TheRPGSite

So yeah, that's a thing (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ronin-round-table-blue-rose-returns/).  What do you think?

I approve. While I'm not a fan of the setting, I think it opens the hobby to others who would not normally be interested. That said, I don't like mixing politics with games (referring to the actual link).

I'm not personally interested, but it doesn't bother me in the least.

I hope it does well and plan on supporting it.  

I've missed romantic fantasy and could really use a break from all the bleak grimdark glut in both fantasy gaming and literature.  The Goblin Emperor has me covered on the book side of things.  I'm hoping Blue Rose delivers a similar shot in the arm for games.

I never got what the big deal was. Just another way to tell fantasy stories with dice.

Never read it. Remember something about a magic deer being Queen.

Cool. I like the origional Blue Rose and even if I didn't its existence doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And yes the politics is annoying ("we're going to bring people together by relentlessly pimping identity politics!") but again I simply don't care.

Dragging your hobbies into your politics is the single saddest and most pathetic thing I can think of and frankly I refuse to do it.

Awesome. I have had success with Blue Rose in the past, and as a father of two daughters who like RPGing, I expect even more with this edition.

I like Blue Rose quite a bit but it had a few rough edges. AGE seems a good fit but also had a few rough edges in Dragon Age. Hopefully, the two combined in a new edition can improve on both and make a top notch product.

Snakeye and nape, on those coords.

Quote from: TristramEvans;821636Never read it. Remember something about a magic deer being Queen.

I think the magic deer selects the Queen rather than being the Queen.

As far as what I think about Blue Rose...:idunno: It's not going to affect my gaming in the slightest.

Chris Pramas' notion that a special set of rules is needed so that people can play in a setting like that of a Tamora Pierce, Mercedes Lackey, and Jacqueline Carey story seems a little odd to me since doing that seems like something any competent and interested GM could do with their favorite existing RPG and a knowledge of any one of those author's series or novels.

From a business standpoint a serial numbers filed off version of someone else's ideas gets around having to shell out money and time to get a license from the author or their publisher and pitching that as an inclusivity issue sounds a lot better than just saying Green Ronin is too cheap to give the authors they say they like any money for using their ideas.

Quote from: TristramEvans;821636Never read it. Remember something about a magic deer being Queen.

Not quite. The magic deer picks the queen. And it also serves as an unbeatable NPC/divine thing that no group of PCs will ever, ever, ever be able to defeat because it is so awesome and super and intrinsically good.

Romantic fantasy if fine, though it's not my thing. I have no problem with people liking romantic fantasy. But I hate the politics of Blue Rose, and to me it's a huge negative when the first thing you do to describe your game's setting is to start talking about the real-world politics behind it. When I look for a game to run, I want an awesome place to explore that fills me with inspiration for adventures. I don't want the authors shoving their politics down my throat, and that's basically what Blue Rose is. It's the same reason Eclipse Phase will never be used at my table.

But online SJWs eat this stuff for breakfast and they're a lot more organized and connected than they were in 2005 thanks to the Internet. So I'm sure the game will do just fine.

Quote from: Bren;821644I think the magic deer selects the Queen rather than being the Queen.

As far as what I think about Blue Rose...:idunno: It's not going to affect my gaming in the slightest.

[Dr Rotwang! perks up.]

QuoteChris Pramas' notion that a special set of rules is needed so that people can play in a setting like that of a Tamora Pierce, Mercedes Lackey, and Jacqueline Carey story seems a little odd to me since doing that seems like something any competent and interested GM could do with their favorite existing RPG and a knowledge of any one of those author's series or novels.

[Dr Rotwang! leans forward, peering closely. "What is this?", he whispers, "but sense being spoken...?"]

QuoteFrom a business standpoint a serial numbers filed off version of someone else's ideas gets around having to shell out money and time to get a license from the author or their publisher and pitching that as an inclusivity issue sounds a lot better than just saying Green Ronin is too cheap to give the authors they say they like any money for using their ideas.

On that, I have no qualification to comment. Is that what they're doin'?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;821647On that, I have no qualification to comment. Is that what they're doin'?

About as much as Gygax did with Moorcock, REH, and Leiber.

At least Green Ronin didn't straight up swipe other people's IP.

If you want an actual licensed "Romantic Fantasy" RPG check out the Deryni Adventure Game based on FUDGE.

http://www.fudgerpg.com/products/deryni-adventure/ggg6001.html

I'm interested in the AGE system. I liked Blue Rose, and True20 was a refreshing take on d20 for me. I also like the GR crew. I'll be keeping an eye on this one.

