess is maybe after this, they'll want to in some fashion.


----------



## Tiefling (Apr 30, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> *I hope that WOTC does amend the OGL because of this product. It would be a terrible shame if anyone's first impression of D&D were coloured by this product. *




They can't.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

Hehehe.

To be honest, I knew this was talked about ever since the OGL movement is in full swing, but I never expected someone to seriously do it in a large commercial fashion. In fact, I thought someone would publish it on the internet as an e-book.

I did expect the adult film industry to include such game stats of babes in those adult feature films of medieval or barbarian fantasy genres.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 30, 2003)

I agree with Eric Noah - this whole thing is just...surreal!

I mean, who would have thought that a Business Manager at WotC would publicly proclaim his affiliation with an occult church and a fetish club?

...Not that I'm offering an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of it - it's just that this sort of voluntary public disclosure from an employee of a well-known company doesn't happen everyday, or well...ever!

Wild, weird stuff...


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 30, 2003)

It is funny that it was mentioned that if a product like this were ever to come out, WOTC would simply pretend it doesn't exist. But I guess in this case they can't, really, since it's an important employee in the D&D cog.


They might be able to alter the d20 STL to avoid products like this, like they did with miniatures, but that's going to be an amusing read.


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> *They might be able to alter the d20 STL to avoid products like this, like they did with miniatures, but that's going to be an amusing read. *




Ah yes: All products applying for use of the new d20 (which will be renamed d20pg-13, not to be confused withed d20 on pg-13 of the PH which is of course is just the Human racial trait, which do not include “reproduces sexually”) license must present their application to The Wizards of the Coast Morality, Decency, and Maturity counsel.  The WOTCMDM (not the WOTC DM, who would actually use products) will be designated the official censors for the gaming community and will prevent any indecent, immoral, or icky bad stuff from infecting our hobby.

In accordance with the EOTCMDM’s determinations, the spells like ‘raise dead’ will be renamed ‘awaken fallen friends’ and all weapons will now do subdual damage!  Poisons are renamed to “happy juice” and you get double XP any time you talk your way past a challenge rather than revert to inhumane violence.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> *
> But I guess in this case they can't, really, since it's an important employee in the D&D cog.*



Gee, and I thought Sean K Reynolds is wierd. Just Kidding!  

One can't help but wonder if there is a grain of truth in that long-ago article by John Tynes.

Any reason why Anthony decided to publicly air this out? I mean he could have used a pen name, right?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 30, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Any reason why Anthony decided to publicly air this out? I mean he could have used a pen name, right? *




Yeah, but he would have been Johnny Ignoro if he did that.  This would have been a less of a big deal.  Look at it like this: what do you think the response would have been if I had written such a book?


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 30, 2003)

mkarol said:
			
		

> *The WOTCMDM (not the WOTC DM, who would actually use products) will be designated the official censors for the gaming community and will prevent any indecent, immoral, or icky bad stuff from infecting our hobby.*




d20 is not "the gaming community", its a trademark owned by WOTC.


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *d20 is not "the gaming community", its a trademark owned by WOTC. *




Thanks for missing the point of the post... which was to mock the tone of the press relase 'response' which makes WOTC seem like they are telling people what was 'appropriate.'


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> *
> Look at it like this: what do you think the response would have been if I had written such a book? *



I would feign a look of surprise?


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 30, 2003)

mkarol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thanks for missing the point of the post... which was to mock the tone of the press relase 'response' which makes WOTC seem like they are telling people what was 'appropriate.' *




They stated what _they_ find inappropriate, in the context of a product that requires their own Core Rules.  I fail to see the problem in that.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 30, 2003)

Methinks WotC is being a bit paranoid, but hey, in today's world, you have to cover your arse. A bit of pre-scandal self-protection never hurt anyone.  It ANNOYS a lot of people, but still no harm done.

 But if a book of mere sexuality is enough to make them nervous, I wonder why they did not release a similar statement when the  BoVD was released.  While useful, I think a lot more people find the BoVD more offensive than some Sex Tome.  What do you think people would find more offensive:  A book containing details of sacrficing innocents which also contains a spell that requires that you indulge in necrophelia; or a book about sexuality in D&D?

I think this book actually fills in a large gap in the D&D world actually.  In our own world, sexuality is a significant force and holds great influence, so why should it not be so in the game world?  I mean, most game worlds are very similar to our own, barring that dragons, monsters, and magic are real, there are elves, pixies, etc., and there is evidence that Gods actually exist.  Information on sexuality in this world gives explanation and detail to a powerful force, and the great thing is: YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO!!

But that's just my view.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

While Wizards find such a product inappropriate, I doubt they can do anything to prevent such a product to come out except to include a moral restriction clause into the Trademark License and Trademark Guide.

(Sorry about the legal nature, *EricNoah.*)

I do agree with everyone, there will be a restriction, perhaps a legal disclaimer is the more prudent direction, added to the already restrictive guidelines on Wizard's trademark use.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Apr 30, 2003)

It's funny that every time something people might object to comes out, there's suddenly a score of cheerleaders saying something to the effect of "you ignorant idiots, how dare you suppress their free speech/free thought/etc by objecting to the fact that product XYZ is being published. You don't have to use/buy it if you don't like it. (Although we'll call you ignorant and intolerant if you _say_ in advance that you won't use it on principle.)" Would they all be cheerleading if product XYZ was D20 Pornmaster: the role playing game of kiddie porn producers I wonder. According to the stated principles of many of the cheerleaders, I can't see why not.


----------



## am181d (Apr 30, 2003)

Um...  I may be behind the times, but isn't Anthony still in charge of the d20 License stuff at WotC?  ("No, Anthony, you can't publish that."  "You're completely right, Anthony.  I apologize.")  

I'm assuming that he talked to other people on staff before he announced the book.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he helped draft the "we want nothing to do with this" press release...


----------



## KDLadage (Apr 30, 2003)

Not yet... still waiting...


{Just waiting for the inevitable comparison to FATAL}


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 30, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> Would they all be cheerleading if product XYZ was D20 Pornmaster: the role playing game of kiddie porn producers I wonder. According to the stated principles of many of the cheerleaders, I can't see why not. *



This is now a legal minefield.


----------



## Bulletproof (Apr 30, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *Not yet... still waiting...
> 
> 
> {Just waiting for the inevitable comparison to FATAL} *




Someone already made the comparison in the other thread.  Something like "at least it's not as bad as FATAL".


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 30, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> This is now a legal minefield.  *in reference to kiddie-porn post**




EricNoah is *SO* going to shut down this thread now.  Good discussion while it lasted. *sigh*


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *They stated what they find inappropriate, in the context of a product that requires their own Core Rules.  I fail to see the problem in that. *




They stated "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game."  

That is more than just a wash off for something that is 'not to their taste.'  That is a virulent response!  That is strong language!  That is "We know what is right, and this is not right!" speech.  And _that_ is what i was criticizing.  If you make an "OPEN" game license, you should not turn around and say "Well, when we meant open, we didn’t mean _that_ open!"


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

> _*
> You don't have to use/buy it if you don't like it. (Although we'll call you ignorant and intolerant if you say in advance that you won't use it on principle.)"*_



_

And what is wrong with saying "just don't buy it?"  And i have never attacked anyone or called them names for choosing what to buy or read or what not.   But when they imply that they know what i should buy or read or what not, then I get concerned.




*Would they all be cheerleading if product XYZ was D20 Pornmaster: the role playing game of kiddie porn producers I wonder. According to the stated principles of many of the cheerleaders, I can't see why not. *

Click to expand...




Why must every discussion of 'mature' or 'sex' or 'vile' include a devolution to the obviously ridiculous "if you allow this, then you must allow kiddie porn."  Its called *consent* people; when you have people consent to do things, then let them.  Kids can not consent, so leave them out of it._


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 30, 2003)

Kiddy porn has no place in this discussion. Stay on topic, folks.


----------



## NoOneofConsequence (Apr 30, 2003)

The initial press release somewhat implied that many of the images in this book will be very much of the soft-porn variety. 

Given this and the fact that WotC has almost certainly not seen an advance copy yet, then their pre-emptive repudiation is just good business sense. It's easier to re-associate yourself after this than to disassociate if the book stirs up too much controversy.

Also, I think it's the apparent soft-porn nature of the product (not its subject matter per se) that WotC claims they object to. BoVD is patently not pornographic - AV's upcoming publication sounds very much like it is. WotC produces a product with teenagers making up a huge slice of the market. With the possibility of a teenage available product being (even erroneously) with a pornographic product, the maths is pretty simple to do.

Just my 2c (at the risk of being a sado-masochistic necrophiliac with a penchant for beastiality).


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 30, 2003)

mkarol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They stated "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game."
> 
> That is more than just a wash off for something that is 'not to their taste.'  That is a virulent response!  That is strong language!  That is "We know what is right, and this is not right!" speech.*




Actually, no, it was their "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate" speech.  



			
				mkarol said:
			
		

> *And _that_ is what i was criticizing.  If you make an "OPEN" game license, you should not turn around and say "Well, when we meant open, we didn’t mean _that_ open!" *




"Open" also means "open for criticism", which is exactly what WOTC did.  How ironic that you believe that third party companies should have a louder voice in d20 content than the company that created and owns the trademark.


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *"Open" also means "open for criticism", which is exactly what WOTC did.  How ironic that you believe that third party companies should have a louder voice in d20 content than the company that created and owns the trademark. *




a) i'm talking OGL, not d20

and 

b) Yes, WOTC does have a louder voice.  They set the tenor.  They can influence the 'OGL' market with a word.  Just like Alan greenspan could influence the U.S. economy with a word...  and I never said that they couldn't distance themselves from the product.  I was one of the first ones who assumed they were related!  But when the 1000lb gorrila says "boo" (or when WOTC says "inapropriate") people listen... and listen more than they should.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Apr 30, 2003)

And maybe you would care to explain to me why only people who think everything is right should have the right to speak their minds.

What, exactly, is wrong with knowing what is right and saying something isn't right? That's what you are saying WotC should not have done. So, does that mean that you know what's right and are you willing to say it's not right to say something's not right? That's the implication of your statement: that it is innapropriate to call something innappropriate? If so, I would like to know on what grounds do you can make that claim?



			
				mkarol said:
			
		

> *They stated "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game."
> 
> That is more than just a wash off for something that is 'not to their taste.'  That is a virulent response!  That is strong language!  That is "We know what is right, and this is not right!" speech.  And _that_ is what i was criticizing.  If you make an "OPEN" game license, you should not turn around and say "Well, when we meant open, we didn’t mean _that_ open!" *




*



			Yes, WOTC does have a louder voice. They set the tenor. They can influence the 'OGL' market with a word. Just like Alan greenspan could influence the U.S. economy with a word... and I never said that they couldn't distance themselves from the product. I was one of the first ones who assumed they were related! But when the 1000lb gorrila says "boo" (or when WOTC says "inapropriate") people listen... and listen more than they should.
		
Click to expand...


*
The interesting thing is that these statements show the same confidence in knowing what is right and that "thing X is not right" that you criticize WotC for demonstrating. How much "should" people listen to WotC? Does that mean you know how other people "should" make up their minds?


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 30, 2003)

mkarol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They stated "We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game."
> *




Translation:  As gamers we like this stuff, but as a corporation, we like to wear *+20 Full Plate of Arse Covering*.


----------



## El_Gringo (Apr 30, 2003)

Four words prevent me from buying this product:

Naked bearded dwarven woman.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 30, 2003)

El_Gringo said:
			
		

> *Four words prevent me from buying this product:
> 
> Naked bearded dwarven woman.
> 
> ...




I think I'll hire someone to black out those pages with a sharpie, thank you very much!  Now if you'll excuse me, I have some vomitting to do.


----------



## Wayside (Apr 30, 2003)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> *I mean, who would have thought that a Business Manager at WotC would publicly proclaim his affiliation with an occult church and a fetish club?
> *




This is why I still doubt it.  I mean come on... even if the book itself was real, why would AV come out as a member of an occult church?  The fetish club is more plausible, but I still don't think a serious press release would mention this.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Apr 30, 2003)

*disappointed*

All I have to say is that I'm very disappointed in WotC, and I think they should take a closer look at what employees they will allow themselves to be represented by.  It really wouldn't bother me if some small time D20 publisher did this project, but to see it come from a current high level employee of WotC, on the heels of reading Monte Cook's recounting of how he had to resist pressure from WotC to put gratuitous crap (I'm paraphrasing here) in the Book of Vile Darkness...  
I think that is pretty sad.  D&D is a hobby dear to my heart and I hate to see run by people who seem to have such a low opinion of me as a consumer.  I also don't get how WotC can say they can't stop an employee from publishing garbage using the OGL.  They can't stop someone from using the OGL, but can't they fire (or threaten to fire) employees that act publicly in a way contrary to the values of the company?  If they can't, then those WotC employees must have themselves quite a union representing them to have gotten them such job security.  But as for myself, I just don't buy that press release from WotC as being sincere.


----------



## Cedric (Apr 30, 2003)

> They can't stop someone from using the OGL, but can't they fire (or threaten to fire) employees that act publicly in a way contrary to the values of the company? If they can't, then those WotC employees must have themselves quite a union representing them to have gotten them such job security. But as for myself, I just don't buy that press release from WotC as being sincere.




Fire him on what basis? He has different values and beliefs? 

He's taking advantage of an open license for this project, so there's nothing wrong there. 

Fire him because he's a member of an Occult Church? That's religious discrimination. 

He didn't go public with any of this information in his capacity as a WOTC employee. He didn't violate any laws. 

Anything they do to fire him, will likely result in him filing a very successful discrimination suit. 

Cedric


----------



## zoroaster100 (Apr 30, 2003)

*employment laws*

I never said WotC should fire employees on the basis of belonging to a cult.  I could care less what cult or orgy group WotC employees belong to.  It is the publishing of this product in the same line of business as WotC (roleplaying games) that I think requires action on WotC's part.  (And I'm not saying WotC should fire Mr. Valterra, but rather give him an ultimatum, if they truly oppose this product and if they have a legal right to do so based on his employment contract, which of course I have no idea if they do).


----------



## Tiefling (Apr 30, 2003)

If Valterra's contract has a non-competition clause or grants ownership of his ideas to WotC when he's working there, I doubt he's stupid enough to miss it. Is there anything else that would give them a legal basis for firing him over the book?


----------



## Cedric (Apr 30, 2003)

I think it would go over very badly for WOTC to discriminate against their own employee's in relation to the OGL. If perfect stranges with no interest in WOTC are allowed to use it...then why can't WOTC employee's freely make use of it?

It just seems that with such widespread approval and support for the impetus taken in introducing an open license concept to RPG's, WOTC would be fools to then turn around and limit who that open license applies too. 

Cedric


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Apr 30, 2003)

Wow, this thread is still up.  Once again I am impressed at the discretion of ENWorlders.

Another effect of their statement is that it prevents the book from being totally ignorable but not so much that it automatically becomes wildly popular.

I mean Madonna's book gets priced at used book stores in hundreds of dollars if it's in nice condition.   Loads of really resistant controversy means almost certain financial success.

Any want to go guess what the highest priced used DnD product is and why?


----------



## Kilmore (Apr 30, 2003)

[Kilmore kicks back with his popcorn and tea and raptly watches all hell break loose.]


----------



## Cedric (Apr 30, 2003)

I'm going to go with Deities and Demigods, with the Melnibonian and Chuthulloid mythos, since they were used without permission, resulting in subsequent lawsuit and removal from print. 

Cedric - sold his mint for $175.00


----------



## Simplicity (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: employment laws*



			
				zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> *I never said WotC should fire employees on the basis of belonging to a cult.  I could care less what cult or orgy group WotC employees belong to.  It is the publishing of this product in the same line of business as WotC (roleplaying games) that I think requires action on WotC's part.  (And I'm not saying WotC should fire Mr. Valterra, but rather give him an ultimatum, if they truly oppose this product and if they have a legal right to do so based on his employment contract, which of course I have no idea if they do). *




I said it on the other thread, and I'll say it on this one...  Why should AV be treated any differently from any of the other WotC members?  Monte Cook produces d20 products.  Sean K Reynolds produces d20 products.   Bruce Cordell produced "If Thoughts Could Kill" while he was still at WotC (I assume, since it came out in 2001, and the "Epic Level Handbook", which he also wrote, came out in 2002).

Nobody was up in arms then saying, that they couldn't compete with WotC...


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Apr 30, 2003)

Cedric said:
			
		

> *I'm going to go with Deities and Demigods, with the Melnibonian and Chuthulloid mythos, since they were used without permission, resulting in subsequent lawsuit and removal from print.
> 
> Cedric - sold his mint for $175.00 *




That's pretty nice, but it's still not the winner.  That is, however, exactly the right sort of phenomena to be looking for.

If I were Valterra and I could get this thing canned after it was printed but before it was distributed I would wait a little bit build myself a small addition to the house and engage in some serious Scrooge McDuck money swimming action.


----------



## Tiefling (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: employment laws*



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I said it on the other thread, and I'll say it on this one...  Why should AV be treated any differently from any of the other WotC members?  Monte Cook produces d20 products.  Sean K Reynolds produces d20 products.   Bruce Cordell produced "If Thoughts Could Kill" while he was still at WotC (I assume, since it came out in 2001, and the "Epic Level Handbook", which he also wrote, came out in 2002).
> 
> Nobody was up in arms then saying, that they couldn't compete with WotC... *




Theoretically, their contracts might be different such that those you listed can create their own products while Valterra can't. But I doubt it.


----------



## Kichwas (Apr 30, 2003)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> *Interesting. Could this be the beginning of the end of outside freelancing using the OGL within WotC? *



It's actually suprising that they tolerate it to begin with.

When I worked at a graphic design studio all the designers used to talk about people at various companies getting fired for doing freelance work. One of the co-owners of the place I worked at started her business because of this...

And while I was there I got to see them fire their first employee (a girl who'd been there since day one, but not as a partner) after they caught her doing freelance work...

Generally, if they hire you full time they expect to get your full time commitment, not have you working on side projects over at your desk / cubicle / office / studio on company time and resources...


----------



## Kichwas (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: disappointed*



			
				zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> *on the heels of reading Monte Cook's recounting of how he had to resist pressure from WotC to put gratuitous crap (I'm paraphrasing here) in the Book of Vile Darkness...  *



Where can I learn more about this?


----------



## Larry Fitz (Apr 30, 2003)

This just gets more and more bizarre....

WOTC is giving AV the IMF treatment? (..the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions...)

So he made this press release without their prior knowledge? And deliberately played off both his association to WOTC and his association with a bondage S/M club? How can WOTC expect anyone to take that press release seriously if they don't fire this guy? How could Anthony have not foreseen that outcome? There is a post on the initial thread on this topic that suggests this is a conspiracy to get mainstream Media attention for WOTC and D&D and the OGL. If that's true though how far does the conspiracy spread? I just can't see the VP's at Hasbro taking it well when their 8 year olds come gome from school and tell them that the other kids said their parent was a"smut-merchant" after a 45-second piece airs on MSNBC. I see them quite happily offering A.V. and his direct superior (and possibly that person's direct superior) an early retirement package, or firing them outright. 

I've heard the arguement that they have no basis to fire him, well guess what, employment in most states is "at will" neither side needs a good reason to fire someone, they just need the abscence of a bad one. Embarassing the company and using your affiliation with the company to imply an endorsement of a product where none exists is a valid reason to fire someone, as is not firing the person responsible for doing so if upper management feels you should have.


