Quote from: MaddmanAnd Rein-Hagen (no, I will not give him his pretentious dot) hasn't been involved in Vampire or White Wolf for some time now.  I don't recall seeing in nWoD anything about "OMG D&D is teh Suk", but then I wasn't looking for it either.  You seem pretty focused in disgust at White Wolf, which I see as unfair seeing as they not only make Exalted, which is more about releasing your inner munchkin than even D&D, but they publish d20 books themselves.

Pretty much all of WW's D20 stuff was universally bad. In some cases (like Gamma World) it was done with the explicit objective of intentionally "re-making" a beloved fun game into a "serious and deep" setting because of their dislike for the "childishness" of the original. So their agenda was to try to subvert D20 and make it more of the story-based junk.  The only product they had for D20 that was really palatable was Ravenloft, and that's only because that's a setting where poseurish romanticism is part of the genre.

As for Exalted, Exalted is like the pornography they show on the "Art and Style" channel.. you know, the porn for the pseudo-intellectuals who are too anally retentive to admit they just want to get off, so they can't watch the playboy channel, but they can watch an "art" film that's basically just porn, and often more perverse than your run-of-the-mill Playboy channel porn?

I've had people tell me with a straight face that D&D sucks for being "powergaming" but that Exalted is not in fact "powergaming" its "Dealing with the theme of how to cope with massive power".
The problem WW was having was that even most of their fanboys were desperate to actually have some good, blowing-up-shit fun but they had all been brainwashed into thinking that this sort of honest pure enjoyment is not allowed; so along comes Exalted trying to couch blatant powergaming on a scale unimagined by the most munchkinish D&D Epic Level game in all kinds of flowery nonsense to pretend its still "deep". When of course it isn't.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBut then, why did you feel the need to come on here and debate me about it?

I suspect that his reaction is in no small part to your very binary (and polarizing) definition of Swine and non-Swine.

If you look at it as a scale, instead of a yes-or-no situation, I feel that most gamers may lean toward one end or another, but very few of them are on the far extremes, and that most of us probably have more in common than not in terms of playing style.



As an aside, I'm curious what Pundit thinks of Unisystem... on one hand, it seems to have some commonality with what he has termed 'Swine games' (if nothing else, for it's heavy use of d10's).  OTOH, in many ways Witchcraft (which I consider in many respects the 'baseline' Unisystem game) is something of the anti-WOD game (with the lack of metaplots and 'paradigms').

I find Unisystem too brain-bashingly boring to even comment upon.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI find Unisystem too brain-bashingly boring to even comment upon.

RPGPundit

Welcome to my world.  Unisystem = Uniboring.

Quote from: RPGPunditPretty much all of WW's D20 stuff was universally bad. In some cases (like Gamma World) it was done with the explicit objective of intentionally "re-making" a beloved fun game into a "serious and deep" setting because of their dislike for the "childishness" of the original. So their agenda was to try to subvert D20 and make it more of the story-based junk.  The only product they had for D20 that was really palatable was Ravenloft, and that's only because that's a setting where poseurish romanticism is part of the genre.

As for Exalted, Exalted is like the pornography they show on the "Art and Style" channel.. you know, the porn for the pseudo-intellectuals who are too anally retentive to admit they just want to get off, so they can't watch the playboy channel, but they can watch an "art" film that's basically just porn, and often more perverse than your run-of-the-mill Playboy channel porn?

I've had people tell me with a straight face that D&D sucks for being "powergaming" but that Exalted is not in fact "powergaming" its "Dealing with the theme of how to cope with massive power".
The problem WW was having was that even most of their fanboys were desperate to actually have some good, blowing-up-shit fun but they had all been brainwashed into thinking that this sort of honest pure enjoyment is not allowed; so along comes Exalted trying to couch blatant powergaming on a scale unimagined by the most munchkinish D&D Epic Level game in all kinds of flowery nonsense to pretend its still "deep". When of course it isn't.

RPGPundit

Heh. You're funny It's an honest to Odin RPG Conspiracy Theory. This is very entertaining to me.

Just for the record, I have always thought WoD was a bunch of pretentious drivel myself....I used to curse Anne Rice daily for ruining what used to be a cool and frightening monster. But I have never read into WW all of what you describe...not that it isn't true. I've been lucky in that it took me about 10 minutes of observation of the RPG.net forums to decide it wasn't for me and I have never been back. I have no idea what this Forge thing is either. I am familiar with, and I do enjoy Blue Rose...and yet I do understand the problems you have with the setting. I have nothing against homosexuality, but Blue Rose seems almost reverse prejudiced in it's going out of it's way to "accept" gayness as "normal" (what the heck is that anyway). The Grrll Power stuff can get annoying, and the heavy-handed goodness can at times make me wanna get all Dragonlance cataclysmic on their asses. I feel fortunate that I can look past that junk to see that with little modification Aldea has really great potential as a setting. I hope that doesn't make me a "Swine" as well (if it does, I'll learn to live with it  ). All that said though, I have a hard time swallowing the WW conspiracy to bring down the RPG fun machine. I also, despite my extreme dislike for Buffy (and downright loathing for Angel), think that all in all Maddman is a decent sort that has alot of great ideas about gaming and has alot to contribute to the collective fun. I would not catagorize him as "Swine". To be honest, I'm suspect of the whole "Swine" concept simply because you got it from that whacked out, freaky ass junky H. S. Thompson. I do love your presentation though so :emot-rock: on brother

Quote from: SigmundI am familiar with, and I do enjoy Blue Rose...and yet I do understand the problems you have with the setting. I have nothing against homosexuality, but Blue Rose seems almost reverse prejudiced in it's going out of it's way to "accept" gayness as "normal" (what the heck is that anyway). The Grrll Power stuff can get annoying, and the heavy-handed goodness can at times make me wanna get all Dragonlance cataclysmic on their asses.