A second shot for a shit property. Some folks don't read the market very well; the same folks who didn't buy before won't buy now, and the same folks who didn't play then won't now.

Forty years, folks. We've had TRPGs for forty fucking years now. We now what works, and what doesn't. This shit doesn't work, and it's long past time to start viciously punishing fools who keep trying to pull a Canute.

As for the blog statement, I am not partial to heavy handed politicizing in rpgs, but then again, it is only a blog.  

It is curious to see some D20 children cavorting off to other OGL games.  I do recall our shotgun-toting, duster rocking Korean (Korean-American?) member did an OGC conversion of Blue Rose at one point that was rather unwelcomed by Mr. Pramas.  What are Mr. Kim's thoughts on this matter?

Cool. I definitely liked the Blue Rose setting. Lots of options and at least a mild break from the constant Tolkien-isms of many other settings.

I haven't tried the AGE system yet, but I'm skeptical at this point that it will be too good of a fit.

Quote from: Piestrio;821651If you want an actual licensed "Romantic Fantasy" RPG check out the Deryni Adventure Game based on FUDGE.

http://www.fudgerpg.com/products/deryni-adventure/ggg6001.html

I'd have loved a sourcebook for Deryni stuff way back in the day. It's been a long, long time since I read anything by Katherine Kurtz, but my recollection is that the Deryni setting, though romantic, wouldn't align well with the stated political aims of Chris Pramas.

I have the original RPG, and it got me interested in True20. It has a good explanation of the genre its trying to represent.

Id give it a shot if someone else offered to run it, but the conversations Ive already been in over on enworld and the content of the post by Chris Pramas have yet to produce an actual reason that its worth getting. Social engineering intentions aren't selling me.

Quote from: Teazia;821655As for the blog statement, I am not partial to heavy handed politicizing in rpgs, but then again, it is only a blog.  

It is curious to see some D20 children cavorting off to other OGL games.  I do recall our shotgun-toting, duster rocking Korean (Korean-American?) member did an OGC conversion of Blue Rose at one point that was rather unwelcomed by Mr. Pramas.  What are Mr. Kim's thoughts on this matter?

Does AGE use the Open Game License?  I would be surprised if it did. Green Ronin didn't seem very comfortable with the OGL.

As for what I did, I wouldn't call it a conversion. I posted the portions of Blue Rose and True20 that were declared open content, basically exactly as they were in the books. There was some conflict over this, and I kept it password locked for a year or so, but then opened it up.

I don't know much about the AGE system, but I thought the Blue Rose setting had a lot of promise.

Here's links to my Blue Rose page, and the SRD for the original system.

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/bluerose/

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_true_romantic/index.html

Quote from: jhkim;821661Does AGE use the Open Game License?  I would be surprised if it did. Green Ronin didn't seem very comfortable with the OGL.

No, the system is completely Green Ronin, which is what they wanted according to Nicole Lindroos.

Quote from: Lynn;821660Social engineering intentions aren't selling me.

Oh, yeah. I would agree with this. I'm generally positive about diversity, but the announcement should sell the game based on how cool it is to play - not the political progress it is making or showing.

Quote from: jhkim;821658Cool. I definitely liked the Blue Rose setting. Lots of options and at least a mild break from the constant Tolkien-isms of many other settings.

In what way is the Blue Rose setting a break from Tolkienisms?

From the little I've heard about Blue Rose the two settings seem to have a lot of surface similarities in common e.g. an all powerful, all good deity; non-human beings who are both older and better than humans; rulers appointed via divine right or ancient bloodline rather than by personal might (like Conan or Kull by REH) or election by the people (like all modern, progressive societies); powerful female rulers (the Queen in Blue Rose, Galadriel in Tolkien).

What do you see as the major differences that make you see Blue Rose as a large departure from Tolkien?

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;821654A second shot for a shit property. Some folks don't read the market very well; the same folks who didn't buy before won't buy now, and the same folks who didn't play then won't now.

Given Blue Rose was one of GR's most successful properties in its time, I am pretty sure that they think more highly of it. And I think there is good reason to think that a new edition may reach new customers, even if it doesn't convince those who previously passed on buying it.