----------



## Artimoff (Apr 30, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *Great point.  Are they really saying what they mean, or are they just *wink* *wink* covering their butt.
> *




I predict that NO butts will be covered in this book


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 30, 2003)

http://ValarProject.com


----------



## kenjib (Apr 30, 2003)

Well waddayaknow?  Hehe.  The address for Valar is really close to where I lived 6 months ago, but I'm probably like 20 blocks away now.  Still fairly close.  Mmmm....Wallingford Pizza House.  Not way out in Renton like WotC is.


----------



## Corinth (Apr 30, 2003)

Since when are press releases required to abide by the terms of either the OGL or the d20STL?  Only the products published under the terms of those licences have to abide by those same terms.  Everything else is fair game.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 30, 2003)

I thought WotC's statement was reasonable.  Of course there remains the possibility that this is all a plot to stir up interest in 3.5e.


----------



## Buttercup (Apr 30, 2003)

Dareoon Dalandrove said:
			
		

> *I wonder if someone's job might be in danger *




That's exactly what I was thinking.  But AV isn't stupid, so one would assume he thought all the implications through ahead of time.  

I'll agree with Eric though.  The whole thing is wierd.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 30, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> *I hope that WOTC does amend the OGL because of this product. It would be a terrible shame if anyone's first impression of D&D were coloured by this product. *




Oh, come on.

If this product is bought by one percent _of_ one percent of people playing D&D, it'll be a huge, breakout success.  In other words, very, very few people will even hear of it.  This book (tasteless as it sounds) isn't going to ruin the hobby for anybody.


----------



## KDLadage (Apr 30, 2003)

*My $0.02 worth...*

...and you may even get change back... is that this product may, in fact, turn out to be a very good product. Sexual relationships (and by this, I mean more than the physical mechanics of the situation) are relatively complex and (sometimes) confusing things. And so some simple guidelines for how to handle this sort of thing in play could be a welcome sight.

*GURPS* has had, for a long time, the web publication *GURPS SEX* produced by Christine Morgan and it is a tasteful, mature and well written supplement I have put to use in my *GURPS* games from the day I first discovered it. If this book is handled with even half of the maturity and class that Christine Morgan put into her work, then I feel it may actually be worth picking up.

That would be my thought.


----------



## BlackWych (Apr 30, 2003)

Dareoon Dalandrove said:
			
		

> *I wonder if someone's job might be in danger *





I don't think they can legally fire him, however he may be the janitor by the end of the week....


----------



## Mystic_23 (Apr 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Cut from the WotC press release...*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> You missed the point... I was trying to turn the press release into a parody commercial for the BoVD.  I guess I'm not very funny today.
> 
> 
> ...




If it makes you feel any better, I got it.  And thought it was pretty funny.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Apr 30, 2003)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> *Wow, this thread is still up.  Once again I am impressed at the discretion of ENWorlders.
> 
> Another effect of their statement is that it prevents the book from being totally ignorable but not so much that it automatically becomes wildly popular.
> 
> ...




The D&DG with Moorecock and Lovecraft was close and the right idea but I believe the prize goes to an older banned book. The original 5x8 D&D rulebook that included Hobbits and was subsequently ruled by a court to be in copyright violation of Tolkien's work. This is why we now have "halflings" that bear an increadible similarity to hobbits. The reason it is worth more is supply and demand since there are a lot fewer coppies of the illegal OD&D rulebook than there are of the illegal D&DG.


----------



## buzz (Apr 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Angcuru _*What do you think people would find more offensive:  A book containing details of sacrficing innocents which also contains a spell that requires that you indulge in necrophelia; or a book about sexuality in D&D?*




A book about sexuality in D&D.

At least here in the states, the involvement of any kind of explicit or frank discussion of sex changes everything. Violence of all kinds is permissible, but any sort of depiction of human sexuality is utterly prohibited. Ergo, it should be no surprise WotC is quick to distance themselves from a product which sounds essentially like D&D-branded pornography (leaving aside the issue of porn being "good" or "bad").

And, again, comparisons between the sex book and BoVD are misguided. WotC are not being hypocritical (and it's a feat, not a spell that references necrophilia).


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 30, 2003)

I find the general reaction to this news on these boards to be more than a little disturbing;  it's the brought out of all kinds of hard feelings and caused much tooth-grinding - the worst thing to happen to D&D, the ruination of the hobby, and a blight on all that is clean and wholesome.  

I see no need for this product and doubt that it can bring anything to gaming.  As it is it looks like a piece of juvenile silliness. But you know what?  _Nobody has actually seen the thing yet._  Maybe it will be good, responsible material.  That's not the impression I get from the article, but I'm unwilling to flatly discard the possibility without more information.  I think it's more likely to be a piece of sophomoric pandering, but either way, I will be happy to laugh at those who sniff sanctimoniously about how their lily-white hobby is now soiled by the dirty nudie book.

This is not a sign of the coming apocalypse.  It is not the end of D&D as you know it.  It will not sour your milk, kick your dog or poke holes in your waterbed.  It's an apparently tasteless product produced in miniscule numbers which will go unseen by the _vast_ majority of hobbyists.  It will have no measurable impact on the hobby as a whole.  If it affects you, that's very much your problem.

Fun Fact #1 - the overlap between RPG players and fetishists in general, and BDSM practitioners specifically, is _huge._  If you are surprised by that, maybe it's time to look a bit more closely at your hobby.

Fun Fact #2 - White Wolf has been putting profanity, nudity and graphic descriptions of sex in their products for years.  Incredibly, this has not destroyed the hobby, nor is it a sign of armageddon.


----------



## buzz (Apr 30, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *http://ValarProject.com *




Registrant:
 Valar Project, Inc.
 1909 N. 47th St.
 Seattle, WA 98103
 US
 206.675.8552 


Domain Name: VALARPROJECT.COM

Administrative Contact: 
 Cortez, Michael Epic_Saga@hotmail.com
 2450 E. Nutwood Ave #E-30
 Fullerton, CA 92831
 US
 714-936-2834 


Technical Contact: 
 Cortez, Michael Epic_Saga@hotmail.com
 2450 E. Nutwood Ave #E-30
 Fullerton, CA 92831
 US
 714-936-2834 


Record last updated 04-28-2003 12:52:43 PM
Record expires on 04-28-2004
Record created on 04-28-2003

Domain servers in listed order:
        NS1.PHPWEBHOSTING.COM   64.65.1.112
        NS2.PHPWEBHOSTING.COM   64.65.34.231


So, AV, who works in Renton, WA, is a founding member of an S/M group in Oregon, and set up a site administered by a guy in Fullerton, CA.

I still don't know if I buy any of this.


----------



## buzz (Apr 30, 2003)

Larry Fitz said:
			
		

> *I've heard the arguement that they have no basis to fire him, well guess what, employment in most states is "at will" neither side needs a good reason to fire someone, they just need the abscence of a bad one. Embarassing the company and using your affiliation with the company to imply an endorsement of a product where none exists is a valid reason to fire someone, as is not firing the person responsible for doing so if upper management feels you should have. *




Exactamundo. Those of us who live in the real world should no be surprised if AV gets sacked. Assuming this is all for real, which I'm still not sure about.


----------



## Henry (Apr 30, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> I find the general reaction to this news on these boards to be more than a little disturbing;  it's the brought out of all kinds of hard feelings and caused much tooth-grinding - the worst thing to happen to D&D, the ruination of the hobby, and a blight on all that is clean and wholesome.




'pfeffer, I see you registered around November of last year. By chance were you lurking on these boards back in September and October of last year? The exact same thing happened then, concerning the Book of Vile Darkness. We had no less than six thread closings in one day, because of insults, mild profanity directed toward forum members, and insults against Monte and Tracy Hickman.

I remember it fondly, because it was the second day that Dinkledog and I started Moderating. 



> But you know what?  _Nobody has actually seen the thing yet._  Maybe it will be good, responsible material.  That's not the impression I get from the article, but I'm unwilling to flatly discard the possibility without more information.




This is a very worthwhile piece of advice. That which has not yet been made cannot yet ruin an industry.



> Fun Fact #1 - the overlap between RPG players and fetishists in general, and BDSM practitioners specifically, is _huge._  If you are surprised by that, maybe it's time to look a bit more closely at your hobby.
> 
> Fun Fact #2 - White Wolf has been putting profanity, nudity and graphic descriptions of sex in their products for years.  Incredibly, this has not destroyed the hobby, nor is it a sign of armageddon. [/B]




The first is fascinating to me, because I was not aware of it. Is there a site or book reference that can point me to this?

The second is VERY true, and this has a lot of relevance to Valar Project's book.

Fascinating use of the term, "Valar." I wonder if the Tolkien Estate can claim the name "Valar?" 

Could it be an acronym for "Valterra" and someone whose name begins with an "AR"?


----------



## maddman75 (Apr 30, 2003)

It has naked bearded dwarven women?  I am *SO* buying this book.  I can't stop giggling at the thought .

And I'm not convinced that this whole hullabaloo isn't a plot to garner some mainstream press on it.  Imagine, CNN or FoxNews get ahold of this and start a new wave of protest against the game.  This would almost assuradly boost sales of D&D in general, if not this specific book.

There's no such thing as bad press.


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *What, exactly, is wrong with knowing what is right and saying something isn't right? That's what you are saying WotC should not have done. So, does that mean that you know what's right and are you willing to say it's not right to say something's not right? That's the implication of your statement: that it is innapropriate to call something innappropriate? If so, I would like to know on what grounds do you can make that claim?
> *



*

o·pen
adj. 
Affording unobstructed entrance and exit; not shut or closed. 

game
n. 
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime 

li·cense
n. 
Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission. 

---

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.

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.

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.

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.*


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Apr 30, 2003)

arcady said:
			
		

> *It's actually suprising that they tolerate it to begin with.
> 
> When I worked at a graphic design studio all the designers used to talk about people at various companies getting fired for doing freelance work. One of the co-owners of the place I worked at started her business because of this...
> 
> ...





There is a huge difference between doing freelance work at night and on the weekends at home and doing freelance work during the week at your normal job.

The second one is little more than theft and the person deserves to be fired.

The first though is completely legal and unless you have some bizarre "no moonlighting" clause in your contract it is none of your employers business.


----------



## Bulletproof (Apr 30, 2003)

The press release used WOTC's trademark "Dungeons and Dragons".    WOTC can defend its trademarks.  AV didn't have to use their trademark.  He chose to, and opened himself up to a response from WOTC.  

This is probably why the OGL requires permission to use trademarks in advertising, and is an example of why you shouldn't use loopholes, if that's what he did.   (the theoretical loophole being "is a press release considered an advertisement...I'd say yeah, but that's just my opinion) 

Now if he got permission to use the trademark, WOTC is definitely out of line with their response, IMO, even if they are still within their legal rights.  If they give permission to use a trademark, they should make it their business to know how it will be used, and should have nothing but positive things to say about it.

It's like watching a train wreck.


----------



## Mean DM (Apr 30, 2003)

*Irrespective of my own opinion...*

I have been in an unique position for years to support young gamers.  As a school psychologist, I have been able to give credibility to gaming when faced with parents who were either on the fence, or even against the game.  I have vigorously challenged the old myths and actively promoted the benefits of this hobby.  And I will continue to do this, but no longer mentioning d&d by name.  Regardless of the actual material of the book, I simply cannot support a system (d20) that is associated with this content in my professional arena anymore.  I find this a sad thing.  Just my $0.02.

Mark


----------



## Henry (Apr 30, 2003)

> Regardless of the actual material of the book, I simply cannot support a system (d20) that is associated with this content in my professional arena anymore.




Just out of my curiosity, what systems do you intend to support as good examples now?


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 30, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *'pfeffer, I see you registered around November of last year. By chance were you lurking on these boards back in September and October of last year? The exact same thing happened then, concerning the Book of Vile Darkness. We had no less than six thread closings in one day, because of insults, mild profanity directed toward forum members, and insults against Monte and Tracy Hickman.*




I recall the flap happening, but wasn't involved and didn't keep up with it very closely.  I'm not surprised.



> *The first is fascinating to me, because I was not aware of it. Is there a site or book reference that can point me to this?*




There's been at least one article written on the subject.  Can't point you to a source, alas.

Nor can I really show you any evidence that it's so.  But go to a con and look around.  Or, heck, hang out in Tangency over on RPGNet for a while - the subject comes up almost every day.



> *Fascinating use of the term, "Valar." I wonder if the Tolkien Estate can claim the name "Valar?"*




Unless it's trademarked, there's nothing much the Tolkien folks can do about it.  I kind of doubt that it is.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 30, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Just out of my curiosity, what systems do you intend to support as good examples now? *




Hol and Demon:  The Fallen, of course.


----------



## Mean DM (Apr 30, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Just out of my curiosity, what systems do you intend to support as good examples now? *



Henry, that is a good question.  I honestly haven’t thought it through yet.  Off the top of my head, though, I’ll probably not recommend a specific system and keep my recommendation general.  However, if asked directly about d&d, I will be upfront with my concern and inform them of material like this.  On the other hand, I will follow up with other systems like TROS, Decipher (CODA), Pendragon, etc.

Mark


----------



## mkarol (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Mean DM said:
			
		

> *Regardless of the actual material of the book, I simply cannot support a system (d20) that is associated with this content in my professional arena anymore.  I find this a sad thing.*




Well, nothing says that this book will be a d20 book.  

Does that mean if someone came up with rules for 'strip monopoly' that you could not support the game despite its other money management teaching skills?  If someone made a porn spoof of Barney or Sesame Street, you wouldn’t talk about those as educational?  We already know that Eddie Murphy spoofed Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood with the highly racially charged Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, so I assume that has been out of education for years.

Now of course you may respond with the ‘because WOTC is part of it’ argument, which (though I believe it is true) is not relevant.  There is nothing that requires any company or producer to make all its produces suitable for all its audience.  That would be silly.  Just as PBS makes Sesame Street for the kiddies, they make Nova or Mystery Theatre or whatever other show they make for adults (I don’t really watch PBS anymore… not since I stopped watching Sesame Street).

Why must everyone take an absurd outlook that requires one aspect of the hobby, one product in the pantheon of books, and one theme out of thousands and turn them into the doom of everyone _else’s_ game?


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				mkarol said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, nothing says that this book will be a d20 book.
> *




His press release says it will be compatible with D&D.  I think you can only say that if you're using the d20 logo.  You can't do that if it's pure OGL.


----------



## Bulletproof (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> His press release says it will be compatible with D&D.  I think you can only say that if you're using the d20 logo.  You can't do that if it's pure OGL. *




You can if you get permission from WOTC.


----------



## Mean DM (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				mkarol said:
			
		

> *Why must everyone take an absurd outlook that requires one aspect of the hobby, one product in the pantheon of books, and one theme out of thousands and turn them into the doom of everyone else’s game? *




I'll pass on debating this .  I think that it is self evident that my job is very much affected by how I am perceived by parents.  And the way parents gossip makes middle school look like armatures. Like it or not, perception counts in some lines of work.  All I am saying is that I cannot recommend d&d anymore, not pronouncing doom.  It is just a professional call on my part.  I hope you can respect that.  I only posted to share a different view.  

Mark


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Bulletproof said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You can if you get permission from WOTC. *




WotC's response was that they had nothing to do with this product, they put as much distance as they could between them and this book.  I think the only reasonable conclusion is that this book will bear the d20 logo.


----------



## SemperJase (Apr 30, 2003)

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

This is horrible news for WotC with horrible timing - so soon before the release of 3.5e.

For years WotC/TSR has denied being influenced or associated with an Occultic agenda. Now it turns out a leader of an Occultic church is running the show.  

It is time to part ways with Mr. Valtera. In part because of his leadership of an occultic church. (Please, no screams of discrimination). I know it is not legal for the reason alone and Mr. Valtera's disclosure of the fact makes it more difficult to let him go for other reason's (which is why he did it, I'm sure.)

However, Mr. Valtera did leave WotC a big opening. Conflict of interest. The previously sigted writer's who did work for other companies had all left WotC with one exception. Perhaps the WotC writer contract does allow freelance work (a bad decision if it does) or it could be that one exception was freelance work for WotC. 

However, writer's are much different from business managers. If WotC's /Hasbro's employment contract with managers allows outside work, they need to fire their legal department. That would be a bad business decision rating up there with new Coke. Employment contracts generally agree that anything created by an employee becomes the property of the employer. I can't imagine why WotC would allow this to pass. You can't have your employees producing material for other companies then having them use your name to promote the product for the competition. 

So we are back to conflict of interest. WotC, it time to say goodbye to Mr. Valtera.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> The previously sigted writer's who did work for other companies had all left WotC with one exception. Perhaps the WotC writer contract does allow freelance work (a bad decision if it does) or it could be that one exception was freelance work for WotC.



Actually, just about every one of them left _after_ testing the "d20 waters", so to speak.



> So we are back to conflict of interest. WotC, it time to say goodbye to Mr. Valtera.



It's quite possible (speculation here) that this is exactly what Anthony wants.  More free press doesn't hurt.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *It is time to part ways with Mr. Valtera. In part because of his leadership of an occultic church. (Please, no screams of discrimination)*



Okay, no screams of discrimination...

You are being very, very silly.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				mkarol said:
			
		

> Does that mean if someone came up with rules for 'strip monopoly' that you could not support the game despite its other money management teaching skills?



Actually, isn't that what they were playing in the first Friday the 13th movie?  I was, like, 12 when I saw it, so my memory's hazy...



> If someone made a porn spoof of Barney or Sesame Street, you wouldn’t talk about those as educational?



Been done.



> We already know that Eddie Murphy spoofed Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood with the highly racially charged Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, so I assume that has been out of education for years.



That was funny stuff.  Those were also "push the line" skits, as well, being that SNL used words they weren't supposed to use, and thus they are now regularly used in Law & Order.



> There is nothing that requires any company or producer to make all its produces suitable for all its audience.



And the knowingly made a niche-product with BoVD.



> Why must everyone take an absurd outlook that requires one aspect of the hobby, one product in the pantheon of books, and one theme out of thousands and turn them into the doom of everyone _else’s_ game?



Damn good question...


----------



## buzz (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Mean DM said:
			
		

> *All I am saying is that I cannot recommend d&d anymore, not pronouncing doom.  It is just a professional call on my part.  I hope you can respect that. *




IMHO (and with all due respect to you), it's a bad call, and I cannot respect *it*.

At the very least, you should wait until the hype about this dies down. You're talking about a product that:


Might not even be for real (I'm still reserving judgement)
Could turn out to be vaporware (i.e., never see the light of day)
Will most likely never be available in any FLGS or book store any of your students will ever have access to
[/list=a] 

Seriously, all we've seen is a press release, a photo, and a half-arsed Web site hosted by a $5/month hosting service. At best, we're talking about another product like FATAL, i.e., something diehard gamers joke about on messageboards, but nobody actually plays or stocks in stores. It generates initial shock value, and then fades into obscurity. 

(Don't make the mistake by assuming that just because AV's name has been associated with this product that it's going to be high-profile and sitting on the shelves of every store that sells D&D products. I'm betting this is going to be direct mail-order, at best.)