Just for the record, it is really mainly the only the third point I have truly serious issues with.
The first and second points are only problems in the sense of the pathetically shallow and blatantly superficial way they were handled. That and the sort of implication, ridiculous as it is, that the folks at GR are somehow "cutting edge" for addressing these "controversial" subjects, never mind that the BIGGEST fantasy RPG setting in the world (Forgotten Realms) has already been doing the exact same thing for years, only better and more profoundly without the smug preachiness.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditJust for the record, it is really mainly the only the third point I have truly serious issues with.
The first and second points are only problems in the sense of the pathetically shallow and blatantly superficial way they were handled. That and the sort of implication, ridiculous as it is, that the folks at GR are somehow "cutting edge" for addressing these "controversial" subjects, never mind that the BIGGEST fantasy RPG setting in the world (Forgotten Realms) has already been doing the exact same thing for years, only better and more profoundly without the smug preachiness.

RPGPundit

Forgotten Realms?  Profound?  I find that as an overblown high fantasy setting hampered with wank fantasies of Elminster, it hardly meets the qualification of 'profound'.

Quote from: OddveigForgotten Realms?  Profound?  I find that as an overblown high fantasy setting hampered with wank fantasies of Elminster, it hardly meets the qualification of 'profound'.

Look at what I was saying again: I was saying that the issues of homosexuality and feminism were already addressed in Forgotten Realms, and that these specific issues were addressed in a more sophisticated and "profound" way than in Blue Rose.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditLook at what I was saying again: I was saying that the issues of homosexuality and feminism were already addressed in Forgotten Realms, and that these specific issues were addressed in a more sophisticated and "profound" way than in Blue Rose.

RPGPundit

I'm not going to argue that point, largely because I don't have Blue Rose to sit and compare.  However, just because it brings up the subject, doesn't mean it addresses the subject in any meaningful manner.  Those subjects were mentioned in David Hargrave's Lost Grimoires, and published long before Forgotten Realms, and the subject has been published about many times in many books over the decades.  None of that makes it 'profound' or 'meaningful', anymore than "Will and Grace" is meaningful.

Quote from: RPGPunditJust for the record, it is really mainly the only the third point I have truly serious issues with.
The first and second points are only problems in the sense of the pathetically shallow and blatantly superficial way they were handled. That and the sort of implication, ridiculous as it is, that the folks at GR are somehow "cutting edge" for addressing these "controversial" subjects, never mind that the BIGGEST fantasy RPG setting in the world (Forgotten Realms) has already been doing the exact same thing for years, only better and more profoundly without the smug preachiness.

RPGPundit

Their approach in Blue Rose is thematically appropriate given the type of fiction that they are attempting to emulate.

C'est tout!

Sexuality in the Realms is mostly a function of fanon that supports the unexpurgated version that Ed Greenwood actually uses. This bears little relationship to any official material set in the Realms. Every time I've talked to Ed he mentions how heavily censored the Realms were and how many different tactics he came up with to evade editorial censorship.

As for Blue Rose: Works fine for me! Actually, in worlds with objective morality, it's always interesting to see how things develop around it. I recall Dragonstar having a legal code around the use of alignment-based spells and powers. Jonothan Tweet's house D&D campaign treats morality as an arbitrary holiness code set up by the gods, based on what you do rather then your feelings. It leads to interesting situstions where (for instance), a Paladin can lose his status by being tricked into eating human flesh, even if he didn't know what it was.

My main problem with BR is that I don't care for the magic system and think the skills could be a touch more flexible.

Quote from: RPGPunditRegarding "Storytelling": Its more than just the name of the system. Haven't you read Rein·Hagen's essays on it? Its promoted as a "superior alternative" to RPGs.  And while white wolf attempts to distance itself from those kinds of overt claims, their NEW WoD book still betrays exactly the same mentality. They used "roll playing vs. Role Playing" in the book, for fuck's sake.  This wasn't 15 years ago, this was now.

RPGPundit

Haven't those banjo strings broken yet?

Quote from: shooting_diceSexuality in the Realms is mostly a function of fanon that supports the unexpurgated version that Ed Greenwood actually uses. This bears little relationship to any official material set in the Realms. Every time I've talked to Ed he mentions how heavily censored the Realms were and how many different tactics he came up with to evade editorial censorship.

As of 3rd Edition FR books at the very latest (starting with the FR "core" book), there is explicit mention of homosexual and even (if I recall correctly) polyamourous relationships; and the feminism has been a part of the setting since ages and ages ago.
In both cases, they did it long before Blue Rose ever did, and without having to get all smug about it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAs of 3rd Edition FR books at the very latest (starting with the FR "core" book), there is explicit mention of homosexual and even (if I recall correctly) polyamourous relationships; and the feminism has been a part of the setting since ages and ages ago.
In both cases, they did it long before Blue Rose ever did, and without having to get all smug about it.

RPGPundit

Blue Rose isn't particularly smug about it. It assumes that everybody's on the same page in regarding homophobes as assholes or religiously damaged dupes. That's the genre's position. Since homophobes actually are assholes or religiously damaged dupes, I don't see a problem with it. The Realms is far more sensationalistic about it, down to Ed's rules for naughty underwear.

I dont think the BR books are smug, but rather the BR forums and follow-up comments from the authors, thats where the smugness began, in so much as they believed they were treading new ground.