Quote from: Bren;821664From the little I've heard about Blue Rose the two settings seem to have a lot of surface similarities in common e.g. an all powerful, all good deity; non-human beings who are both older and better than humans; rulers appointed via divine right or ancient bloodline rather than by personal might (like Conan or Kull by REH) or election by the people (like all modern, progressive societies); powerful female rulers (the Queen in Blue Rose, Galadriel in Tolkien).

What do you see as the major differences that make you see Blue Rose as a large departure from Tolkien?

While there are a lot of small differences, but I'd say the key differences are talking animals and the lack of evil races - along with the psychic flavoring of magic.

Talking animals are not exactly something Tolkien hasn't used extensively: the Eagles or the Ravens of the Lonely Mountain are something that is more typical for Tolkien than for the genre his works have spawned; you could also probably include the wargs in this list (they are sentient), and perhaps even Beorn (because he actually might be a bear turning into a man, not the other way 'round).

Personally, I am not particularly interested in the setting, mostly because I do already own way more fantasy settings than I can ever play in and thus anything new has to really awe me or is not going to be anything but a quarry for ideas to steal.
However, I do like the AGE system (or rather: I liked the idea of the AGE system when they originally published it, I think that the execution could have been better), so I'll probably give it a look.

Quote from: Skywalker;821665Given Blue Rose was one of GR's most successful properties in its time, I am pretty sure that they think more highly of it. And I think there is good reason to think that a new edition may reach new customers, even if it doesn't convince those who previously passed on buying it.

No, it wasn't.

No talk. No enthusiasm in the con game scene. No enthusiasm at the LGS; copies sat unsold on the shelves for years before being cleared out for shit that moves. No one talking up their home games. None of the indicators of a successful TRPG existed.

Where did you see talk? RPGNet, GR's forums, and that's about it. Popularity is a quality marker in TRPGs due to the network requirements, and what's not at all talked about (aside from a hole-in-the-wall dive bar sort of place, and the maker) is not quality; if it's not played, it's not worth playing- and Blue Rose ain't worth playing.

And then there are those who did buy, but did not play; they bought it as a status-signaller for fellow-travellers. You don't publish for those wankers any more than you do for the screeching howler monkeys who demand all, but do nothing but screech something else when they get it. (e.g. Cook and that whinefest over The Strange) You publish TRPGs for the motherfuckers who play, the ones who are there to play a fucking game and not piss around whining over First World Bullshit and where they stand in the stack.

If I ran the LGSs in town, I wouldn't stock this; let them buy from Amazon. I'd stick strickly to proven properties that bring in players that pay, and that does NOT include the tofu-tossers blathering about Blue Rose and Soc Jus cultism like it's good for anything.

I wish them luck. I met Chris Pramas at a con years ago and he struck me as a decent dude.

Romantic Fantasy isn't my thing, but True20 was my favorite D20 iteration.

I don't like even my own flavor of politics in RPGs. I much prefer to include my own fears instead.

That said, I'm really looking forward to Pundy vs. Magic Deer, Part Deux! Orville Redenbacher makes this really tasty Lime & Salt popcorn so I stocked up just for moments like this!

...but I wonder if Blue Rose PCs can leap into an astral "Safe Space" whenever an NPC brings up a topic that triggers them...

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;821669No, it wasn't.

Green Ronin confirmed that in the two years of its limited run, it sold more than any of their other lines beside WFRP2e, which was in the top 5 best selling RPGs at that stage (and notably more than M&M).

If we are talking anecdotally as well, it received a decent amount discussion and play in the places I frequented online and offline. It's limited run, the advent of True20 and the demise of D20 did see this decline within a couple of years of its last release. But not enough to suggest that Green Ronin's confirmation wasn't genuinely made and true.

Really, this is how things should work.

If SJWs want to change the RPG market, then they should put out SJW friendly RPGs, not attack other people for putting out books that don't happen to be "progressive" enough.

Good timing: the current socio-political climate in the rpg forum and blog scene will eat this up (based on how much people are talking about its politics more than anything else).

I'm unfamiliar with blue rose, but whatever tidbits that I've picked up seem interesting and original. I might check this out for drawing world-building inspiration from it.

Marketing it next to the fantasy romance section of a bookstore is not a bad idea... But who goes to bookstores anymore? Almost all got shut down by the B&N and Borders phenomenon of free wi-fi at the coffeehouse with a side of intelligentsia cred.