Therefore, I would hope that you would not overreact in this way. Actively pointing parents to this kind of silly material as somehow exemplifying what D&D is all about is simply unwarranted, and does a disservice to the hobby. You might as well be telling kids not to read books, watch TV, or use the Internet.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> However, writer's are much different from business managers. If WotC's /Hasbro's employment contract with managers allows outside work, they need to fire their legal department. That would be a bad business decision rating up there with new Coke. Employment contracts generally agree that anything created by an employee becomes the property of the employer. I can't imagine why WotC would allow this to pass. You can't have your employees producing material for other companies then having them use your name to promote the product for the competition.
> 
> So we are back to conflict of interest. WotC, it time to say goodbye to Mr. Valtera. *





Sure IF he did the work during normal work hours.

If he does that work at night and on weekends then your arguement doesnt hold an ounce of water.


----------



## SemperJase (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> Okay, no screams of discrimination...
> 
> You are being very, very silly. *




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.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Mean DM said:
			
		

> *I have been in an unique position for years to support young gamers.  As a school psychologist, I have been able to give credibility to gaming when faced with parents who were either on the fence, or even against the game.  I have vigorously challenged the old myths and actively promoted the benefits of this hobby.  And I will continue to do this, but no longer mentioning d&d by name.  Regardless of the actual material of the book, I simply cannot support a system (d20) that is associated with this content in my professional arena anymore.  I find this a sad thing.  Just my $0.02.*




Oh, for the love of...  

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.

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

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


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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. *




WHAT?


No crack smoking please. It clouds the discussion with bizarre statements like yours.

As long as a person is not doign something ILLEGAL it doesnt matter if their personal activities might or might not HELP the company they work at.

This is AMERICA. You know land of freedom. AV's religious and personal choices have no bearing on this. 

It is obvious though that you are barely containing YOUR religious and moral stance in your attacks on him.


----------



## ragefearmadness (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For years WotC/TSR has denied being influenced or associated with an Occultic agenda. Now it turns out a leader of an Occultic church is running the show.
> 
> *




OK, enough is enough.  Every US citizen is entitled to their freedom of religion.  So how about we all give Mr. V his legal right to religion and shut the hell up about it.  If you do not like it, fine.  If you hate him for it, fine.  But leave the subject alone.  He likes whips, chains and pain...fine, I ain't gonna sleep with him, ever.  

Now if you do not like his book, great, bash the hell out of it.  Heck, gimme a call if you run out of adjectives.  But for all that is right in the world, leave the man's religion out of it.  How would you like it if he started mocking people on the boards based on their preference of worship?

BTW SemperJase, I am NOT picking on you, yours was simply the last post in which the subject was broached.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Apr 30, 2003)

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


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 30, 2003)

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

Edited to delete reply.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *Edited to delete reply. *




Wise man.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 30, 2003)

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



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 30, 2003)

mkarol said:
			
		

> *
> o·pen
> <Condescention snipped>
> 
> ...




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.
		
Click to expand...


*
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.
		
Click to expand...


*
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.
		
Click to expand...


*
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 (May 1, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> * 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 (May 1, 2003)

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 (May 1, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *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 (May 1, 2003)

> *Nothing personal but this arguement of yours is not thought out at all.
> 
> By your logic we should immediatly ban:
> 
> ...




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.)


----------



## Tsyr (May 1, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

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




Hey, we might as well just ban sex in general while we are at it...

BU, I agree with you some on point 4. The rest of your points, frankly, I find silly. You're stressing *far* too much on the 'real world' implications of this... But DnD already teaches us theft, murder, etc, yet I don't see it causing massive effects on the people playing the game. This is, IMO, no different. 

But hey, do what your heart tells you. Start a petition. But write to the right people. You have *not one bit of proof* that Hasbro/WotC is "behind" this project... in fact, they have publicly said they are not. It's fine if you want to have a conspiracy theory, but at least send your complaints to the right party. Otherwise it's just harrassment.


----------



## Tsyr (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.) *




As loath as I am to agree with Doc on anything D), I have to on this one, and it's the same with movies and violent video games. We can say all we want "We are preventing minors from getting these things", but when I was in highschool (3 years ago), your average freshman had _easy_ access to beer, tobbaco, pornography, R-rated movies, M-rated video games, etc. You can say they are out of their hands by age-restrictions and such, but they aren't.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.) *




That banning something purely because  some people who are not supposed to get something might be able to is stupid?


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *As loath as I am to agree with Doc on anything D), I have to on this one, and it's the same with movies and violent video games. We can say all we want "We are preventing minors from getting these things", but when I was in highschool (3 years ago), your average freshman had easy access to beer, tobbaco, pornography, R-rated movies, M-rated video games, etc. You can say they are out of their hands by age-restrictions and such, but they aren't. *




1) That still doesn't make the call for action = "banning" as DocM suggests.
2) Just what are you suggesting? That we really need to crack down on the sale of these products to minors? It's never going to be perfect; is that enough reason to conclude that all such efforts are wasted? I think not.


----------



## Belen (May 1, 2003)

I am not advocating that we ban anything.  I am saying that we can add this element to our games without an organized set of rules.  I am fairly certain that most games do not run sexual encounters.  I mean, which encounter is more likely.

Tavern maid: Yes, Oh Paladin, I will spend the night with you.
DM:  k, the next morning, Taric seems happy with himself.

or

(Let roleplay it out all- in front of the whole group!)

Tavern maid: Wait, Mr. high and Mighty (She slips on her mask and pulls out her whip):  You have been a Baaaad boy.
Paladin: Spank me, wench, I need some penance.  I work with a rogue!


Yes, makes for a great comic routine, but not really great in-game encounters.  I can see where a book on love, romance, childrearing etc could be useful to characters.  But erotica!?

Dave


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *That banning (snip)*




Gotta stop you right there. Two words in and you still are evoking the false dichotomy. Try again.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Gotta stop you right there. Two words in and you still are evoking the false dichotomy. Try again. *




Your opinion not mine. We dont agree so I se no further reason to talk about it.


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

> *Your opinion not mine. We dont agree so I se no further reason to talk about it.*




I don't ever remember stating my opinion on this matter, so don't pretend that's what it's about.

If you are unwilling to recognize or answer too the fundamental flaw in your argument, go right ahead. Disagree with an argument nobody is making. Just don't be surprised when nobody cares.


----------



## cildarith (May 1, 2003)

I will personally boycott any game store that stocks this product.  

I will urge others to do likewise.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

cildarith said:
			
		

> *I will personally boycott any game store that stocks this product.
> 
> I will urge others to do likewise. *





Good for you.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't ever remember stating my opinion on this matter, so don't pretend that's what it's about.
> 
> If you are unwilling to recognize or answer too the fundamental flaw in your argument, go right ahead. Disagree with an argument nobody is making. Just don't be surprised when nobody cares. *




It is your OPINION that my arguement is flawed.

Furthermore your EGO has decided that if in your OPINION my arguement is flawed then no one will listen to my arguement.

Why don't you go back to unfairly bashing FFE products. We all know that you secretly hate Jim Ward and live to ruin his perfect name in the Gamning industry.


----------



## Necrobeer (May 1, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *I am not advocating that we ban anything.  I am saying that we can add this element to our games without an organized set of rules.  I am fairly certain that most games do not run sexual encounters.  I mean, which encounter is more likely.
> 
> Tavern maid: Yes, Oh Paladin, I will spend the night with you.
> DM:  k, the next morning, Taric seems happy with himself.
> ...




     Depending on the game, I've seen both to some extent.  Considering the nature of the pictures in said upcoming product, look at the art in the Quint series or in the Slayers' Guide series.  I think that we should see pictures along those lines.  Maybe some topless shots and rear nude shots, but nothing worse than what you might see in Maxim.  My humble opinion on the subject.


----------



## Mean DM (May 1, 2003)

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



> _Originally posted by buzz _At the very least, you should wait until the hype about this dies down. You're talking about a product that:
> 
> 
> Might not even be for real (I'm still reserving judgement)
> ...






Yes, you do have a point in that I should wait to it actually comes out. I will read it first before I pass judgement. For me, however, the issue of access doesn't hold. As long as it is published and associated with the game, I will have to change my approach with my recommnedations. Again, this is not a pronouncement of doom, just a calculated desision.  One that I want to simple add to all the opinions. For me it comes down to this. If I child (and I am talking about middle school here) ever got his/her hands on a book like this (assuming it comes out) and I have previously recommended d&d, I would be in serious trouble. I could even loose my job. Fair? No. Could it happen? Yes. I have seen teacher's fired for comparable things. 

Mark


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *It is your OPINION that my arguement is flawed.*




It's not an opinion when it can be readily demonstrated. It's fact.

The person you were responding to did not call for banning.

Your follow up with a post stating if you ban X then you should ban Y. That's a fact.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				Mean DM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, you do have a point in that I should wait to it actually comes out. I will read it first before I pass judgement. For me, however, the issue of access doesn't hold. As long as it is published and associated with the game, I will have to change my approach with my recommnedations. Again, this is not a pronouncement of doom, just a calculated desision.  One that I want to simple add to all the opinions. For me it comes down to this. If I child (and I am talking about middle school here) ever got his/her hands on a book like this (assuming it comes out) and I have previously recommended d&d, I would be in serious trouble. I could even loose my job. Fair? No. Could it happen? Yes. I have seen teacher's fired for comparable things.
> 
> Mark *




Question.

Let us say a student comes to you and asks for the name of a good director. The student is a potential film major and wants to focus on that.

You give him the name of a director say Bob Jones. Ok, great no problem right?

Two weeks later the students parents call to the school outraged because they caught their son with a couple porn movies. As it turns out before he became well known as a real director Bob did some pron directing.

Are you in danger of losing your job because you recommended a director and the student took that recommendation and searched out the worst possible in film choices from that director?

If no then why should DnD be any different? There are thousands of DnD supplements out now. Why should ONE bad one mean so much?


----------



## Enceladus (May 1, 2003)

> There are plenty of threads on this already. I'm closing this one. You might want to repost any relevant bits in a different thread.





This is apparently OK this time so...

I'm going to be excersizing my wrist..er..right as a consumer and I am not going to be buying this book.  Most everyone here has a valid point yea, or nay. The only thing I take issue with is this:



> 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!




As a gamer, I personally could not give one rat's patootey what anyone thinks of me.  

I'm 33 years old, I've been gaming for 20 years.  I gave up trying to maintain some sort of "face" that others who would otherwise not understand what gaming is all about. I live my life, I obey the law, I raise my kids to be respectful and good, I game. If someone does't like that, it's thier problem, not mine, nor any other gamer.

Wear your gaming hats out in the open people.

OK, pep talk over.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's not an opinion when it can be readily demonstrated. It's fact.
> 
> ...




I see, you missed my point completely.

I was not suggesting we ban anything. 

The person in question is against the product because people he thinks shouldnt have access to the product might be able to get access to it through various means.

I was merely pointing out that there are already products like that out on the market so his logic is flawed.


----------



## Mallus (May 1, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *Second, how will you keep this material away from kids? It will be impossible to keep gaming material out of the hands of children.*




I'm not trying to be all flame-y here, but consider the case of books in general {which is far closer to game materials than booze, cigarettes and/or assault rifles...}.

A minor can purchase all manner of fantasy/SF/mainstream fiction is any chain bookstore that that contains relatively graphic content. And I'm not talking The Story of O, either {which, if I remember correctly, I purchased at Waldenbooks}. 

There's been no hue and cry about that. So why treat gaming materials any differently?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 1, 2003)

If a game company wants to put out a book that isn't going to sell and probably lose money on it, so be it.  Their loss, not mine.


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *I was not suggesting we ban anything. *




I know. You said that BelenUmeria suggested we should ban things. Which is false.



> * The person in question is against the product because people he thinks shouldnt have access to the product might be able to get access to it through various means.*




In the section you quoted, BelenUmeria asked the question "Second, how will you keep this material away from kids?" I think that's a fair question. Other products of the sort you mention DO have measures to keep them from kids, and the publisher would do well to consider these things, as the typical game store is not set up to have explicit material unless they are also a comic shop that has mature titles. It's a field that comic shops have had to naviagate.

Now one could question Belen's logic that the existence of this book will lead to further backlash in the bible belt, which I think would be a foregone conclusion.

Whatever the case, I don't see anywhere here a call for "banning", which was what you immediately lept too. You may think it a small leap, but I think it is an important one, as bandying about the "ban" is very provacative.



> *
> I was merely pointing out that there are already products like that out on the market so his logic is flawed. *




That may be what you meant, but it's not what you said. You just talked about banning and if you ban x you should ban y.

Edit: Bad UBB code! Bad boy!


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In the section you quoted, BelenUmeria asked the question "Second, how will you keep this material away from kids?" I think that's a fair question. *





I disagree. He is asking a question but he is implying a lot more. He is easily implying that it is impossible to keep out of the hands of anyone he thinks shouldnt have the book and because of this the book should not be produced.

Why else ask the question?

It is obvious that this is his real point because his entire tone suggests that he is against this book even if somehow you found a 100% foolproof way to keep it out of the hands of people he thinks shouldnt have the material.

Basically this is a red herring on his part. He doesnt want the book out there so like some Hillary Clinton wannabe he is using the "do it for the children whine" to suppress what he disagrees with personally.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2003)

cildarith said:
			
		

> I will personally boycott any game store that stocks this product.
> 
> I will urge others to do likewise.



I will personally support any game store that stocks this product.

I will urge others to do likewise.

Gee, won't this be fun. 

Consequently, rather than take speculative arguements from the moral minority, why don't we just get real information from the source so we can actually discuss this in an intelligent manner without having to counter apocolyptic speculation: Link


----------



## Belen (May 1, 2003)

Actually, Doc, I do not disagree with the _ideas_ of the book.  In no way am I saying that such activity should be banned from the game.  As I detest Ms. Clinton, I'd prefer not to be labeled in the same way as she.

Do I think that this book should be produced? No.

Why? Because the ad copy suggested no proof that this book will be done in a mature way.  It suggests Nekkid elf maidens and fairies and they suggested that participation in BDSM were great qualifications for a book such as this.

If they want to produce a mature game supplement on love, romance, and sexuality, then fine.  However, I am basing my opinion of their ad copy, and the link to the photos that was provided with it.

When they ask if we have ever wondered what was beneath the gauzy elven outfit, then I am not stuck with wonder at their level of maturity.

And if you look at their website, you see a whole lot of half-naked women in cheesy costumes, yet only two men.  This does not strike me as "well-done."  Nor do I see us being able to recruit women into the game with the example of this book.

Did I have an angry tone? Yes.  I think I have a right based on what they have revealed so far.  And if they come out right now and show that they DO have a tasteful product, then I will quiet down, but I will never purchase a product from Valar because of the way they decided to dance on our strings.

I really do not want an argument, and I hope that we can stop the personal attacks and have a discussion.  Notice that I have said nothing to maligned your character, Doc, and I would appreciate the same respect.

Dave


----------



## Belen (May 1, 2003)

Brendis,

Is there any reason that you use "moral minority" as a curse?  Just because we are not in favor of the book, does not mean that we say that you cannot use such things in your game.

We just see no reason for a book about it and one that appears to be so cheesy and flame-invoking from the ad copy.

Dave


----------



## mkarol (May 1, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *Why shouldn't I or anyone else criticize (harshly or otherwise) people who _do_ want to do something perverse or destructive? *




I was not discussing *your* right to criticize anything.  I was simply, as the subject of this thread indicates, talking about *WOTC’s* response.  It is WOTC’s response that I believe was over the top and inappropriate, not because of some ‘hyper technical’ reading of the english in which the OGL is written, but from a plain and intuitive sense that when you ‘open’ the door, anything will come in.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> (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). [/B]




If Michael Moore or Bob Hope or Eric Noah opened a message board and said “Please, everyone post your comments about the OGL.  All ideas are welcome!” and then proceeded to, in that context, harshly criticize anyone who expressed a particular view or discussed a particular aspect thereof; then my criticism of the host would be the same as my criticism of WOTC in their response.


----------



## herald (May 1, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *I am not advocating that we ban anything.  I am saying that we can add this element to our games without an organized set of rules.  I am fairly certain that most games do not run sexual encounters.  I mean, which encounter is more likely.
> 
> Tavern maid: Yes, Oh Paladin, I will spend the night with you.
> DM:  k, the next morning, Taric seems happy with himself.
> ...




Why does everything have to go back to kinky stuff.

Erotica has alot more to it that just Kink. 

It has more to do with intamacy than wips and chains.


----------



## rounser (May 1, 2003)

> moral minority



More rhetoric.

When did morals come into this?  Taking a moral stance is a world away from "don't like the concept".


----------



## KnowTheToe (May 1, 2003)

cildarith said:
			
		

> *I will personally boycott any game store that stocks this product.
> 
> I will urge others to do likewise. *




I really don't think this will be an issue.  What percentage of gamers are really interested in improving the sexuality of the D&D RPG.  I think this will almost strictly be internet sales.  

I personally just don't get the book.  I don't want to bring sex into my games which are usually filled with other men.


----------



## Enceladus (May 1, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I really don't think this will be an issue.  What percentage of gamers are really interested in improving the sexuality of the D&D RPG.  I think this will almost strictly be internet sales.
> 
> I personally just don't get the book.  I don't want to bring sex into my games which are usually filled with other men. *




Dude, 

Totally. I didn't think about that part of it til just now. Thats just icky.


----------



## herald (May 1, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *Brendis,
> 
> Is there any reason that you use "moral minority" as a curse?  Just because we are not in favor of the book, does not mean that we say that you cannot use such things in your game.
> 
> ...




And I have no reason to use Macs or Linux computers. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. 

And before you say "Apples and Oranges". Well, I point out that Steve Ballmer of Microsoft has stated that "Open Source" is destructive to the progress of software development.

I bet he actualy believes that too.

The fact of the matter is that I believe you only see a narrow veiw of the overall market of the gaming industry and is customers. Some like differantly that you, and some use the rules differantly than you and some buy differant products than you because, simply, there not you. The don't have your wants or needs, they were brought up differently have had differant things happen to them. They like differant food. ect. ect. ect.

Being in a community is a cool, but very frightening thing. You have something incommon with people that you would never, ever associate with. Sometimes (I find most times) it can be alot of fun and very pleasureable. Other times it can be wierd, discusting, and downright unpleasant. 

I'm a proponent of the free market when run fairly. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean that it's "Bad for People".

You may think that its "Bad for You", but what is "Good for You" is "Bad For Some Others".


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

Enceladus said:
			
		

> *Totally. I didn't think about that part of it til just now. Thats just icky.  *




I'm honestly surprised that anyone who has gamed for more than a few years could not realize it. I don't think I was gaming long when I realized that for the typical male hetero player:

1) It's not comfortable for a male player to do intimate roleplaying of a romantic encounter with a female NPC portrayed by a male DM. I have quite an imagination, but it is sort of hard to miss the hoary beard on the person whispering you sweet nothings...
2) It's much less comfortable when the male DM uses the game as a playground for his sexual fantasies when players who are getting too much information are involved. (Okay, you may have not had this fact impinge upon you personally, but trust me, it's not a comfortable situation.)
3) No matter how serious a romantic or sexual product is, hetero american males (again, a majority of the gaming populace) have grown up thinking genitalia and sex are funny topics and the results are, more often than not, going to be farcical.


----------



## Enceladus (May 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm honestly surprised that anyone who has gamed for more than a few years could not realize it. I don't think I was gaming long when I realized that for the typical male hetero player:
> 
> ...




Oh, I've realized it. I just didn't put it in the context of this coversation regarding this book.  

I agree with all 3. Most often (read, always) these things degenerate in rapid progress.


