Quote from: CRKrueger;823134You may really like the gaming system for Eclipse Phase and want to use it for techno-fantasy, but why bother trying to put forth the argument that the setting isn't extremely pro-Transhumanist?

Transhumanist?!?

Quote from: CRKrueger;823134In the context of the actual entire quote..."believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"...how would they take it? Honestly this time.

Utilitarians. Or maybe Tau.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823134Assuming of course you enjoy roleplaying a character who has absolutely no opinion on the topic of human governance other than Divine Will made manifest, or completely agrees with the concept.

Aside from the Star Trek newer shows  comparison I made, another comparison would be playing a Huguenot, Puritan, or Calvinist in an historical game (like the Honor+Intrigue game that I am running) or a Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane setting. Though with the addition of the GM claiming that in their world Calvinist belief is objectively true. I've heard of some Christian GMs doing the equivalent for D&D - which always struck me as very odd. But horses, courses...

Quote from: jhkimI would agree that there is politics to be found in all of Shadowrun, 40K, D&D, and Blue Rose

Quote from: CRKrueger;823134Ooo, you added D&D into the mix, is there a hidden colonialist "dark side of the hobby" argument in there trying to come out?

No, quite the opposite.

There are people who searched through AD&D for phrasing and other bits that support a particular narrative. They will, for example, point out how AD&D has no LGBT characters - making it anti-gay screed - or how the evil races are generally darker, more primitive and barbaric - making it an colonialist screed.

Likewise, there are people who search through Blue Rose and find the references to gay characters, and because they are there, declare it a pro-gay screed. Likewise, they point out how there is a repressive theocracy, and declare it an anti-Christian screed.

I disagree with people like this. Yes, parallels exist and can be used for literary analysis of the games, but that doesn't make them the main thing that the games are about. Mostly, both these sets are blowing things out of proportion. Having run and played both D&D and Blue Rose, I think they're primarily just vehicles for our own fantasy adventures.


Blue Rose is roughly as political as Mercedes Lackey novels. While there are lots of differences, the broad strokes are quite close. The Golden Hart is closely modeled on how being chosen by a Companion (an always-good psychic horse) is required for being ruler of Valdemar. The envoys of Aldis are clearly closely based on the heralds of Valdemar.

Quote from: apparition13;823137Transhumanist?!?

Its like scientology,but for cyborgs

Quote from: TristramEvans;823191Its like scientology,but for cyborgs

Hah!

Transhumanism

Also check out Eclipse Phase or GURPS Transhuman Space or Blue Planet for RPGs that incorporate these ideas (memes!).

Quote from: jhkim;823173There are people who searched through AD&D for phrasing and other bits that support a particular narrative. They will, for example, point out how AD&D has no LGBT characters - making it anti-gay screed - or how the evil races are generally darker, more primitive and barbaric - making it an colonialist screed.

The problem of course is that you only get to those conclusions if you're off your nut.  I wasn't aware that Morgan Ironwolf's sexual orientation was known.  Similarly unless someone accepts their own racist first principle of Orcs=Black People, then the whole colonial thing falls on it's face as well.

Quote from: JKim;823173Likewise, there are people who search through Blue Rose and find the references to gay characters, and because they are there, declare it a pro-gay screed. Likewise, they point out how there is a repressive theocracy, and declare it an anti-Christian screed.

Or they casually glance through Blue Rose, and find in every single way possible, whenever possible, the modern liberal viewpoint defined as an objectively true, universal good in the setting.

Quote from: JKim;823173Having run and played both D&D and Blue Rose, I think they're primarily just vehicles for our own fantasy adventures.

The difference being that one is intended to be used when your fantasy adventures are going to be in a world where nearly every modern liberal belief is an objectively true, universal good.

At some point, you put down The Fountainhead and say "Hmm, this isn't just about architecture, is it?"

Eclipse Phase and Blue Rose are political RPGs.  They don't just have political aspects to them, they have a single, consistent and persistent presentation of the truth and present those with different ideas as the bad guys of the respective settings.

Not to say I wouldn't play the games.  EP system is a bit too much like late SR3, SR4 from a design standpoint to really enjoy, but I do like a lot about the setting.  Blue Rose setting I think is interesting from a cosmological standpoint, but I'll be buying the game as a Dragon Age toolbox.  Once they KS it though, I'll help out, even though Pramas almost unsold me with his allusion with his lockstep talking points interpretation of GamerGate.

Quote from: TristramEvans;823191Its like scientology,but for cyborgs

I'm expressing incredulity at the idea that Blue Rose is transhumanist.

Quote from: TristramEvans;823191Its like scientology,but for cyborgs

Or the Rapture for Nerds.

Honestly that stuff and allot of its followers creep me right out.

Quote from: apparition13;823221I'm expressing incredulity at the idea that Blue Rose is transhumanist.

At least from context, I think the claim is that Eclipse Phase is transhumanist.  They kinda put it on the press releases, too.

On the other hand, turning the Lich Kingdom of Kern into a undead transhumanist weirdtopia actually sounds like it'd be a fun adventure seed.

Quote from: apparition13;823221I'm expressing incredulity at the idea that Blue Rose is transhumanist.

Express less, read more.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823134You may really like the gaming system for Eclipse Phase and want to use it for techno-fantasy, but why bother trying to put forth the argument that the setting isn't extremely pro-Transhumanist?  That's the part I don't get.

Did that help any?

or..."Saying Blue Rose isn't Liberal is like saying Eclipse Phase isn't Transhumanist, which is odd because you're denying one of the main points of the whole thing."

Quote from: Nexus;823259Or the Rapture for Nerds.

Honestly that stuff and allot of its followers creep me right out.

It helps if you think of it in terms of the Christian End Times with the Rapture being the Technological Singularity.

Quote from: Bren;823117I've spent too much time in this thread. Now I'm looking back on OD&D as a political screed in favor of libertarian  principles. From the character perspective it is by far the most self-interested RPG I've played or read.

  I've made sarcastic comments in the past about how old-school D&D sometimes feels like an unholy hybrid of Rand, Sartre and Neitzsche (or at least popular ideas of same).

On a related note, Green Ronin and Wil Wheaton today announced that the RPG Wheaton's using in his Tabletop RPG show is an original science-fantasy work powered by GR's AGE system and will be published as a setting & companion set of books for that system.

So, GR's doing their model like this: Rulebook + Setting + Companion. Still three books per setting, with one shared by all in the product line, akin to nWoD. I would think that AGE BR will be the same way.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;823581On a related note, Green Ronin and Wil Wheaton today announced that the RPG Wheaton's using in his Tabletop RPG show is an original science-fantasy work powered by GR's AGE system and will be published as a setting & companion set of books for that system.

on a side note, the will  / gr thing sounds awesome. Thundaar the barbarian cross Heavy Metal using the AGE system?? WANT!

Quote from: jhkim;823069As I said, belief in community (specifically the phrase "the Light-aligned believe in community") is quite vague and does not specify Collectivism versus nearly any other philosophy. For example, there could be someone who is libertarian, and yet one could still truthfully say about them that they "believe in community".

That's quite the splitting of hairs there; are you seriously trying to claim that the authors had NO agenda, and that this agenda wasn't a pro-collectivist agenda?