That said, I am so curious how a party of Mercedes Lackey princesses in waiting will dungeon delve. I like her writing. I like costume descriptions and lengthy internal dialogue. And I like a good fantasy fucking Vietnam. Hmmm.

I hope the kickstarter has material on the game itself, for quite some time I've been trying to figure out just what is supposed to be so interesting about this system and all I've found is politics surrounding it.

The gist I'm picking up from this thread is that it's very egalitarian and relative which is more than I can say I picked up from the post. Can't say I dislike that, but I'm much more interested in the mechanics, anyone have anything nice to say about the dragon age system they're basing it on?

Quote from: jhkim;821666While there are a lot of small differences, but I'd say the key differences are talking animals and the lack of evil races - along with the psychic flavoring of magic.

I'm not sure about the psychic flavoring, but as Beagle said, Tolkien used talking animals. So then, is the key difference that there are no evil non-humans?

I don't see wolves as evil, far from it actually, but it doesn't seem like wolves would be loved by either rabbits or sheep. How do talking herbivores get along with talking predators in the Blue Rose setting?

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;821669And then there are those who did buy, but did not play; they bought it as a status-signaller for fellow-travellers. You don't publish for those wankers any more than you do for the screeching howler monkeys who demand all, but do nothing but screech something else when they get it. (e.g. Cook and that whinefest over The Strange) You publish TRPGs for the motherfuckers who play, the ones who are there to play a fucking game and not piss around whining over First World Bullshit and where they stand in the stack.

If you are publishing based on a desire to run a business you publish for the people who will buy the game regardless of their motivation for buying. Whether they play or not is irrelevant as long as they buy. Motherfuckers who play, but who aren't interested in buying are as useless to a business as .

I liked Blue Rose.  Best of luck to GR with the new iteration:)

Quote from: Bren;821644Chris Pramas' notion that a special set of rules is needed so that people can play in a setting like that of a Tamora Pierce, Mercedes Lackey, and Jacqueline Carey story seems a little odd to me since doing that seems like something any competent and interested GM could do with their favorite existing RPG and a knowledge of any one of those author's series or novels.

The magic styles are different enough from typical spells that a dedicated system could be useful.

Quote from: jhkim;821658Cool. I definitely liked the Blue Rose setting. Lots of options and at least a mild break from the constant Tolkien-isms of many other settings. .

It could do with an increase in the number of kingdoms so there are more than one good, one evil, and one neutral option. It would be pretty easy to do as well, as there are a lot of valleys in the map that could be split off to create other countries. As it is, it's a bit too simple a political situation for my taste. I'd say between 10 and 15 polities with 3-4 evil (but different kinds of evil) and the remainder split fairly evenly between explicitly good (but in different ways) and more or less neutral (again in different ways) would be the way I would go.

Quote from: Necrozius;821691Good timing: the current socio-political climate in the rpg forum and blog scene will eat this up (based on how much people are talking about its politics more than anything else).

Until they inevitably use the wrong word, or have the wrong image, or leave something out, or leave something in, and get called out as horrible X-ists. If an explicit goal is inclusivity, then given the fractionalization of the SJ movements this is a certainty.

Quote from: Piestrio;821651If you want an actual licensed "Romantic Fantasy" RPG check out the Deryni Adventure Game based on FUDGE.

http://www.fudgerpg.com/products/deryni-adventure/ggg6001.html

The Deryni series is Romantic Fantasy? That not how it comes across to me. If anything it more like Martin's Game of Thrones only way less bloody and fewer characters dropping like flies. Although the series does have it bloody moments.

I guess if Romantic Fantasy is about character driven stories then the Deryni series qualifies.

Quote from: Bren;821659I'd have loved a sourcebook for Deryni stuff way back in the day. It's been a long, long time since I read anything by Katherine Kurtz, but my recollection is that the Deryni setting, though romantic, wouldn't align well with the stated political aims of Chris Pramas.

I recently purchased the Deryni Adventure Game and the paperback version of the Codex Derynianus. Enjoyed them both. The only problem with trying to game in the Eleven Kingdoms in that the magic system is highly plot driven so it hard to figure out its limits. On one hand it is magical psionics on the other hand a highly elaborate magical ritual system.

I'm no expert on the state of the RPG industry, but it seems they are positioning themselves fairly well in the current market. I have no driving interest in the setting and I dislike the AGE system, but I can see how it would appeal to their target audience. I could really do without the politics, but they bother me less than the dragonborne do.