----------



## Dreeble (May 1, 2003)

*Crunchy?*

Heya:

 Assuming the BoEF will actually eventually come out, I wonder how successful it'll be?  I mean, if I want to buy porn, er, I mean erotica, then I'll just go and buy some.  If I want a useful gaming product, it doesn't really sound like this will be one.  Maybe for fights against succubi, but that only happens like every third encounter, tops.

 Basically, besides completists, how many people will actually buy BoEF and _use_ stuff from it in their campaigns.  For example, I can picture a three-legged cat buying it, because cats are pretty open-minded, but incorporating _any_ of it into his campaign?

Take care,
Dreeble


----------



## EricNoah (May 1, 2003)

Hey there, folks, some reminders and warnings for all of you:  

You are not to drag religion or politics into this discussion.  That will probably be hard for some of you.  But don't do it.  I don't want to read any more posts about the "moral minority" or "I detest Ms. Clinton" or anything like that.  

You are not to make personal attacks, on each other or on the producers/authors of this project.  I know this has been hard for some of you. It's hard to understand how someone can hold the exact oposite opinion to yours and still be a reasonable, thinking, worthwhile human being.  But get used to it, it's the only way we're going to get along around here.  I don't want to read any more comments like "you're narrow-minded" or "try discussing this in an intelligent manner" (implication: you're not doing so) or anything like that. 

Suggested alternatives -- say what *you* think, what *you* feel, but don't say what *others* should think or feel, and leave the blaming, accusations and the whole "why are you people so stupid" attitude behind.  

Thanks to the many posters who have attempted to participate in these emotionally-charged discussions in a very pleasant, mature manner.


----------



## Squire James (May 1, 2003)

Much ado over not much.  I probably wouldn't buy such a book, but I can see how others would.

Publishing an OGL isn't tantamount to saying, "We must approve of every product published under this License without reservation."  At least, I didn't see anything like that in the OGL, but please correct me if I'm wrong!

WoTC didn't say a word about firing Anthony, and they didn't say a word from stopping him from what he's apparently doing.  They DID say they didn't like it, though, and Anthony could very well be on thin ice.  I've heard of far sillier reasons to fire someone than this.  All that is WoTC's and Anthony's business, not ours.


----------



## Mean DM (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Are you in danger of losing your job because you recommended a director and the student took that recommendation and searched out the worst possible in film choices from that director?
> 
> If no then why should DnD be any different? There are thousands of DnD supplements out now. Why should ONE bad one mean so much? *



 Doc. I will not recommend anything to minors that has a direct like to sex.  And this is linked IMO.  In the case of the porn director, if I knew of his past endeavors, no, I wouldn't suggest him.  I can refute the whole spell casting argument by Jack C.   I can't refute a book about sex.  You can chaulk up magic to realm of fantasy.  But when it comes to sex,  fantasy is just as bad as the realm thing in the perspective of some parents.  

Another way of putting it is this.  I would have *no* problems with a parent reviewing any of the current d20 books on the market.  Not any longer.  

But don't get me wrong.  I will still recommend the d&d outside of my professional role.  Just not when I am representing my school district.

Mark


----------



## Enceladus (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Hey there, folks,  *





You know, if your new avatar is really you, you kind of look like me about 10 years and 45 pounds ago.....


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 1, 2003)

Enceladus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> You know, if your new avatar is really you, you kind of look like me about 10 years and 45 pounds ago..... *




It's actually Mike Nelson of Mystery Science Theater 3000.


----------



## SemperJase (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> As long as a person is not doign something ILLEGAL it doesnt matter if their personal activities might or might not HELP the company they work at.
> *




Really, this is not true. While it is legal for AV to publish this, it should still be grounds for dismissal. 

Clearly AV has put himself in a conflict of interest. Contrary to what another poster said, it does NOT matter if AV does work for this company on his own time. 

An executive for Coke cannot moonlight for Pepsi. The reason is, it is not possible for AV to work for the other company without using the knowledge WotC provides him. He will use his knowledge of market studies, design, and industry contacts developed at WotC in developing a product for a competing company. 

WotC truly is foolish if they allow this to continue. 

Imagine the marketing manager of McDonald's opening up his own hamburger stand then uses his affiliation with McDonald's to get more attention for his stand. The argument "he's doing it on his own time" does not hold water.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Really, this is not true. While it is legal for AV to publish this, it should still be grounds for dismissal.
> 
> Clearly AV has put himself in a conflict of interest. Contrary to what another poster said, it does NOT matter if AV does work for this company on his own time.
> 
> ...




This part of the argument is a fair point, but I disagree with the conclusion (that WotC should fire AV,) nor do I believe it to be vaild in the industry we're talking about.

The point of the OGL is to enable WotC to profit from the support created by other companies from their product.  This is very different from the sort of relationship McDonalds has with Burger King, or that Coke has with Pepsi.  Those companies fight for market share.  The entire basis of the OGL model is that WotC already _has_ the market share.

There's a whole list of people who've done work for Wizards, or are currently on their payroll, yet have done things with other publishers.  It's the way the business model that WotC has set up works.

Nor can he be fired based on the conflict of "occult" interests with WotC's corporate image.  It's flatly illegal to dismiss someone on the basis of religious affiliation, by both state and federal statute, and WotC would be opening themselves to a near-certain court defeat and seven-figure settlement if they were so foolish as to fire him for that reason.

And justifiably so.  It's blatant bigotry, _should_ be unlawful, and WotC would deserve everything they got.


EDIT:  to fix a missing double negative that hosed up the whole thing I was saying.


----------



## Cedric (May 1, 2003)

I will likely never buy this product. I have no moral objection to it, I just don't think it would be of value to my gaming experiences, likewise, I'll never own the BOVD. 

However, I have to say that the reaction of the gaming community is a bit suprising. This is an industry that has fought so hard to gain acceptance and legitimacy in a world where very vocal groups oppose it's very existance. 

The people of the community, players and publishers alike, have fought hard for this acceptance. Some people may consider this a sad example of acceptance, but you can now purchase core D&D books from Wal-Mart. The flagship line of the "Good Ole Boy" department stores carries Dungeons and Dragons. 

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?

Cedric


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Really, this is not true. While it is legal for AV to publish this, it should still be grounds for dismissal.
> 
> Clearly AV has put himself in a conflict of interest. Contrary to what another poster said, it does NOT matter if AV does work for this company on his own time.
> ...





WOTC has already come out and said the OGL can be used even by its own employees to publish material on their own time. so if they terminated him it would be a contradiction to their current stance and also be hypocrtical since other employees have published as well.

*"While the OGL license allows anyone, even our employees, to produce products that are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards does not approve or control the theme of any third-party D20 product. "*

What WOTC could and should do is tell Anthony quite sternly that he is never to mention his position at WOTC when working on his side work.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 1, 2003)

Cedric said:
			
		

> *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?*




Well, no, I see a small handful of people overreacting.  There are just as many people who are supportive of the effort who've posted here.

EDIT to add:  Good and very vaild point, though.  Go Cedric.


----------



## herald (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really, this is not true. While it is legal for AV to publish this, it should still be grounds for dismissal.
> 
> ...





So I guess that Chris Pramas will need to look into clearing out his desk too since he works directly for WOTC and Green Ronin at the same time?

The whole point of having an OGL was the fact that any business it does drives up interest for D20 Games and hence D&D. Firing AV over this would be sooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## Bulletproof (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> WotC's response was that they had nothing to do with this product, they put as much distance as they could between them and this book.  I think the only reasonable conclusion is that this book will bear the d20 logo. *




I think you are incorrect about how the d20 license works.  D20 books have to follow the rules for the OGL as well.  

And on top of that, the d20 license explicity forbids using these trademarks, and makes no mention of the option of getting permission from WOTC, so it's even more strict.

Here's the text from the d20 license trademark guide:



> *Trademark Use in Marketing:*
> 
> Permission is granted to use the d20 System Logo for the purposes of marketing a Covered Product.
> 
> ...




The press release specifies that it uses the OGL, but does not say anything about d20, so it does seem to be OGL only.  According to the OGL FAQ:



> Q: Why can't I indicate compatibility with a Trademark or a Registered Trademark?
> 
> A: The Open Game License expands the control a Trademark owner has over your ability to use that Trademark beyond the restrictions normally allowed by trademark law. The explicit reason this clause is included in the Open Game License is to stop people from saying that their Open Game Content is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, or any other Wizards of the Coast game, without getting permission from Wizards of the Coast first. Of course, the clause is generic, so you can't indicate compatibility with any other company's trademarks either unless you get their permission first.




The only reasonable conclusions I can reach are that:

1. Someone in authority at WOTC approved it, then the company changed its mind. 
2. A.V. used the trademarks inappropriately, and perhaps gave himself permission.  
3.  A.V. just made an honest mistake in using the OGL. (A stupid mistake for someone in his position) 
4.  There may be a loophole in the OGL that a press release is not really an advertisement, and A.V. is abusing it. 
5.  It could be someone else at Valar besides A.V. who did it. (but he's the boss, apparantly, so it's his fault).

However, I'm no expert on either license, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable can post on the subject.  Or interested people can got to http://www.wizards.com/D20 and use the documents there to judge for themselves.

I'm not trying slam A.V. by the way, I have great respect for his accomplishments in the industry.  But unless I'm mistaken about the license stuff, I think he has some explaining to do.


----------



## Psion (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				herald said:
			
		

> *So I guess that Chris Pramas will need to look into clearing out his desk too since he works directly for WOTC and Green Ronin at the same time?*




You mean Chris Pramas that hasn't  been working for WotC for a long time.

Sheesh, folks. If you are going to make this kind of case, at least point out someone who is making d20 stuff who actually IS still working at WotC (like Bruce Cordell.)


----------



## herald (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You mean Chris Pramas that hasn't  been working for WotC for a long time.
> 
> Sheesh, folks. If you are going to make this kind of case, at least point out someone who is making d20 stuff who actually IS still working at WotC (like Bruce Cordell.) *





By bad.


----------



## carpedavid (May 1, 2003)

With regard to those claiming that the book shouldn't be produced or published, I simply refer you to the quote by Oscar Wilde:

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written."

Since, in this case, the book is also a product, I would add "useful or not useful" to the criteria. If the book is useful, and can contribute to my campaign, then I'll buy it. If not, I won't.

It is for the sake of utility that I don't own the BoVD - it didn't provide me with what I was looking for from it (which was tips on creating well thought out evil-doers).

-Dave


----------



## SemperJase (May 1, 2003)

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



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> * (like Bruce Cordell.) *




Better example. The difference is that Bruce Cordell is a writer, not a manager. I'm also not sure about Mr. Cordell's current employment status. Is he a regular employee of WotC, or does he write under contract. 

Example, Monte Cook recently wrote BovD for WotC, however that was contract work. He was able to continue his work for his own company ethically because of his contractual status with WotC. 

It would seem the same would not apply to AV. In addition, his status as a business manager is much different from that of a writer and would likely have a different employment contract. 
I still cannot see why WotC would want a decision maker working for another company.


----------



## EricNoah (May 1, 2003)

Bulletproof said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not trying slam A.V. by the way, I have great respect for his accomplishments in the industry.  But unless I'm mistaken about the license stuff, I think he has some explaining to do. *




Definitely, that's been my point all along.  We agree.  

However, what I'm saying is that since he specifically says "compatible with D&D" in his marketing materials (that press release which is also on the Valar website), I'm taking that to mean one of two things.  

*If this product is to be OGL-only, then the D&D reference in his marketing materials is a huge no-no. How AV could possibly make this mistake is beyond me, and thus to me this is a highly unlikely scenario. 

*  If the product is to be D20-branded, then the D&D reference would be less of a no-no.  ("You may also use the text described in the "Mandatory Trademark Use" section in your marketing materials, provided that you also include the appropriate trademark ownership statement provided in that section as well." -- this, as I read it, means you can add a phrase like "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” in your marketing material.)  Now, he didn't specifically say it that way, so he could be playing a little fast-and-loose with this, but to me this is the more likely scenario.  

But either way there's something unorthodox going on viz the D&D trademark usage, at least as far as I can see.


----------



## d20Dwarf (May 1, 2003)

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.


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I really don't think this will be an issue.  What percentage of gamers are really interested in improving the sexuality of the D&D RPG.  I think this will almost strictly be internet sales.
> 
> I personally just don't get the book.  I don't want to bring sex into my games which are usually filled with other men. *




Oh yeah, everyone will "buy it for the articles."  Sure.  Right.  I don't think the book will flop miserably like some, because I expect that the majority of the people that buy it will never intend to use it in an RPG context or, if they do, will use at most 5% of it.


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2003)

herald said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why does everything have to go back to kinky stuff.
> 
> ...




Did you read the same press release that I did?  If the book is not about fetish, then I will be even more upset at Valar because, in that case, it would appear to me that the press release would have been intentionally designed to garner attention by upsetting people in a calculated manner.  I have a personal thing against bad advertising and this would be just about the worst thing Valar could do as far as I'm concerned.

P.S.  I don't think WotC itself will fire AV on it's own accord, but I do have to wonder about Hasbro.  They have an entirely different agenda from WotC's.  If Hasbro doesn't like his religious beliefs and thinks it may damage their reputation, then they don't need to state that as their reason for firing him.  They can look for various other reasons, probably including a simple headcount reduction justification.


----------



## Bulletproof (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> However, what I'm saying is that since he specifically says "compatible with D&D" in his marketing materials (that press release which is also on the Valar website), I'm taking that to mean one of two things.
> ...





Yep.  



> *
> *  If the product is to be D20-branded, then the D&D reference would be less of a no-no.
> *




This is where I think you are incorrect.  d20 products are also OGL products, that's why d20 publishers have to waste a page on the OGL license.



> *("You may also use the text described in the "Mandatory Trademark Use" section in your marketing materials, provided that you also include the appropriate trademark ownership statement provided in that section as well." -- this, as I read it, means you can add a phrase like "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” in your marketing material.)  Now, he didn't specifically say it that way, so he could be playing a little fast-and-loose with this, but to me this is the more likely scenario.
> *




Yes, this seems to be a possible loophole, except for one thing:  d20 products are also OGL products.  AFAIK, the d20 license can't modify the OGL.  It can only add to it with more restrictions.   This is why I think you're incorrect when you say that the d20 license is less restrictive regarding trademarks.

I could certainly be wrong, and I'd love to see what someone like Ryan Dancey or Clark Peterson would say about all this.



> *
> But either way there's something unorthodox going on viz the D&D trademark usage, at least as far as I can see.
> *




Agreed.  Even if he's exploiting a loophole, and is perfectly within his legal rights, that doesn't make it right.  d20 publishers have been advised time and again not to try to exploit loopholes.  The general consensus is that it makes you look bad, WOTC will modify the license so that you have to stop doing it,  and it doesn't follow the spirit of a license that has made your business possible.


----------



## EricNoah (May 1, 2003)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> *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!)


----------



## EricNoah (May 1, 2003)

Bulletproof said:
			
		

> AFAIK, the d20 license can't modify the OGL.  It can only add to it with more restrictions.   This is why I think you're incorrect when you say that the d20 license is less restrictive regarding trademarks.
> 
> I could certainly be wrong, and I'd love to see what someone like Ryan Dancey or Clark Peterson would say about all this.
> [/B]




The d20 license isn't less restrictive; it's at least as restrictive, but in different ways.  

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).


----------



## maddman75 (May 1, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh yeah, everyone will "buy it for the articles."  Sure.  Right.  I don't think the book will flop miserably like some, because I expect that the majority of the people that buy it will never intend to use it in an RPG context or, if they do, will use at most 5% of it. *




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.


----------



## Azlan (May 1, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *And I'm not against any company taking a moral stand on issues that involve their products or licenses.  Not that D&D as developed by WOTC is G-rated in everything it depicts, but good for them for at least having a line to cross.  I would applaud them if they decided to enforce that others do the same in future, after all it is their legal right. *




Yeah. Right.

Editors and marketers of WotC:

"Violence: We are so far past that line, it's unreal."

"Sadism and masochism: We can cross that line. (Heh. These role-players: they really like dishing out violence _and_ taking it.)"

"Torture: We can cross that line, too. (As long as the player characters are doing all the torturing to the villains, and not visa-versa.)"

"Necrophilia: We can cross that line, as long as we tuck it away deep in the rules. (That is, we won't get into the explicit details of necrophilia. But having sex with dead people _is_ a necessary component in the casting of some cool spells and the creation of some neat magic objects.)"

"Black magic and demonology: But, of course! (It's all make-believe, after all. No offense to you genuine witches and Satanists, out there. As for you fundamentalist Christians: Who in the RPG industry still cares about you, nowadays?)"

"Pictures of scantily-clad or outright naked babes in the rulebooks: You betcha! It helps sell the products."

"Overt, obvious eroticism: No way! (We have to draw a line somewhere!)"



Feh. We Americans are so uptight and double-standard when it comes to sexuality. It sometimes makes me wish I lived in, er, France. (No, just kidding!)


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 1, 2003)

Azlan said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> "Pictures of scantily-clad or outright naked babes in the rulebooks: You betcha! It helps sell the products."
> ...





If you would prefer pictures of scanilty clad or outright naked NON-babes I am sure we can scrounge up Roseanne Barr for you.

Woudlnt want you to feel left out.


----------



## Azlan (May 1, 2003)

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.

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

To me, that pretty much sums up my feelings on WotC's hypocritical press release.

Earlier in this post, here on this website, someone made a similar comparison between the Book of Vile Darkness and the forthcoming Book of Erotic Fantasy; and then someone else responded to that, saying the Book of Vile Darkness has a lot of useful things that can actually benefit a role-playing campaign, whereas the forthcoming Book of Erotic Fantasy will not (i.e. it will only serve to titillate buyers and to embarrass the role-playing industry).

But, to me, even if that last statement is true, it's beside the point.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 1, 2003)

Cedric said:
			
		

> *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 (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *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 (May 1, 2003)

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.



			
				Azlan said:
			
		

> *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 (May 1, 2003)

> *"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 (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by d20Dwarf
> ...




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 (May 1, 2003)

Azlan said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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 (May 1, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *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 (May 1, 2003)

Azlan said:
			
		

> *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 (May 1, 2003)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> 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?



For the money, this individual is better off purchasing an issue of Heavy Metal, the latest Druuna release, a Corben graphic novel, a collection of Vallejo art, a Bakshi film, or one of many other sources of Erotic Fantasy that have been available for years.


----------



## Cedric (May 1, 2003)

> This post either presupposes that people should not consider this particular work improper or that no work should ever be considered improper.




...consider this particular work improper? 

The only thing you know about this particular work is a press release blurb, a few informed by biased opinions, and a slew of rumors. Perhaps people should wait until they have seen the final product or at least a reasonable representation of it before declaiming it as blasphemous to the ideals of gaming. 

As for considering no work to be improper...

Do you mean improper for print? or improper for use in my game? 

I already consider this to be improper for use in my game, and as such will exercise my right as a consumer to not purchase this product. 

But to consider it unfit for print is an entirely different matter. As long as the subject matter is not constrained from print by right of law, then I consider it to be fit for print. You can guarantee that someone will find the product valueable to them. 

In summation, if you don't like it, don't buy it. But arguing against it's right to be in print is futile and goes against 30 years of effort to make the products we enjoy weekly accepted in the marketplace. 

Cedric


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 1, 2003)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Perhaps people should wait until they have seen the final product or at least a reasonable representation of it before declaiming it as blasphemous to the ideals of gaming.



Link


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *For the money, this individual is better off purchasing an issue of Heavy Metal, the latest Druuna release, a Corben graphic novel, a collection of Vallejo art, a Bakshi film, or one of many other sources of Erotic Fantasy that have been available for years. *




Is purchase of those products and this book mutually exclusive?  I don't see how this relates to my point.


----------



## The Sigil (May 1, 2003)

Thanks for the link.

Four things struck me...

1.) Of COURSE there is going to be positve response at Andycollins.net - those that frequent the site are those who, by and large, share similar viewpoints.   No surprises there.

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).

3.) There is contained within the thread a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about "ramming your ideology down my throat" - albeit a subtle one.


> Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel
> "Unashamed."



The "unashamed" says to me, "THIS IS WHAT I THINK AND YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH IT."  Just drop the "unashamed," please (maybe I'm reading too much into it).  Obviously, you're unashamed - you cam out and told us you're doing the project!  Mentioning it in a sig is just trying to rub our noses in it if we disagree. 

4.) For all those crying, "well, the naysayers said the BoVD would be the end of D&D and it wasn't!"  No, it wasn't.  But it was the start of a trend towards the inclusion of more and more material that I find objectionable in D&D, d20, and related products (Dragon and Dungeon Magazine).  Whether you think the increase in "Mature Subject Matter" is a good thing or a bad thing, I doubt many people will argue that it is appearing with increasing frequency and in larger doses and covering even more topics.  

No, D&D didn't go to hell in a handbasket with the BoVD... but it took a few steps down that road and with talk of "more Vile material" in Dragon and Dungeon, the BoEF and speculation that Valar will continue putting out materials like this, it seems like the train in that direction is only picking up steam.  The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step... and in my opinion, we're more than a few steps down the road already.    Again, that's my opinion.

--The Sigil


----------



## EricNoah (May 1, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *Just drop the "unashamed," please (maybe I'm reading too much into it).  *




I think maybe you are.


----------



## Lol Roflmao (May 1, 2003)

*I just....no.....no*

I just can't see this book being used at my table.


[snipped by moderator]



 

Note from Eric:  Please keep your comments tasteful.


----------



## The Sigil (May 1, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I think maybe you are. *



Okay.  I'll retract that one, then.

--The Sigil


----------



## Gothmog (May 1, 2003)

Originally posted by Cedric:


> 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?



\

Amen, Cedric!  You eloquently stated what has been bothering me so much about the uproar against this book and the BoVD.  Absoltely true.

As for the question of what is proper/improper to print- as long as the book in question doesn't break any federal or state laws, pretty much anything has the right to be printed.  And the BoEF isn't going to be nearly as extreme as some of the Black Dog stuff in the WW line- books in which mature subject matter was handled well and in a way that contributed, not detracted from the game. 

Will I buy the BoEF?  Probably not- the subject matter isn't something I find necessary to include in my game.  Will I defend the right for it to exist, even though I may not personally agree with it?  YES- to my grave. 

Everyone needs to at least have the maturity to respect other people's opinions, and agree to disagree.  It bears saying again since it is so true: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT!!!


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2003)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> *
> Will I buy the BoEF?  Probably not- the subject matter isn't something I find necessary to include in my game.  Will I defend the right for it to exist, even though I may not personally agree with it?  YES- to my grave.
> 
> Everyone needs to at least have the maturity to respect other people's opinions, and agree to disagree.  It bears saying again since it is so true: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT!!! *




Has anyone said anything beyond this?  I am actually curious as to who has.  So far I haven't seen anyone make a statement any more harsh than this.  The discussion I've read seems to revolve around various people explaining why they don't like it personally, even though they think it has every right to be printed and sold, and then people getting upset about the reasons that someone doesn't personally like it.  Who, specifically, has said that this book has no right to be printed or sold?  Maybe somebody has and I missed it, so I'm curious.


----------



## Gothmog (May 1, 2003)

Originally posted by kenjib:


> Has anyone said anything beyond this? I am actually curious as to who has. So far I haven't seen anyone make a statement any more harsh than this. The discussion I've read seems to revolve around various people explaining why they don't like it personally, even though they think it has every right to be printed and sold, and then people getting upset about the reasons that someone doesn't personally like it. Who, specifically, has said that this book has no right to be printed or sold? Maybe somebody has and I missed it, so I'm curious.




If memory serves, several people in this thread, and at least one other thread here at ENWorld have said/implied that WoTC should fire AV and try to stop this book from production in order to prevent D&D from being somehow degraded.  Of course, I may have been reading more into those comments than was intended, but they came off seeming to say that.


----------



## Zappo (May 1, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *Has anyone said anything beyond this?  I am actually curious as to who has.  So far I haven't seen anyone make a statement any more harsh than this.  The discussion I've read seems to revolve around various people explaining why they don't like it personally, even though they think it has every right to be printed and sold, and then people getting upset about the reasons that someone doesn't personally like it.  Who, specifically, has said that this book has no right to be printed or sold? Maybe somebody has and I missed it, so I'm curious.*



Nevertheless, a vocal minority can put a certain pressure on publishers and distributors, scaring them into avoiding perfectly legal material. Or they can create hyperbolic rumors, causing the product to have an undeserved bad image. It happens often, in several fields of industry. That's why many others feel the need to defend the product and let the publishers know that there are many, many more people who either support it or don't care about it.

That said, this discussion is going in circles, spiraling towards thread closure. Each side is just repeating their points ad nauseam. The best thing would be to just drop it and wait for the release and the big nothing which will happen afterwards.


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2003)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> If memory serves, several people in this thread, and at least one other thread here at ENWorld have said/implied that WoTC should fire AV and try to stop this book from production in order to prevent D&D from being somehow degraded.  Of course, I may have been reading more into those comments than was intended, but they came off seeming to say that. *




Ah, okay.  I see now.  I forgot about that with all the deluge of posts that came later.  Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## kenjib (May 1, 2003)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Nevertheless, a vocal minority can put a certain pressure on publishers and distributors, scaring them into avoiding perfectly legal material. Or they can create hyperbolic rumors, causing the product to have an undeserved bad image. It happens often, in several fields of industry. That's why many others feel the need to defend the product and let the publishers know that there are many, many more people who either support it or don't care about it.*




To be honest, I think this is even more of a tempest in a teapot than worrying about the effect this book might have on the industry is.  Arguing about arguing about something?



			
				Zappo said:
			
		

> *That said, this discussion is going in circles, spiraling towards thread closure. Each side is just repeating their points ad nauseam. The best thing would be to just drop it and wait for the release and the big nothing which will happen afterwards. *




Good point!  I've been wasting too much time on these threads.  Time to move on and stop arguing about whether or not we should be arguing.


----------



## SemperJase (May 1, 2003)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> *Originally posted by kenjib:
> 
> 
> If memory serves, several people in this thread, and at least one other thread here at ENWorld have said/implied that WoTC should fire AV and try to stop this book from production in order to prevent D&D from being somehow degraded.*




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. 

I did not say that WotC should prevent the book from being produced. I believe that AV has the right (not the obligation) to publish it. 

Please note, I am not infringing Mr. Valtera's rights. I am not taking away or advocating to take away his right to publish this. I am advocating consequences for publishing this. Namely I will not purchase it and I will ask others not to purchase it as well. I will also use what little pressure I have to get WotC to terminate their relationship with the publisher of this material. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. 

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


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (May 1, 2003)

Cedric said:
			
		

> *...consider this particular work improper?
> 
> The only thing you know about this particular work is a press release blurb, a few informed by biased opinions, and a slew of rumors. Perhaps people should wait until they have seen the final product or at least a reasonable representation of it before declaiming it as blasphemous to the ideals of gaming.*




I think the press release and other releases make the nature of this work quite clear but that's beside the point. What I'm objecting to is the principle that it's always ok (or, as some people seem to think,  praiseworthy) to blur the lines of acceptability as a previous poster put it. There are lots of lines of acceptability that should not be blurred and if a defense of this product--even if everyone is wrong and this is a good and valuable product for every game--cannot differentiate between lines that should and lines that should not be blurred then that defense is pernicious.

*



			As for considering no work to be improper...

Do you mean improper for print? or improper for use in my game?
		
Click to expand...


*
Improper for print (although I'd extend the concept to using in one's game too). I presume there are a number of things we would both consider to be improper for print (although from your post, most of the things you consider improper for print are probably also illegal to print). I think the idea of something being objectively improper (for me, you, or any other person) is one that is essential to society.

*



			I already consider this to be improper for use in my game, and as such will exercise my right as a consumer to not purchase this product. 

But to consider it unfit for print is an entirely different matter. As long as the subject matter is not constrained from print by right of law, then I consider it to be fit for print. You can guarantee that someone will find the product valueable to them.
		
Click to expand...


*
That's precisely the problem. I can guarantee that, no matter how vile the subject you wanted to print, if it were legal, there would be a significant market for it--heck, there's a significant market for a lot of things that are illegal to print. So being vile or destructive is obviously no obstacle to marketability. Lots of someones find the vilest kinds of illegal material [specifics left out due to moderation] valuable to them. That doesn't make such material fit to print. This is obviously not the same thing but if we come to believe that marketability=printability in this case, we are likely to continue to believe it in others.

The second part of the problem is this--in most western societies, it is the people (usually indirectly) who decide what is legal and what is illegal to print. Hopefully that decision is based on an idea of what is fit to be printed. In that case, having a defining what is fit for print as what is legal to print is a hopelessly circular bit of logic. It also offers no hope for increasing the justice of laws. By that logic, if it were illegal to print D&D books, we would have no way to argue that they were fit to print. (Illegal=unfit to print, if D&D books=illegal, D&D books=unfit to print). Nor would we have an argument to make something that IS legal [like the publication of digitally altered pornography that is made to look like the boys or girls involved are underage] illegal. The equation of legality with propriety (in any area--not just the area of printing) makes principled resistance to injustice impossible it also makes.

That is why I consider the incautious arguments used to defend this book to be far more dangerous than the particular book itself. If people buy a copy of the sex book it won't be the end of the world. On the other hand, if people seriously begin to think that ANYTHING that there's a market for should be legal, we're in a world of trouble. And a system of thought that equates illegality and wrongness so closely that saying it is illegal because it is wrong is functionally the same as saying "it's illegal because it's illegal" is likely to encourage that.

*



			In summation, if you don't like it, don't buy it. But arguing against it's right to be in print is futile and goes against 30 years of effort to make the products we enjoy weekly accepted in the marketplace.
		
Click to expand...


*
I don't see how saying that there are things that shouldn't be printed means that D&D is automatically one of them. When I explain to people why D&D is OK, I'm not telling them I approve  of Big Breasts Small Waist or Nymphology. Saying that the publishers should have been better than to [plan to] print this goes against none of the efforts I've made to make the products I enjoy accepted in the marketplace.


----------



## Zappo (May 2, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *To be honest, I think this is even more of a tempest in a teapot than worrying about the effect this book might have on the industry is. Arguing about arguing about something?*



Yeah. It will get published, it will probably even sell well, out of sheer originality if nothing else (heck, I might buy it just because good fantasy photographs, erotic or not, are a rare sight), and noone outside the gaming community will take notice. I don't worry, I'm just enjoying the heat.


----------



## Zappo (May 2, 2003)

edit: nevermind, what was written here was just a temporary brain malfunction on my part.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

_Edited: Reply to a brain malfunction not worth reading..._


----------



## Enceladus (May 2, 2003)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *edit: nevermind, what was written here was just a temporary brain malfunction on my part.  *





Wouldn'tve hurt this thread any.


----------



## jdavis (May 2, 2003)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think the press release and other releases make the nature of this work quite clear but that's beside the point. What I'm objecting to is the principle that it's always ok (or, as some people seem to think,  praiseworthy) to blur the lines of acceptability as a previous poster put it. There are lots of lines of acceptability that should not be blurred and if a defense of this product--even if everyone is wrong and this is a good and valuable product for every game--cannot differentiate between lines that should and lines that should not be blurred then that defense is pernicious.
> 
> ...



*


I've been trying real hard to follow along on this and I just can't. Are you saying that because people support this book then they will support all books? Are you saying that the opinion I hold and post is incautious or unthought out, that I am just spouting off without thought to what the ramifications are by saying this book doesn't bother me? I am honestly wondering about this because it seems like you are promoting the belief that people who say that this doesn't bother them or that it's ok to print haven't thought about it enough and will have to support every product that comes down the line from now on regardless of wht they think becaus ethey supported this one? I'm actually wondering if this is your point. Anyway on to something else.

These people can print what they wish and not worry about the legality of it because they are nowhere near the legal limits of this kind of stuff, there is no legal arguement to be had and it is arguable that this would not even be considered pornogaphy in any shape or form (I haven't seen it yet, but rest assured that if it crosses the legal line nobody will end up seeing it). Yes it probably will be of a mildly pornographic nature in that it will contain nudity but so does a lot of movies and cable TV and those are not attacked as vigoruosly as this has been here. Anybody see Helen of Troy on the USA network? It had butt shots and sexual situations (including rape) and it was on basic cable. Any points or arguements on this book in this direction are moot until it actually comes out, it's too soon to call, even with what is been written other places. If it's offensive I'll be the first person to say so, and if it offends me then it's probably bad, but it's just too soon to say whether it will be offensive tastless or poorly written or anything like that right now, you can't tell from the press release because that was so poorly written and produced you can't even figure out who approves what or who is doing what. There are as many levels of offense and inpropriety as there are people, these are opinions, it will never reach the legal limit set because what is allowable for sexual content in publication is fairly loosly bound and set at a very high level of filth. Whether it's obsene or not is a non-issue that you will have to take up with yourself as the only measure that will count is your own personal opinion and that's not legally binding. Whether it is in good taste or not is also a matter of pure opinion. These points are out the window here they really don't matter legally.

What does matter with this, well the legal ramifications of the press release and the WoTC response to it for one. I must say that was a horrible press release but it did exactly what they intended it stirred up attention for the book. There is no such thing as bad press, this book will sell 10 times better because of what press it's gotten. Is WoTC behind this? Well I doubt it, all conspiracy theories aside do you think Hasbro (a toy company) would allow them to risk this kind of backhanded deception in order to print questionalbe material? The possible gains for WoTC are so small and the possible repercussions of this are huge. They are not involved and probably are horrified and may felt they were misled intitally by this project. You can draw no correlation between this book and the BoVD, the BoVD is actually pretty tame even by generally accepted social standards, it has 4 or 5 pages top that can even be agrued about, the rest was pretty tame by comparison to mainstream D&D products throughout the years. I actually felt sort of misled by the adult warning on the cover as the book wasn't all that. This new book on the other hand will definatly be questionable and will definatly be for adults only, it's not a marketing ploy, it actual adult content. The people at WoTC don't want this book because it could really hurt their buisness, they are not secretly behind it. There will be a big difference if this book has D20 or the D&D logo on it or not. They can't stop it but they can ask that their logo not be on it and they should, furthermore they should be very worried and angry about the press release as it makes it sound as if they are the driving force behind this project and that their top officials are promoting a alternative lifestyle under the guise of D&D. It's their right to do what they will but the press release was very poorly done and was very questionable. No body should get fired over this but there should be a discussion about how this press release damages WoTC credibility and could be seen as them actually supporting several things they probably wish to distance themselves from. I would expect a retraction on the press release and it being changed to something that doesn't sound like it was written by Vince McMahon to promote Wrestlemania. The press release was very very poorly done and I refuse to judge AV, WoTC or this project based on what was written in that piece of silly propaganda. I have nothing against this project or against adult content, heck I am for more adult content, but the press release for this project made them all out to be crazy loons who support D&D based orgies, it just seemed very unprofessional (many people thought it was a bad joke initially) and goofy. I think that is the real issue here, not wheter it's a dirty book or not but whether somebody on the inside is trying to take advantage of the system to gain free press for his private book release.*


----------



## fusangite (May 2, 2003)

I think I'll have another go at stating my position in the hopes that it comes across more clearly this time.

1. What do I want?

(a) I want the publishers of this supplement to scrap their plans to publish it and make it commerciall available.
(b) If the publishers won't do that, I'd like WOTC to request that stores which wish to stock its books not stock the supplement.
(c) If neither the publishers nor WOTC are willing to do these things, I'll just refrain from buying the book.

2. Why do I want to use voluntary measures to restrict this supplement's circulation?

(a) Because I don't feel that WOTC and D&D should be in any way associated with selling sexual materials to minors. There are many families and communities which will develop a more adverse opinion of this game as the result of such an association. I know it's unfair and everyone should just be open minded and free but WOTC and the rest of us operate in the real world, where exercising our constitutional right to free expression nonetheless has consequences.
(b) Because I feel the people most likely to purchase this supplement are young men whose appetite for pornography is large and whose access is restricted. I don't want parents to come into rooms where D&D is being played and see their kids' faces turn red and books slam shut any more frequently than this already happens.
(c) Because, like it or not, the mere publication of a book will lend legitimacy to its contents and make it seem more appropriate for inexperienced young DMs to attempt to include sexually explicit material in their games. I believe that most adolescents, community leaders and parents will not make the subtle distinction between D&D material and D20 material. It will become more "OK" and viewed as more reasonable for sex to become a central part of a game.
(d) Because I don't want adolescent D&D games to develop any more of a sexual dynamic than they already have. Such a dynamic will contribute to fewer girls becoming involved in the game at a young age. Such a huge portion of those playing RPGs start in their teens and such a small portion of gamers are female, I don't want any more teenaged girls turned off by their first D&D experience than already are.

3. Given that there is so much sex in fantasy literature, why can't I tolerate sex in D&D?

(a) Sex in games and sex in books are completely different things. Very few games -- and absolutely no games marketed to teenagers (as D&D is) -- involve sexuality. Most games that do involve sex are drinking games and games like strip poker -- barely games at all but pretexts for drunk people to get frisky with eachother. 
(b) Sex in commercially available games is abnormal in this society. Like it or not. We can lament the fact that we must live in a society that doesn't sell commercial sex games and complain about how unhip mainstream western civilization is but that doesn't alter the fact that this is the society in which we are situated. Games about sex are and will be viewed as abnormal and something that people should discourage. There are plenty of parents who are not part of the Christian Right and don't give a crap about Satanism who are going to be upset by their 13 year old son buying D&D game aids full of pornographic pictures, and suggestive material. 
(c) I have yet to hear of a game that has considerable sexual content whose primary function is not increasing the probability of physical intimacy amongst its participants. 

WOTC has a responsibility to ensure that D&D survives in _this_ society; that means making compromises and ensuring that a subsidiary of a children's toy company does not is not associated with a product parents want to keep away from children.

Yes, we North Americans are all terrible hypocrites because we apply one standard to sex and another to violence. Unfortunately, that's the society in which D&D is operating. WOTC are not candidates for public office nor are they a church -- that means that the important work of creating a society which accepts the sexualization of childrens' games will have to be carried out by you clever open-minded people and your post-patriarchal values. Good luck with that.


----------



## hunter1828 (May 2, 2003)

*BoEF*

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.

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 didn't need a book to introduce those things to me and neither do young gamers today.  Whether they get their hands on the book or not their games are likely to be full of such stuff, and having the book in hand will most likely not change anything or give anyone an idea they didn't already have.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert and have been from the tender age of 10.

Anyway...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.  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.

hunter1828


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Is purchase of those products and this book mutually exclusive?  I don't see how this relates to my point.