Knew this thread would be here. 8)

I'm a long time fan of Green Ronin. Less so of Blue Rose. I was intrigued by the True 20 system (but ended up not liking its generic implementation), but the setting put me off. It seemed to be too blatantly a caricature of the modern political scene.

Cashing in on the current political climate. Okay with me. Unless they actually think they're doing something, which makes me simultaneously laugh and cringe...

True20 is actually a pretty good system, though. Too bad they're scrapping that.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;821654A second shot for a shit property. Some folks don't read the market very well; the same folks who didn't buy before won't buy now, and the same folks who didn't play then won't now.

Forty years, folks. We've had TRPGs for forty fucking years now. We now what works, and what doesn't. This shit doesn't work, and it's long past time to start viciously punishing fools who keep trying to pull a Canute.

Are you actually suggesting that taste and demand in RPGs has remained static since 1974, that timing plays no roll in a games success or failure? Would Vampire: the Masquerade have had the same runaway success if it had come out in 1977? Would Twilight:2000 produced a long line of supplements and a second edition if it had come out in 2005? Would Rifts do just as well if it came out today?

And seriously, "time to start viciously punishing fools"? That's just an embarrassing level emotion to have worked up over Green Ronin's release schedule.

I'd say Blue Rose has a better chance of success today than its last release. There are more people in the market looking for something like that. The last edition also had the misfortune of being a D20 game at the point when people were divided mainly into two camps. There were those that were devoted enough to 3.5 that they would stick with it by way of Pathfinder. Then there were the people that never wanted to look at a D20 product again. The True 20 system wasn't bad, but people weren't looking for a better D20 game anymore. They were either fully onboard with the official version or they just wanted to get away from it entirely.

Quote from: Brad;821728True20 is actually a pretty good system, though. Too bad they're scrapping that.

I agree. Not a fan of AGE, but then again, Blue Rose is not for me anyway.

Quote from: apparition13;821714The magic styles are different enough from typical spells that a dedicated system could be useful.

Interesting. I've seen more than a few Blue Rose threads here and elsewhere, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about the uniqueness of the magic system in comparison to the many predecessor systems like as D&D, Runequest/BRP, GURPS, Hero Games, WHFRP, or White Wolf.

Quote from: apparition13;821714It could do with an increase in the number of kingdoms so there are more than one good, one evil, and one neutral option. It would be pretty easy to do as well, as there are a lot of valleys in the map that could be split off to create other countries. As it is, it's a bit too simple a political situation for my taste. I'd say between 10 and 15 polities with 3-4 evil (but different kinds of evil) and the remainder split fairly evenly between explicitly good (but in different ways) and more or less neutral (again in different ways) would be the way I would go.

Have you seen the Blue Rose companion books? They expanded the world a little, though not as much as you suggest. Given the relatively brief all-in-one Blue Rose corebook, I think covering only two cultures was OK for that short a book. I dislike the practice of companion books with a hodge-podge of expansions, though. I'd prefer something like a dedicated world-book that expands out to the 10 to 15 polities you suggest, along with a dedicated player expansion book and a dedicated campaign book for GMs.

Quote from: estar;821715The Deryni series is Romantic Fantasy? That not how it comes across to me. If anything it more like Martin's Game of Thrones only way less bloody and fewer characters dropping like flies. Although the series does have it bloody moments.

I guess if Romantic Fantasy is about character driven stories then the Deryni series qualifies.

I haven't read the Deryni series. It sounds like it has some overlap but wouldn't be central. Common features of the Romantic Fantasy genre are typically:

(1) more focus on political differences rather than good-vs-evil, as opposed to high fantasy like Tolkien; (2) magic is of a psychic bent and generally positive, as opposed to magic in sword-and-sorcery like R.E. Howard; (3) relatively egalitarian societies.  Psychic animals and/or nature-connected themes are common but not necessarily definitional.

Defining authors are Mercedes Lackey and Tamora Pierce, along with others like Diane Duane and Catherine Asaro.

I liked True20. It had a lot of interesting modular systems. For that reason alone I thought Blue Rose had a lot going for it. Glad to see they brought it back. GR is good people, and they make great games. Fully support!

Not familiar with AGE... time to check it out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821629So yeah, that's a thing (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ronin-round-table-blue-rose-returns/).  What do you think?

I might actually sign up for this Kickstarter. I have the d20 Blue Rose. It's a good game, haven't run it yet though.