If someone is going to by a book "for jollies", he'd be by far better of either purchasing _actual_ porn, followed by erotica, followed by erotic literature...  Buying this book will present the reader with imagry, sure, but also with a lot of game-related information and numerical information that won't serve such purposes.


----------



## Pirate Queen Eliza (May 2, 2003)

> absolutely no games marketed to teenagers (as D&D is) -- involve sexuality.




Gigantic, throbbing bollocks.  You must not know the password to your own copy of Net Nanny or something, because this is the most false out of all the statements I've read in conjuction with this book, and that's saying a lot.

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.  

Not to mention stuff like GTA: Vice City or hell, even Postal (shudder).  Sheesh.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *If someone is going to by a book "for jollies", he'd be by far better of either purchasing actual porn, followed by erotica, followed by erotic literature...*




All three of those *are* "actual porn".  The game related content in the upcoming Book of Erotic Fantasy will no more reduce its status as pornography than the articles printed in Playboy or Penthouse.

I find it sad that embracing such material in a public forum or commercial industry is considered "courageous" and worthy of praise.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> All three of those *are* "actual porn".



I would differ in this view.  A reminder: The film-version of Heavy Metal received (in America) an "R" rating, not X, and it was far from watered-down from the print version of the tales it contained.  Eyes Wide Shut and 9 Days also are Erotica, and also received R ratings.

It would seem that, while entitled to your opinion in the matter, you have more stringent guidelines than the MPAA as to what constitutes as porn and what doesn't.


----------



## SemperJase (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Eyes Wide Shut and 9 Days also are Erotica, and also received R ratings.
> *




Which goes to show the foolishness of the MPAA. Eyes Wide Shut did actually receive an X rating its first time through. It wasn't until digital images were inserted to strategically block the viewing of specific body parts that the movie got an R rating.  As if an additional statue in the room changed the nature of the scene.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Similar actually happened with Natural Born Killers.  There was some debate over what scenes needed to be cut in order to reduce it to R, and it ended up not being any of the scenes.  Rather, it was the graphic "flashes" that occured throughout the movie at seemingly random times to heighten the sense of the Knoxx's chaotic and violent nature.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *I would differ in this view.  A reminder: The film-version of Heavy Metal received (in America) an "R" rating, not X, and it was far from watered-down from the print version of the tales it contained.  Eyes Wide Shut and 9 Days also are Erotica, and also received R ratings.
> 
> It would seem that, while entitled to your opinion in the matter, you have more stringent guidelines than the MPAA as to what constitutes as porn and what doesn't. *




The MPAA doesn't give ratings based on what's porn and what isn't, but on degrees of pornography.

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.

In entertainment and game material and such, we (or at least I) tend to rate things by what the overall product is trying to convey.  And from what has been released by the creators of the BoEF, the point of the book is to arouse with its "flavor text" and erotic imagery, as well as provide game mechanics for situations that are arousing.

To that I say, alas....

And again I just think its a sad state of affairs, both that the product is getting released and that many are embracing it, some apparently just to spite those who whose morals simply state that certain material is unacceptable.

I'm not judging anyone, it would be equally sad if I did, and I'm definitely no paragon of virtue myself.  I'm just disappointed that such explicit pornography is getting such attention and interest, particularly in the context of such an endearing hobby.


----------



## SemperJase (May 2, 2003)

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 (May 2, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Bendris,
> 
> I read your sig and found it to be ironic:
> 
> ...




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 (May 2, 2003)

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 (May 2, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (May 2, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

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



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 (May 2, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> 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 (May 2, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> 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 (May 2, 2003)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (May 2, 2003)

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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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 (May 2, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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...


----------



## Pirate Queen Eliza (May 2, 2003)

*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.


----------



## hunter1828 (May 2, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "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. *




So do I.  I grew up in a house full of smokers.  Heck, as a child I was sent to the store three blocks away to purchase cigarettes for members of my family (this was way before laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors).  Yet I don't smoke cigarettes and never have.  Never was tempted to.  I simply chose not to.  
I am an historical reenactor and when in a role as a soldier or fur trader I will occasionaly have a cigar or a pipe, but this is limited to two or three times a year and never out of character.

Even children can make choices, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong.  And wrong choices have consequences and people should learn to accept that and not blame others.

If my mother ends up with lung or throat cancer from smoking all her life I will NOT blame the tobacco industry, but rather my mother who chose to continue to smoke even when the doctor told her she shouldn't.

hunter1828


---------

I'm not deleting this post but I am apologizing for posting so far off topic.  It won't happen from me again.

hunter1828


----------



## SemperJase (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> * 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?
> *




First, Valar put out the press release mentioning you can see naked elves, so take that one up with them.

Second, an underage audience is a natural part of the demographic. Valar is at best naive if they deny underage audiences would be attracted to this book.


----------



## fusangite (May 2, 2003)

Bendris says, 



> 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?




Look, plenty of games are published outside of WOTC D20 stuff every year. So why don't you ask yourself why these people didn't care that they chose to produce a product for the game system (out of all possible systems) most aggressively marketed to kids? 

Contrary to your accusation, I'm not saying that they are intentionally marketing this thing to kids, I'm saying that they appear to be indifferent to this question. I think questions of audience are pretty damned important when one chooses to publish something. For instance, even if it were legal, I don't think most authors of pornographic fanfic for the Star Wars universe would attempt to market it because they would understand that this was a special audience that should be treated carefully. I think the D&D audience merits the same consideration.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> First, Valar put out the press release mentioning you can see naked elves, so take that one up with them.



Nudity and porn are not the same thing.  If you think it is, take it up with a counsling session.



> Second, an underage audience is a natural part of the demographic. Valar is at best naive if they deny underage audiences would be attracted to this book.



_Oh, dear!  The Story of O! is a graphic novel!  Batman has graphic novels!  Oh, what will we ever do?!

Oh, dear!  Lady Chatterly's Lover is a movie!  Cinderella has a movie!  Oh, what will we ever do?!_

Sorry, not buying it.  Until you see mass-media advertisement (which, frankly, no RPG gets) and possibly the lack of a Mature Label for vendors to discriminate their sales to minors (which I'm inclined to believe AV will do because of comments made in an earlier thread about such material), this is just another empty stance.


----------



## SemperJase (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Listen carefully.*



			
				Pirate Queen Eliza said:
			
		

> *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.*




I disagree. Your company put out the press release. The press release is an official communication of your company. I have much to criticize about what they claim they will publish. If your company does not want that criticism, tell them not to publish press releases (especially if they are inaccurate as you claim). 

Now after the fact, you are saying you can't criticize us because an official statement was incorrect. Too late. 

Now Valar has to decide if they want to be perceived as intentionally misleading prospective buyers, or incompetent in not knowing their own products.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Look, plenty of games are published outside of WOTC D20 stuff every year. So why don't you ask yourself why these people didn't care that they chose to produce a product for the game system (out of all possible systems) most aggressively marketed to kids?



Despite this recent claim about kids being the majority of gamers and marketing (which is false even though the Core Rules tend to treat players like 8th graders with empowerment issues), the majority of players are 18 or older.  Also, D&D markets on its own, which includes their own mature _line_ of products.  Do you hold WotC to this same line of scrutiny?  Don't their mature products also appeal to younger gamers?  Are they not guilty of the same misdeeds you now thrust upon Valar?



> Contrary to your accusation, I'm not saying that they are intentionally marketing this thing to kids, I'm saying that they appear to be indifferent to this question.



As my previous post indicates, this has yet to be seen.  One press release does not a corruptor of children make.



> I think questions of audience are pretty damned important when one chooses to publish something. For instance, even if it were legal, I don't think most authors of pornographic fanfic for the Star Wars universe would attempt to market it because they would understand that this was a special audience that should be treated carefully. I think the D&D audience merits the same consideration.



Actually, I don't know about Star Wars, but there are no less than two "adult" versions of Star Trek.  There's even one for Flash Gorden.  I'm not too worried about these getting into the hands of children any more than I'm worried about anything else of that sort (which, of course, shouldn't get into a child's hand).

By the same merit, when you go to a comic book shop, you don't find Druuna or Heavy Metal on the shelf next to the X-Men or Richie Rich.

And I've only seen one out of over a dozen gaming stores that put the Book of Vile Darkness amongst their other d20 products (and they had it wrapped in plastic).

So, yes, it is indeed _your_ accusation that is rediculous; It's a shout of doomsday before the facts are known to justify it.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Listen carefully.*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> Now Valar has to decide if they want to be perceived as intentionally misleading prospective buyers, or incompetent in not knowing their own products.



Didn't Wizards do similar concerning the Book of Vile Darkness?

Why, yes, I think they did...

Guess WotC is misleading or incompetent.


----------



## Gothmog (May 2, 2003)

Origianlly posted by SemperJase:


> "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.




Originally posted by fusangite:


> 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.




Really bad analogy guys.  Cigarettes are targeted at a young demographic, unfortunately.  Also, tobacco is addictive- many studies concluding it is one of the three most addictive drugs known to man.  Smoking can easily be traced to such problems as lung cancer, emphysema, etc.  If the law says that tobacco cannot be sold to persons under 18 years of age, and the merchant or maker of that product violates that law, they are held criminally liable.

This is a game book.  It is not addictive, nor does it cause health problems.  From what I have read about this product, it seems that it will be targeted at mature audiences (17+ at the least).  It would probably be best if it had the same disclaimer the BoVD did, requiring the buyer be at least 17 years old.  Any retailer worth anything will check IDs to insure that this is upheld.  If a kid gets his hands on this book, then yes, maybe a merchant was lax in his sales.  Criminally liable?  Probably not, although it depends on local laws.  But more likely is the situation that someone older than the kid bought the book, then intentionally or unintentionally allowed the kid to have access to it.  That is not the publishers fault in either case- it is the fault of the parent not checking up on their kid.  Parents who find a child with this book should take the opportunity to talk with their child, and help them understand what is going on.  Simply making a knee-jerk reaction to this book and accusing the publisher of wrongdoing is irresponsible.


----------



## fusangite (May 2, 2003)

> Despite this recent claim about kids being the majority of gamers and marketing (which is false even though the Core Rules tend to treat players like 8th graders with empowerment issues), the majority of players are 18 or older.




Re-read my post. Where do I say that kids are the majority. What I said was the majority _start as kids._



> Also, D&D markets on its own, which includes their own mature _line_ of products.  Do you hold WotC to this same line of scrutiny?  Don't their mature products also appeal to younger gamers?  Are they not guilty of the same misdeeds you now thrust upon Valar?




Again, you're collapsing all "mature products" into the same category as this book. I think you're failing to appreciate how exceptional such a book is; it's not analogous nor equivalent with all that much. 



> By the same merit, when you go to a comic book shop, you don't find Druuna or Heavy Metal on the shelf next to the X-Men or Richie Rich.




Yes. But I don't see them with an "Archie Comics" logo on them, do I? I believe these books will have the gaming equivalent thereof. 

Furthermore, as I keep saying, sexual games are not the same as and should not be judged by the same standards as other products that pertain to sex. As I repeatedly say, games about sex are much weirder and much less common and much more transgressive than books or movies about it!

Please stop trying to make this book look reasonable by comparing it to things which do not bear comparison.


----------



## kenjib (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Listen carefully.*



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Didn't Wizards do similar concerning the Book of Vile Darkness?
> 
> Why, yes, I think they did...
> 
> Guess WotC is misleading or incompetent. *




Anthony Valterra.  Hmm...


----------



## Harlock (May 2, 2003)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> *This is a game book.  It is not addictive, nor does it cause health problems.*




I just had to pick on that a little bit.  Addictions come in all forms.  Some people are in fact addicted to pornography.  Some people are addicted to sex.  For better or for worse this book is related to one or the other of these (and or both or neither depending on your tastes, I'm eliminating the moral imperative here) and they can and do cause health problems.  Am I saying the Book of Erotic Fantasy will be the ruination of d20, D&D or Role Playing games?  Not hardly.  I don't give it near that much credit.  Am I saying the BoEF will soil young minds and lead to little Billy growing up, having unsafe or violent sex and hurting himself or someone else?  Nope.  But I am not dismissing that it _could_.  Addiction in most any form is generally not a good thing.  Even being addicted to say, reading the Bible could be a very bad thing.  Addiction itself is bad because it implies a dependence upon something in order to "function".  That's all.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Harlock said:
			
		

> Addictions come in all forms.



Essentially, all forms of addiction are of two forms: Mental and Physical.

Mental addiction is related to some emotional lacking, void, misunderstanding, or other such related instance.  In this, I'm sure most will agree that D&D and just about anything else can become an addict's "hook".

Physical addiction is what cigarettes are most often perscribed to.  The nicotene causes a shift in body chemistry in which the body slowly becomes more and more used to it being there, using it instead of other chemicals to perform certain functions.

So when it's said that D&D isn't addictive, what is meant is that D&D doesn't _cause_ physical addiction in the same manner as smoking.  Nor, in fact, does it cause mental addiction, since that is indeed caused by something else and D&D simply becomes the "focus" of neurotic behavior.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 2, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> 3.) There is contained within the thread a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about "ramming your ideology down my throat" - albeit a subtle one.
> 
> The "unashamed" says to me, "THIS IS WHAT I THINK AND YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH IT."  Just drop the "unashamed," please (maybe I'm reading too much into it).  Obviously, you're unashamed - you cam out and told us you're doing the project!  Mentioning it in a sig is just trying to rub our noses in it if we disagree.




I love reading your posts Sigil (even though I never seem to agree with them), but this made me chuckle a little.

Here is what your sig says:

Once (it abadons the notion of absolute morality for that of relative morality), a society loses its capacity to distinguish between right and wrong and the will to declare that some things are wrong per se. Without the lamp (of absolute morality), our world finds itself desperately building temporary defenses, drawing new lines, forever falling back, unwilling to confront. A society which permits anything will eventually lose everything!
--Quote adapted from Neal A. Maxwell

Pot - Kettle?

(I don't know, maybe it's too subtle and I'm reading too much into it too)

hehe, keep up the good work, I appreciate anyone who can so articulately argue their viewpoints. If every other forum I read had such well argued points I would be a total shut-in.


----------



## Gothmog (May 2, 2003)

Originally posted by Harlock:


> I just had to pick on that a little bit. Addictions come in all forms. Some people are in fact addicted to pornography. Some people are addicted to sex. For better or for worse this book is related to one or the other of these (and or both or neither depending on your tastes, I'm eliminating the moral imperative here) and they can and do cause health problems. Am I saying the Book of Erotic Fantasy will be the ruination of d20, D&D or Role Playing games? Not hardly. I don't give it near that much credit. Am I saying the BoEF will soil young minds and lead to little Billy growing up, having unsafe or violent sex and hurting himself or someone else? Nope. But I am not dismissing that it could. Addiction in most any form is generally not a good thing. Even being addicted to say, reading the Bible could be a very bad thing. Addiction itself is bad because it implies a dependence upon something in order to "function". That's all.




Good point Harlock.  I was simply stating that this book will not be directly physically or psychologically addictive, unlike nicotine.  I seriously doubt that this book will cause an addition to porn or sex due to reading/looking at it.  Sexual addictions usually occur in people who engage in certain specific sexual activities/lifestyles anyway.  Evidence is also increasingly pointing towards psychological addictions being the result of something called "addictive personality type", in which the person, for biochemical and possibly developmental reasons, is predisposed towards addictive behaviors.  Anything done to excess can lead to problems down the road.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Lots of posts I've enjoyed reading




You sir, are my new ENWorld hero.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> You sir, are my new ENWorld hero.



What..?!  I've got a fan...

...

Eek!  I'm shy...

Seriously, I'm kind of one of the pariahs around here...  Don't like core balance...  Dispise power gaming...  Rewrote the Player's Handbook...  Really, this is only going to get you in trouble...

Ehr...  And when did I post _that_? (Edit: Nevermind...  I get it now...  Thanks.)


----------



## Gothmog (May 2, 2003)

Originally posted by Bendris Noulg:


> Seriously, I'm kind of one of the pariahs around here... Don't like core balance... Dispise power gaming... Rewrote the Player's Handbook... Really, this is only going to get you in trouble...




Yep, I have read your posts for a while too, and we think similarly on a lot of issues and topics.  You'd be welcome to belly-up to my game table any time.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Re-read my post. Where do I say that kids are the majority. What I said was the majority _start as kids._



Got two "actually"s here...

First, what you actually posted was...

_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._

Second, you weren't the only person to make the implication, so I simply used wording to cover the entire issue.



> Again, you're collapsing all "mature products" into the same category as this book. I think you're failing to appreciate how exceptional such a book is; it's not analogous nor equivalent with all that much.



I'm saying that, as a mature product, it should gain the same consideration as the BoVD does.  Also, looking at some of the shops I purchase gaiming supplies at, it should also receive the same consideration as Heavy Metal, Druuna, Cherry Blossom, Royo/Franzetta/Vellajo collections, and all the other "mature" material they carry.  As such treatment is indeed the standard within the industry already, I find it hard to take seriously claims that this single book will be treated otherwise simply because it's part of the RPG section.



> Yes. But I don't see them with an "Archie Comics" logo on them, do I? I believe these books will have the gaming equivalent thereof.



Speculation.  Nothing thus far indicates that this will be a d20 product.  In fact, everything thus far points only to the OGL, which isn't printed on either of the covers but on the inside.



> Furthermore, as I keep saying, sexual games are not the same as and should not be judged by the same standards as other products that pertain to sex. As I repeatedly say, games about sex are much weirder and much less common and much more transgressive than books or movies about it!



Thing is, "sex games" are (based on those which I've owned, played and seen) require the person to physically do something with their partner (or a partner with a house rule or two).  This isn't that at all, but is an RPG, with the same _declare action/roll die/resolve_ mechanic, relating all events to the characters, just like any other RPG available.

If anything, this will simply add to the game as an option the following:

Sex Magic (which I'm likely to review first with hopes of using)
Rules for seduction (which I might use if it's well written)
Rules for love (+2 Attack Bonus when defending your betrothed?  Might use that...)
Rules for sex itself (less likely to use, but will review anyways)
Herbal/magical birth control (likely use if it's not cheesy/needlessly gross)
STDs (nothing like a plague to stir up the heat in a campaign)
Recognition that the chainmail bikini/loinclothe is a viable option (being as the Core Rules already allow it but no one talks about it)



> Please stop trying to make this book look reasonable by comparing it to things which do not bear comparison.



Please stop trying to make this book look unreasonable by comparing it to things which do not bear comparison.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Yep, I have read your posts for a while too, and we think similarly on a lot of issues and topics.  You'd be welcome to belly-up to my game table any time.



AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gothmog (May 2, 2003)

Originally posted by Bendris Noulg:


> AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!




So I guess this means you won't endorse a Bendris Noulg fanclub?!?!?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Tempting...


----------



## Orcus (May 2, 2003)

> 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.
> 
> ...




I find this position and attitude troubling.

First, as I see it you are both just freelancers. I dont think either of you are in the position to control the final version of the product regardless of what you write. I am certainly not controlled by what my freelancers turn in. If they didnt do it like I want it, I can send it back or change it myself. Thats why you are the writers. I am the producer. So I dont buy into the idea that because you have seen the manuscript you know the final result. You can give us the intent of the AUTHOR. But the product will be published by the PUBLISHER, and their intent should be in the press release. So you cant disregard the press release.

As I see it, this product right now has two faces: the press release and your comments. I can't trust the author that their text will remain intact, despite the fact that your posts are clear and indicate a product different than that implied and promoted by the ad copy. 

The face presented by you seems reasonable and not really that objectionable for the most part. 

The face presented in the press release is nothing more than explotive crap with little redeeming value aimed purely at a juvenile and prurient interest in the topic.

We have every right to judge the product based on the press release regardless of your assurances since (unless I missed something) you cant promise me that what you write will be the actual product or that other stuff wont be added to your writing beyond your intent.

So at this point, I dont think criticisms of the product based on the press release can be dismissed. We do have something to criticize--the stated intent of the Publisher.

Was it a crappy press release? Yes. Should it be redone? Most likely. But until that time, that release is a statement of what the book will be and we can judge it.

Clark


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Fusangite:_
> Yes. But I don't see them with an "Archie Comics" logo on them, do I? I believe these books will have the gaming equivalent thereof.





> _Originally posted by me:_
> Speculation. Nothing thus far indicates that this will be a d20 product. In fact, everything thus far points only to the OGL, which isn't printed on either of the covers but on the inside.



Just remembered something that I want to add here (enough that it woke me up just as I was falling asleep): Epic Adventures is no longer published, but it was also a graphic magazine that featured Erotic Fantasy.  It was a direct competitor to Heavy Metal.  It was published by Marvel.


----------



## jdavis (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Listen carefully.*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I disagree. Your company put out the press release. The press release is an official communication of your company. I have much to criticize about what they claim they will publish. If your company does not want that criticism, tell them not to publish press releases (especially if they are inaccurate as you claim).
> 
> ...




I don't think I have agreed with any of your points or statements in this thread yet, matter of fact I am most likely on the exact opposite side of this argument that you are, but this I can agree on. This press release was so very bad and so very contrived to get exactly this sort of reaction, if that's not what the book is about then they shouldn't of said that's what the book is about. Almost every problem and arguement that has sprung up over this topic has centered around what that press release stated would be in the book. I don't agree with the people screaming porn and "what about the children" but they do have a point on the press release. It makes it look like this is a official sanctioned book based on adolescent fantasies about elf sex and that is just silly, it goes on and on about fetishes and even mentions a occult church, when you release statements like that then you should expect reactions like they are getting. I know the two people involved who have posted here have both disagreed with the press release and I have a feeling that this book will not be anything near as wild as it is being pictured in some people's minds around here so I am not worried about it corrupting the youth or hurting D&D, the press release has done more damage to D&D than the book could ever do as it has brought into contention the rules that second party games are governed by not to mentioned portrayed gamers in a very odd light.

This isn't about porn or ruining D&D's reputation as both of those arguements are sad jokes. I can find better porn for free in under 30 seconds on the web and worse graphic material is shown on HBO almost every night of the week, but more important any 12 year old kid with half a brain can find the porn just as easily. As porn this is the equivalent to kids flipping through a Victoria Secrets catalog, as far as the rules presented go well we have not got one single clue to what those will deal with so that goes out the window, that wasn't even covered in the bad press release. If it was going to be in bookstores on the shelves then I might give a twinge of worry but I doubt it will be that big of a publication. (Oh and just so you know my Book of Vile Darkness came from a display at the end of a isle at the local Books A Million, right out there next to the Players Handbook and a big sign for the Yu Gi Oh card game, nobody complained or even noticed, most people don't pay D&D that much attention.) The vast majority of the world just really doesn't care about D&D and really doesn't even want to care, if you told them there was a erotic D&D book most would just snicker and point out that the geeks can't get laid anyway. This cannot hurt the D&D reputation as the reputation is that it's a game for nerds and geeks, we were more popular when we were worshipping the devil, now we are not even worth the time to lambast and ridicule. Get over this hurting D&D 99% of the worlds population will never know it exist nor will they care if they find out. People say this is a game for kids, well if it doesn't find a way to get hip and cool again kids are not going to play it, kids are attracted to it because it might be cutting edge or rebellious, the future of D&D is in it getting parents to hate it again so kids will like it. That's just the way it goes teens love to do things their parents tell them they can't do, if parents say it's ok then it must not be fun.


----------



## Kilmore (May 2, 2003)

Just a little thought to those who want to put a warning on the book... not an entirely bad idea, but I don't really think a book called "The Guide to Erotic Fantasy" could possibly have much doubt as to it's contents, unless the words "Erotic Fantasy" are Elven for "flowers and candy".


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 2, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I find this position and attitude troubling.
> 
> ...




Uh oh...  Bendris Noulg is in danger of losing his hero status and being replaced.

I must say I find this controversy much better than the BoVD controversy. At times I can't be bothered to care as I don't have plans to purchase this anyways (I still need to find Fiend Folio and Tome of Horrors). At other times I think there is a market for a tasteful book covering these topics. And at the times in between, this book disgusts me and I'm going to briefly discuss the last. (Very briefly cause I've been up 4 hours longer than I should have been reading all the threads I can find).

I have absolutely no problems with the concept of the book itself or what it proposes to cover. What does bother me is the press release (although it's nice to know that retarded monkeys can still get work in this economy) and my lingering impression that the whole situation is being manipulated for reasons I can't begin to fathom (it's kind of like being a CoC investigator I suppose). There's been some interesting comments in the multitude of threads and some interesting speculation about what the book might contain as well as some reactionary comments from people who think you can, in fact, judge a book by it's cover (or in this case, title).

I wasn't too concerned initially until I found this post by Harlock (in this thread: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49496&pagenumber=5 ). 



> _Originally posted by Harlock_
> 
> Just a bit more info that AV posted on a Seattle Goth EZ Board. I tracked some stuff down from Eliza's helpful profile on Andy's site. I've also asked a question of Gwendolyn and now Eliza as well over on Andy's site. Dealing with all of these sites sucks.  What the frell, I'll post my questions from there here:
> 
> ...




* Emphasis mine
Now I'm wondering if the press release was entirely intentional, its purpose being to generate enough buzz that the book will sell copies regardless of quality. It sure is starting to look that way.

Sigh... I have no idea if this post makes any sense or not. I think I may have missed actually articulating my point. Have to read it tomorrow and see I suppose.


----------



## kenjib (May 2, 2003)

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.


----------



## jdavis (May 2, 2003)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Uh oh...  Bendris Noulg is in danger of losing his hero status and being replaced.
> 
> ...




I have stated a couple of times that the press release sounded like a WWE press release, and it really does seem similar to the kind of over the top attention grabbing stunts they pull just to get mainstream attention, (examples from Pro Wrestling, they did a gay marrage that was covered by mainstream media, a necrophelia angle that had a person simulating sex with a manakin in a coffin and a angle with HLA (Hot Lesbian Action) where the Lesbians made out in the ring and then were beaten the crap out of. None of these actually had anything to do with wrestling, just trying to create a controversy.) This Press Release reminds me of the same type of stunts done in an attempt to get mainstream media attention, the difference is that mainstream media still can be manipulated by Pro Wrestling, it' real hard to get mainstream media to care about gaming anymore. It was written with the soul purpose of getting people talking about how outrageous and controverial this product would be, without actually telling us what would really be in the book, it was a big propoganda shot with very little actual information. Without all the buzz this would of slipped past most people and we most likely would not be having this conversation, so in effect it worked, but as a backlash effect it will generate a lot of rumor and false information, not to mention looses the company a lot of respect in the community.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

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




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.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *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).*




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.



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> * 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. *




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.  How courageous that there are those unashamed to publish this for D&D.


----------



## kenjib (May 2, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 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 (May 2, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> *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 (May 2, 2003)

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 (May 2, 2003)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (May 2, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> * {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 (May 2, 2003)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *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
> 
> ...




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 (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Listen carefully.*



			
				Pirate Queen Eliza said:
			
		

> *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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Kai Lord (May 2, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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 (May 2, 2003)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *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 (May 2, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 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.
> ...





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


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

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



Doc: I see the Sigil's opinion to be more conservative than my own. I fail to see how, by making a personal choice not to partake in such things as being extreme. Could you explain?

Has, for example, the Sigil pickited a 7-11 near your house for selling copies of Playboy or something?


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SemperJase_
> 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....
> ...




Well, I fail to see it.

He believes that AV should be fired if WotC feels that they do not wish to be associated with the material he publishes. This is in no way a violation of anyone's rights. AV has the freedom of speach (and the freedom to be held accountable for that speach). WotC has a freedom to associate on with thoe people they wish to associate with.

Who's rights are being violated?

Well, some would say that AVs rights are being violated if he is fired for this. I would argue that WotC's rights are being violated if they are FORCED TO MAINTAIN HIS EMPLOYMENT. Thus, this is a wash.

And no, I still do not see how these two statements condradict each other.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

kenjib said:
			
		

> 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.



More unethical than all the other marketing ploys that use sex to raise controversy and attention..?

Hardly think so...



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> 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.



I'd certainly hope doing grandma's dishes have little to do with sex... 



> 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.



Hey, you're the one that brought definitions into this.  Don't like what that got you, don't whine to me about it.  Fact is porn is sex, erotica is sexuality.  If your own personal hang-ups force you to not see the difference, than I'd have some sympathy.  However, you seem to expect me to except that hang-up as fact and not acknowledge the difference myself, and that's where you're mistaken the most.



> 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.  How courageous that there are those unashamed to publish this for D&D.



Again, sexuality isn't necessarily sex.  Is a woman walking down the street in a tight dress and giving you an inviting look actually engaging in sex at that particular moment, or is she using sexuality to get your attention?  To take your extemist view of the matter, the woman is a walking display of pornography.

Actually, now that you mention it...

Toy Story: There is an implied deliance between Bo Peep and Woody...  Porn?  Well, it's sexuality, so it must be.

Atlantis: When Kita removes her outer robe to go swimming, Milo replies with, "Oh, I can swim pretty girl...  Pretty good.  I can swim pretty good."  He's obviously attracted towards her, so is this now pornography?

The Cosby Show: The Huckstables (sp?) have probably been (and likely will remain) the most sexually active couple on TV.  Guess we'll just chauk up their solid relationship, deep rooted love, and mutual attraction to each other as just another example of pornography.

Sorry, Kai.  I don't find your stance of sexuality=porn to be even remotely healthy as an outlook.


----------



## maddman75 (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Listen carefully.*



			
				Pirate Queen Eliza said:
			
		

> *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?  *




You must be new here.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *Doc: I see the Sigil's opinion to be more conservative than my own. I fail to see how, by making a personal choice not to partake in such things as being extreme. Could you explain?
> 
> Has, for example, the Sigil pickited a 7-11 near your house for selling copies of Playboy or something? *





When someone says that a mere Playboy Magazine is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty Bible Belt.


----------



## KnowTheToe (May 2, 2003)

There sure is a lot going on in this thread, so far it has been a pretty good lead.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

> When someone says that a mere Playboy Magazine is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty Bible Belt.



To many people, whether they be Bible-thumping-in-your-face-you-are-doomed-to-hell extremists, or simply fairly-conservative-personal-choice-I-will-not-consume-material-I-find-objectionable, or even liberal-but-feel-that-the-objectification-of-women-is-bad types can make such a statement.

It is the fact that you have placed the label extreme on someone that could fall under a whole gamut of flavors of "find's playboy objectionable" is what I object to.

I disagree with the Sigil, but I have seen nothing that would indicate that he has an extreme opinion on this matter.


----------



## Harlock (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *When someone says that a mere Playboy Magazine is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty Bible Belt. *




Conversely, when someone doesn't seem to think Playboy is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty jaded,  maybe even desensitized.  

Look, everyone, not just Doc here, this is a two way street.  People obviously have opinions on one side or the other on this issue with very few people in the middle ground.  Why not play nice and recognize that there is diversity on this issue and instead of criticizing peoples' opinions and trying to back it up by representing your own opinions as fact or inherently better than someone elses, simply state your opinion without the obtuse "trying to prove the other guy wonrg" thing we have going on.  The one-upsmanship is counter productive to an actual discussion.  If you dislike someone's opinion groovy, quit singling them out.  Just state yours and move on.  That is of course unless someone is intentionally trying to get the thread closed.  There's at least two sides to every story so claiming someone is puritanical or lewd is something that shouldn't be debated.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *To many people, whether they be Bible-thumping-in-your-face-you-are-doomed-to-hell extremists, or simply fairly-conservative-personal-choice-I-will-not-consume-material-I-find-objectionable, or even liberal-but-feel-that-the-objectification-of-women-is-bad types can make such a statement.
> 
> It is the fact that you have placed the label extreme on someone that could fall under a whole gamut of flavors of "find's playboy objectionable" is what I object to.
> 
> I disagree with the Sigil, but I have seen nothing that would indicate that he has an extreme opinion on this matter. *





I call them  extreme because most of the time people who hold views like this also hold the ideas that since THEY think the product is bad and they are against it no one should be able to see the product.

On the other hand since I have nothing wrong with this product (though I see no need for it in my gaming and no personal interest in it from me) I make no attempts to force other people who dont want to see to see it.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Piratecat (May 2, 2003)

Don't judge people, please. Post about your own feelings and opinions, but it isn't appropriate to post about how you think other people should think or act. 

EN World is a community made up of thousands of people from all over the world. We have political liberals and conservatives, sexual liberals and conservatives, and people of many different cultures. Yeah, there are going to be folks who violently disagree with you on a controversial subject. And you know what? That's okay. They're entitled to their own opinion, even when it conflicts with your own, and the same goes for you.

So Eliza has a good point: if something makes you furious, please step away from your keyboard for a few minutes before posting. It'll make the moderators' job a lot easier, and it will mean that people are more willing to respect and listen to your message when it isn't filled with angry hyperbole.

Many thanks.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Don't judge people, please. Post about your own feelings and opinions, but it isn't appropriate to post about how you think other people should think or act.
> 
> *





Is that not how most of the negative people here are posting though? It was the same with BOVD.

People who think the book is wrong and say they do not want it invariably say the book should not be published at all.

They go beyond living their morals to trying to force the res of us to live their morals.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *I call them  extreme because most of the time people who hold views like this also hold the ideas that since THEY think the product is bad and they are against it no one should be able to see the product.*



OK... perhaps I missed it -- after all, I have skimmed some people's posts in the multi-threaded discussion that the BoEF has generated... but I do not recall seeing the Sigil claim that you should not be able to see the book. I have seen him state that (in his opinion) the book is immoral, and so he will not be purchasing it. I may have missed the "and you should not be alloed to purchase it" post, so if you could point me in that direction, I would appreciate it.

[edit]: _Just to be clear, I do not see statements as "I do not think the book should be published" as falling into the catagory of forcing an opinion on the world. I see it as a simple desire; an expression of how the person feels. Forcing an opinion on the world would be more akin to "I hope, if they publish this, they are arrested" or other such comments._



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *On the other hand since I have nothing wrong with this product (though I see no need for it in my gaming and no personal interest in it from me) I make no attempts to force other people who dont want to see to see it.*



Just to be clear (although I am fairly positive this is not what you mean), I never claimed that you would force others to see it. What I am asking is where the Sigil has claimed that he would force you to not be able to see it.

This is my problem with this whole line of discussion. We have many, many more than two sides on this issue. We have:
 Those that would like to see this book.
 Those that have no objection to it, and may or may not look at it.
 Those that have no objection to it, and just do not see what the fuss is about.
 Those that object to it, but are not going to force that opinion on others.
 Those that object to it, and will try to force that opinion on others.

And a whole slew of areas that fall inbetween these. Unfortunately, labeling someone "extreme" just because they feel that Playboy crosses the line is akin (in my opinion) to seeing this as a two-seded discussion with each side seeing the other as a completely negative thing:
 The Prudes
 The Perverts

I have no objection to the book. I may or may not look at it, depending upon how tastefully donw it is. I will not ram this opinion down anyone's throat. I am not offended by Playboy.

My father, on the other hand, is offended by Playboy. He hates the objectification of women. He, also, is not about to ram that opinion down anyone's throat.

However, your characterization of "objects to playboy = bible-belt-extremist" would place my father into a catagory I simply do not, can not, and will not see.



> Does that make sense?



To be honest, no.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> I call them  extreme because most of the time people who hold views like this also hold the ideas that since THEY think the product is bad and they are against it no one should be able to see the product.
> 
> On the other hand since I have nothing wrong with this product (though I see no need for it in my gaming and no personal interest in it from me) I make no attempts to force other people who dont want to see to see it.
> Does that make sense? *




Force?

Skipping the parts that I feel were well answered by KDLadage and Harlock, I don't feel that I have a moral obligation to spend money preferentially at a store that glorifies or concentrates attention on something I find offensive just so some people (*not* including, as far as I am aware, the author of the post I am responding to) won't try to warp my position into "spewing censorship" or something.

I do think that given a choice between two or more stores, if one store most closely represents what the person wants to see, or portrays their interests/hobbies as that person wishes them to be portrayed, then that person should shop preferentially at that store.  In a sense, this is the inspiration behind the "Support your local gaming store" push.

        Harry


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *
> ...
> 
> 5 Those that object to it, and will try to force that opinion on others.
> ...




I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.

  Harry


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Force?
> 
> ...





Yet people here who siggest that AV should be fired for this are trying to control what is published and thus control what products are available.

That is tantamount to saying that only the products HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.
> 
> Harry *




Really? 

I have read dozens of posts by certain individuals who are suggesting that AV be fired for doing this. Their reasoning has nothing to do with his possible mis-use of the ODL and D20 licenses though some of them cloak their statements in that excuse.

Just to be clear when I say dozens I mean dozens of posts. I am not suggesting that there are dozens of people here on ENWorld or at other sites saying this.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> *I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.*



Nither have I; I am sure they are out there someplace though. My point in listing them was to contrast the fact that there are many who object that do not reach that level that I would personally call "extreme."


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> Yet people here who siggest that AV should be fired for this are trying to control what is published and thus control what products are available.
> 
> That is tantamount to saying that only the products HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else. *




Aaah ... The way that I look upon that is a a way of WotC to conclusively demonstrate that this is not a WotC shadow project, as AV is a very promenent employee of Wizards.  It would take someone advocating that WotC start going after people who did *not* work for them to make me think that they had exceeded their corporate rights or responsibilities that I would think a line had been crossed.  Most companies for which public relations are important reserve the right to dismiss someone for how they affect the perceived company image.

I do not think that AV *should*, necessarily, be fired, but if it happens, I don't think that's forcing an opinion on someone else.

I do not think that consumer pressure is forcing an opinion on someone else.

If company A told a distributor or store that "If you carry brand B, we won't allow you to carry our stuff", that, I feel, would clearly be crossing the line.

        Harry


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.



Consider this: When someone indicates that this material will only attract the gigglers, the immature, the maladjusted, the perverse, those living in their parents basements, and several other negative connotations, when they imply that the material is elf-porn, sleazy, and low-class, they are doing more than stating that they find the material objectionable.  They are instead making reference that those that like such material are as the above, and thus sets an atmosphere of hostility towards those that would be interested in this book or others are somehow lesser people not worth any degree of recognition or respect.

Is my game any less valid because it plays out more like a Heavy Metal graphic-tale than it does a poorly written H&W novel?  That's what's implied by such comments.  And attempts to discuss the matter with such folks have proven that they are extremist: They are _unwilling_ to consider that their views aren't the only possible views, having made a pre-judgement of the material based on nothing but their own morals and bias, categorizing me and anyone else that would like such material.

So yes, it's there, and it's pretty undeniable.


----------



## Harlock (May 2, 2003)

Yet people here who siggest that Ken Hitchcock should be fired for this are trying to control what kind of hockey is played and thus control what styles of hockey are available for me to watch and enjoy.

That is tantamount to saying that only the hockey HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else.

For your information Ken Hitchcock is a hockey coach.  He did get fired last year because the Dallas Stars didn't make the playoffs.  He now coaches Philadelphia, who happen to be in the playoffs this year, as does Dallas under their new head coach.  

What's my point?  AV getting fired from WotC will have about as much impact on your gaming as does Ken Hitchcock getting canned.  He can still put books out under Valar and the OGL.  Other people can still put out the Book of Absolute Disgutsing Acts or d20 guide to Bigotry.  WotC firing AV (which I think is highly improbable at this point, but hey, stranger things have happened) will have as much impact on your game and availability of this kind of material for your game as Ken Hitchcock getting fired: You'll simply seem him with another team.  That style of play will still be available for you.  Calling for AV to be fired isn't forcing that opinion on you unless your being forced to email WotC against your will, which I hope you aren't.  If so don't be conspicuous, just knock on the keyboard spacebar three times fast and one time slow.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Yet people here who siggest that AV should be fired for this are trying to control what is published and thus control what products are available.*




Two seperate issues: (1) Should AV be fired for producing this? and (2)Trying to control what is/is not published.

(1) -- The idea that AV should or should not be fired has little to do with the issue at hand (is this book moral or immoral) and so, I consider this a Red Herring. However, as I have stated before, looking at this, WotC is well within their rights to fire him if they wish. They are also well within their rights to maintain his employment. They can fire him because he characterized the book as being compatible with "D&D" without obtaining a license (assuming, of course, he does not have one). They can fire him because he represents an image they do not want to have associated with their company. This is their right. And it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If I, as a private citizen feel that AV should be fired (I don't, but being hypothetical), this is also my right. And anyone telling me that I do not have a right to that opinion, a right to express that opinion, or some such, is missing the point of free speach. To show a parallel line of reasoning: I feel, for example, that the Basketball Coach for Iowa State should be fired for behaving in a way that brings discredit upon the University he is being paid by. This does not mean that I am an extremist that thinks Alcohol should be banned.*

(2) Trying to control what is published.... who? WotC? The people stating they will not purchase the product? I am not following this one at all.



> That is tantamount to saying that only the products HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else.



How is saying that I will not purchase the "Book of Book of Bardic Clowns" (or what ever) telling you that it should not be available to you? How is my wishing that the publishers of that book would not make it infringing upon their rights to make it anyway, or keeping you from purchasing a copy when it hits the shelves?

Sorry, Doc. I still do not see it.

* - The coach was going to frat parties after away games, getting stinking drunk and hitting on freshmen girls. He is married and has two daughters that are nearly the ages of the girls he was hitting on. It is a rather touch topic in Iowa right now.


----------



## Mallus (May 2, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Second, an underage audience is a natural part of the demographic. Valar is at best naive if they deny underage audiences would be attracted to this book. *




Boy I get hooked into these silly debates...

SJ, the very same argument can be made about SF and fantasy literature. I'd wager the majority of the people here got into reading through SF/F. 

So since SF/F has a strong appeal to younger readers, should SF/F novels that contain graphic that's innapropriate for children, heck that can be construed as perverse and pornographic {such as Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany, one of my all time favorite books, its SF's Finnegan's Wake/Ullyses, for better or worse} be taken off the bookstore/library shelves. Should authors and publishers refrain from writing/making available these works in the first place?

Oh, sorry that I called your argument silly a few thousand post back. I still think it was, but I'm still posting in these dambed threads, so how much sense can I have??


----------



## Harlock (May 2, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *I'm still posting in these dambed threads, so how much sense can I have?? *




I feel ya!


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Two seperate issues: (1) Should AV be fired for producing this? and (2)Trying to control what is/is not published.
> 
> ...





It is pretty obvious to me.

The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation. They do not want their hobby to go in a direction they do not like. To this end they want someone fired who is making that direction an option.

The fact that he may get hired someone else is really immaterial. What is material is the unspoken fact that even though the OGL says one thing IF you produce a product that WOTC doesnt like they will fire you even if you did nothing wrong legally.

What is being advocated is an attempt at censorship via intimidation. you dont think AV would be intimidated if it was "hinted" to him one day that releasing this book means WOTC will use the first justifiable reason to fire him? Jobs are hard to come by in todays economy this is more so in the gaming community when there is so much competition. I doubt AV wants to lose his job at WOTC over this.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> What is being advocated is an attempt at censorship via intimidation.



Yep.  Nor is it the first time this has come up in this conversations.  The first time was the use of financial intimidation to push store owners to not sell the product, thus making it unavailable (or at least difficult to obtain) despite being published.

All in the name of Free Speech.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Consider this: When someone indicates that this material will only attract the gigglers, the immature, the maladjusted, the perverse, those living in their parents basements, and several other negative connotations, when they imply that the material is elf-porn, sleazy, and low-class, they are doing more than stating that they find the material objectionable.  They are instead making reference that those that like such material are as the above, and thus sets an atmosphere of hostility towards those that would be interested in this book or others are somehow lesser people not worth any degree of recognition or respect.
> 
> Is my game any less valid because it plays out more like a Heavy Metal graphic-tale than it does a poorly written H&W novel?  That's what's implied by such comments.  And attempts to discuss the matter with such folks have proven that they are extremist: They are unwilling to consider that their views aren't the only possible views, having made a pre-judgement of the material based on nothing but their own morals and bias, categorizing me and anyone else that would like such material.
> 
> So yes, it's there, and it's pretty undeniable. *




Consider how some of your own posts on another "spew" an atmosphere of hostility.  Are you trying to force your opinions on others?

When you describe Heavy Metal as a "tale" and Weis & Hickman material as "poorly-written" are you trying to force people not to read Weis & Hickman?
It does not seem so to me, but I don't see how that logic differs from the logic you use in your post.

Harry


----------



## Gothmog (May 2, 2003)

Originally posted by DocMoriartty:


> The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation.




Yep, you hit the nail on the head.  Its simple thuggery and heavy-handedness to get what a minority want.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Yep.  Nor is it the first time this has come up in this conversations.  The first time was the use of financial intimidation to push store owners to not sell the product, thus making it unavailable (or at least difficult to obtain) despite being published.
> 
> All in the name of Free Speech. *





More like in the name of MORAL SUPERIORITY since the people in question generally make insulting generalizations about the "type" of people who would be interested in these products.

I was asked to be more polite after saying "Bible Belter" and calling people "extreme".

How about the number of times "deviant" has been thrown around?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Consider how some of your own posts on another "spew" an atmosphere of hostility.  Are you trying to force your opinions on others?
> 
> ...




One is an insulting description of people one is an insulting description of a product. 

The two are vastly different things. One is a personal attack the second is a personal opinion. Note he never said Weis and Hickman were poor writers.


----------



## smetzger (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> The fact that he may get hired someone else is really immaterial. What is material is the unspoken fact that even though the OGL says one thing IF you produce a product that WOTC doesnt like they will fire you even if you did nothing wrong legally.
> *




Actually from the information we have it appers that AV has done something illegal.  What we know:
1) AV is producing a d20/OGL supplement and says it is compatable with D&D.

2) If you say your d20/OGL product is compatable with D&D you _must_ have a separate agreement with WOTC, like Kalamar has.  The licenses specifically prohibit you from claiming compatability with D&D.

3) WOTC has come forth publicly saying that they do not approve of this product.

If AV did in fact _not_ get permission from WOTC, then the press release is in violation of the terms of the OGL.  But we are not privy to all the details, so we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Consider how some of your own posts on another "spew" an atmosphere of hostility.  Are you trying to force your opinions on others?
> 
> When you describe Heavy Metal as a "tale" and Weis & Hickman material as "poorly-written" are you trying to force people not to read Weis & Hickman?
> It does not seem so to me, but I don't see how that logic differs from the logic you use in your post.



I give back what I'm given to begin with.  Most of the anti-BoVD and anti-BoEF rhetoric has been, at best, condemning, condensending, insultive and derogatory.  If such folks don't like having their own methods shoved back at them, then they should keep their bigoted opinions to themselves.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually from the information we have it appers that AV has done something illegal.  What we know:
> 1) AV is producing a d20/OGL supplement and says it is compatable with D&D.
> ...





Two comments.

1. We do not know all the details so we really cannot say.

2. Yes he violated the OGL. Not a single person here screaming that he should be fired is saying it because they fel the OGL needs to be protected from a possible mis-use. Heck a huge number of products put out seem to screw up the OGL requirements. They either put the wrong stuff in their supplement or they quote it wrong. If there was a mistake made then they only big deal here is the embarassment since AV should be the one guy who knows better.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *It is pretty obvious to me.*



It may be obvious, and I am just not getting it. But, after reading this post, I think I see where the confusion is coming from.



> *The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation. They do not want their hobby to go in a direction they do not like. To this end they want someone fired who is making that direction an option.*



Let us look at these statements individualy, and then as an argument (by argument, I am making a "logic" reference, not trying to state that we are arguing).

*The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation.* -- I cannot say this for sure. I can say and will concede that it is related to intimidation; in other words, intimidation certainly plays a part. But I think it is more closely "entirely" about emotional responses. The Ad Copy was geared to evoke an emotional response. It succeeded.

*They do not want their hobby to go in a direction they do not like.* -- this is an empty statement. Nobody wants the hobby to go in directions they do not like. This statement is akin to the logic statement (A or ~A); this statement is always true, and thus tells us nothing.

*To this end they want someone fired who is making that direction an option.* -- This is somewhat true. I think it has more to do with the fact that AV is both a high-profile employee of WotC and a 'freelance' writer. This duality is causing the problem. Consider this: let us think of AV as two people. For simplicity, let us call these two people 'A' and 'V'

'A' works with WotC. 'A' wants to produce the book in question. WotC is well within their rights to not produce it. If 'A' insists enough, because he is an imployee and thus has an impact on their image, WotC is well within their rights to fire 'A' or otherwise deal with him as they would any employee. Censorship? In a manner of speaking, but in a legal and quite acceptable form.

'V' does not work for WotC. 'V' wants to produce the book in question. WotC is well within their rights to distance themselves from 'V' but 'V' is still capable of producing the book. WotC cannot censor this, and should not be allowed to under the current law, and OGL/d20 STL license structure.

OK... now we combine these:

'AV' works with WotC. 'AV' wants to produce the book in question. WotC is well within their rights to not produce it. 'AV' has the option of producing the book through another avenue (ie: freelancing). If 'AC' insists upon doing this, because he is also an employee of WotC and thus has an impact on their image, WotC is well within their rights to fire 'A' or otherwise deal with him as they would any employee. 'AV' is still capable of producing the book. WotC cannot censor this, and should not be allowed to under the current law, and OGL/d20 STL license structure.

Now, my feelings on how WotC should handle this are my opinions. Expressing those opinions -- or even presuring WotC one way or another -- is a completely legal and acceptable tactic and it not forcing their opinion down your throat. AV had every avenue available to produce this in a way that it would not cause any image troubles/concerns/perceptions for WotC and chose not to do so.



> The fact that he may get hired someone else is really immaterial.



Yes it is. That is why I never brought it up. 



> What is material is the unspoken fact that even though the OGL says one thing IF you produce a product that WOTC doesnt like they will fire you even if you did nothing wrong legally.



And here is the problem with your argument -- you are combining two things and leaving out some important details, and adding in some that are irrelivant. What needs to be said here (to be complete) is:

_If you, as an employee of Wizards of the Coast, produce an independent product under the licensing agreements for the d20 system that Wizards of the Coast finds objectionable, or capable of harming the corporate image of Wizards of the Coast or its parent company Hasbro via the implied association that you, as an employee, have with those companies, then they have every right to distance themselves from that product, up to and including firing you should you not cease such activities.

To be honest, I have no trouble with this. No trouble at all. AV had oportunities to ensure that WotC was nowhere near this product. He chose to make it one that was very close to WotC.




			What is being advocated is an attempt at censorship via intimidation.
		
Click to expand...


Yes. But the one actually being attempted is self censorship. There is nothign illegal about that.




			you dont think AV would be intimidated if it was "hinted" to him one day that releasing this book means WOTC will use the first justifiable reason to fire him?
		
Click to expand...


Not nearly as much as he would be when he realizes that releasing the book under the conditions he has chosen to do so would, in and of itself, give WotC every legal means they need to terminate him immediately.




			Jobs are hard to come by in todays economy this is more so in the gaming community when there is so much competition. I doubt AV wants to lose his job at WOTC over this.
		
Click to expand...


Then he should have planned and considered his options a little more carefully.

Look, I do not want to see him lose his job. But should he lose it, this is not a right-wing conspiracy or an attempt at some sort of Machiavellian scheme to censor him. It is a natural consequence of his (poor) choices regarding this product. In all honesty, if it is handled well, I want to buy it -- but I think that you are looking for (and finding) a level of extremism that simply is not there... at least not where you are pointing at the moment._


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> * In all honesty, if it is handled well, I want to buy it -- but I think that you are looking for (and finding) a level of extremism that simply is not there... at least not where you are pointing at the moment. *





I disagree. I see two people on this thread alone that are screaming to this level of extremism.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *I was asked to be more polite after saying "Bible Belter" and calling people "extreme".*



For the record, I did not ask you to "be more polite" I asked you to explain where you were coming from.



> *How about the number of times "deviant" has been thrown around?*



It has been wrong. I personally have not commented because of the fact (in my estimation) once things get that emotional, reason goes out the window.

You appear to be rational in most instances -- I just did nto understand the extreme comment and wanted clarification.


----------



## KDLadage (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *I disagree. I see two people on this thread alone that are screaming to this level of extremism. *



Fair enough. I will re-read the thread and see what I may be missing here.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> More like in the name of MORAL SUPERIORITY since the people in question generally make insulting generalizations about the "type" of people who would be interested in these products.
> 
> I was asked to be more polite after saying "Bible Belter" and calling people "extreme".
> ...




I'm not sure what your logic is here.

I find the use of the term deviant, in this context, to be antagonistic and unhelpful.  I criticize simply dismissing one side as deviant, instead of addressing the numerous faults I find in what we know now from the press release and author posts.

I am critical of your previous use of "Bible Belter" and "extreme" for the same reason - it itself is an insulting generalization about a type of people.

If you condemn a tactic, why are you using exactly the same tactic?

  Harry


----------



## JacktheRabbit (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure what your logic is here.
> 
> ...




I am merely pointing out that there seems to be less of a problem around here calling a deviant than there is calling someone a Bible Belter.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *I give back what I'm given to begin with.  Most of the anti-BoVD and anti-BoEF rhetoric has been, at best, condemning, condensending, insultive and derogatory.  If such folks don't like having their own methods shoved back at them, then they should keep their bigoted opinions to themselves. *




Much of what you have responded to as "condemning, condensending, insultive and derogatory" has been anyone disagreeing with your position or your definition of "censorship".

You seem to be advocating the position that if someone in a thread displeases you, then you have proper justification to:

1. treat everyone not agreeing with your position as the caricature you are offended by,

2. Use the same methods yourself, and

3. continue to condemn people who use those methods 

Personally, I would expect to see a hypothetical person choose "2 or 3", but not "2 and 3"

Do you feel that, having perceived something as offensive to you, you are now justified in reacting in any manner to any one?

Harry


----------



## cildarith (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *If such folks don't like having their own methods shoved back at them, then they should keep their bigoted opinions to themselves. *




Pretty hypocritical, don't you think.

"I'm against censorship and for free speech, but if you don't agree with me then you just shut the hell up."

Is that, what you're saying?

It is what it sounds like.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am merely pointing out that there seems to be less of a problem around here calling a deviant than there is calling someone a Bible Belter. *




My sense of the general reaction has been "Calling someone a 'deviant' instead of dicussing a disagreement civily is wrong.  Calling someone an 'extreme' 'Bible belter' instead of dicussing a disagreement civily is wrong.

Holding the position that someone is free to use the methods that they rightfully condemn is wrong-er."

I am not saying that you hold this last position, nor do I think that it seems like you do, but in most cases (wisely, I think) in this thread, an extreme reaction has generally been ignored with the poster somewhat marginalized in the thread altogether.  I think your post got noted because:

* it was not bad enough to be disregarded altogether, and

* there was a certain irony, as that individual post seemed to fall in the last category I discussed above.  Perceived irony can trigger a reaction that righteous indignation does not.

 Harry


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Much of what you have responded to as "condemning, condensending, insultive and derogatory" has been anyone disagreeing with your position or your definition of "censorship".



Take a better look.  From page 1 of this thread:

_I'm sure it will appeal to those gamers who have as much experience with actual sex as they have with actual elves._

The threads concerning these topics are full of these little insults and insinuations which you would like to imagine don't exist.  By calling it "elf porn" and stating that the product shouldn't exist, an implication is made about those who would want the product, an implication that is insultive and rude.

Far be it that those whom are being insulted should actually say anything about it.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 2, 2003)

cildarith said:
			
		

> "I'm against censorship and for free speech, but if you don't agree with me then you just shut the hell up."
> 
> Is that, what you're saying?
> 
> It is what it sounds like.



Than you are having a problem comprehending plain english.

Non-bigoted people (i.e., people not ruled over by the prejudice of ignorance) are willing to listen to opposing thoughts, beliefs and perceptions (not neccessarily change their views, but simply acknowledge that other view exist).  There are a lot here that have gotten on their moral high-horse and using that as a justification to ignore the views of others, condeming them as porn-lovers, basement dwellers, sexually inexperienced, and various other commentary.

After all, I'm not saying they don't have a right to speak up.  I'm saying that when they do, if they aren't open to discussion or other views or opinions, and are even insultive towards those with those differing views, than they should expect to have the fact that they're close-minded and insultive reflected back in the replies they get.  Rather, they'd prefer to make insinuations about those they disagree with and cry "foul!" when those they've insulted speak up against them.


----------



## cildarith (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *There are a lot here that have gotten on their moral high-horse and using that as a justification to ignore the views of others, condeming them as porn-lovers, basement dwellers, sexually inexperienced, and various other commentary.*




"Thou protesteth too much."


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 2, 2003)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *Take a better look.  From page 1 of this thread:
> 
> I'm sure it will appeal to those gamers who have as much experience with actual sex as they have with actual elves.
> 
> ...




Reread your own posts.  Most of the people you use this same tactic against are *not* ones who ever used it against you.

I would agree with "Far be it that those that feel  an approach offensive use _exactly_ the same approach themselves."

The post I am responding to right here is "full of these little insults and insinuations" such as making a caricature of someone else's stated position.

I consider calling the product "elf porn" and saying "the product shouldn't exist" as two wildly different statements.  I would agree that the first is insulting and objectionable but the second is an expression of opinion.  

If you don't like the implication *that you draw from that opinion* you could always try and clarify the matter instead of reacting in, well, other ways.

For myself, I'll be happy if a product such as one described by the press release never sees the light of day. You know what that says about you?  Nothing!

It seems as if someone is "insulting" you or "censoring" you if they are not actively supporting the situation you want to see.  You could clarify this by answering some of the explicit question in some of the most recent posts.


----------



## Henry (May 2, 2003)

This thread has gotten fairly personal, and very astray from the topic. It's time to clsoe this one down.


----------