Not a game for me, but here's hoping that those who buy it play it and have fun. If it brings more people into the hobby, or reignites somebody's lapsed interest in the hobby, all the better.

Quote from: jhkim;821736(1) more focus on political differences rather than good-vs-evil, as opposed to high fantasy like Tolkien; (2) magic is of a psychic bent and generally positive, as opposed to magic in sword-and-sorcery like R.E. Howard; (3) relatively egalitarian societies.  Psychic animals and/or nature-connected themes are common but not necessarily definitional.

Defining authors are Mercedes Lackey and Tamora Pierce, along with others like Diane Duane and Catherine Asaro.

Wikipedia does not mention egalitarian societies as a defining trait of Romantic Fantasy nor does it seem a necessary element to applying the tropes of romantic fiction to a fantasy. Other than wanting to narrow the definition for some reason, why would one include egalitarian societies.

In the Deryni series (1) and (2) are main elements of all the stories. If Deryni isn't romantic fantasy, it certainly tended in that direction. Andre Norton's Witchworld series also seems to fit the same overall genre. though again her societies are egalitarian tending instead to either be patriarchal or matriarchal.

SJWs having their own games to play is a good thing.
SJWs stopping other people from playing different games is a bad thing.
So it's a plus in my book.

Quote from: S'mon;821757SJWs having their own games to play is a good thing.
SJWs stopping other people from playing different games is a bad thing.
So it's a plus in my book.

This, and the re-release of Blue Rose will act as a rallying point for the SJWs who keep trying to shit up other games. Maybe it will cause them to leave everybody else alone for awhile.

Quote from: spinachcat;821670...but i wonder if blue rose pcs can leap into an astral "safe space" whenever an npc brings up a topic that triggers them...

lol :d:d

I don't think there's anything particularly story-gamish or political in the original game itself - unless you consider Mercedes Lackey to be political.

I played one adventure in the setting - I think 4 sessions or so, and several one-shots.

Here's my review of the original core book:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/reviews/bluerose.html

Short form: a little dry in spots for both the mechanics and the setting, but with plenty of promise. The core story is being fantasy police/judges, rooting out hidden evil. I'll post more on the the magic system. Here's what I said in my review:

QuoteArcana are the magical effects of the system (singular "arcanum"). In some ways they more resemble what is usually termed "psionics" than traditional RPG magic. A central arcana is "Mind Touch", which allows mental contact magical effects on targets from a great distance -- based on how personally familiar you are with them. Other effects include various mental manipulations, and control of nature -- such as control of and speaking with animals, plant shaping, water shaping, etc.

There are a total of 49 arcana defined in the core book. Each is much more broad than a typical spell in D&D. A single arcanum will often have multiple functions. For example, "Heart Shaping" has six functions: Despair, Fear, Friendship, Hatred, Hope, and Rage. Further, arcana are not graded in levels. Instead, they are all considered equal and each arcanum's effects grows more powerful in proportion to the caster's level. For example, rather than a low level "Ray of Frost" spell and a higher-level "Cone of Cold" spell, there is a single "Cold Shaping" arcana whose effects scale with the caster's level, and which can be cast at reduced power for a reduced chance of fatigue.

An intriguing touch is the option for evil magic -- termed "sorcery" here. Essentially, sorcery is powerful and dangerous magic, but carries a risk of demonic corruption. With each act of sorcery, you risk gaining a point of corruption. Corruption is a grave threat unless the character chooses to embrace it, essentially turning over to evil.

Quote from: Piestrio;821651If you want an actual licensed "Romantic Fantasy" RPG check out the Deryni Adventure Game based on FUDGE.

http://www.fudgerpg.com/products/deryni-adventure/ggg6001.html

Oooh...loves me some Deryni.

[Edit - Sonofabitch.  I clicked the link, and found hey, I own that! But...I've never read it beyond the cursory glances I gave it on the day I bought it.  WTF is that? Gotta dig that out now]

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;821654A second shot for a shit property. Some folks don't read the market very well; the same folks who didn't buy before won't buy now, and the same folks who didn't play then won't now.

Forty years, folks. We've had TRPGs for forty fucking years now. We now what works, and what doesn't. This shit doesn't work, and it's long past time to start viciously punishing fools who keep trying to pull a Canute.

Seems like it works enough, for enough people, to make some money writing and selling it...what exactly is your objection, other than badwrongfun? I mean, it doesn't sound like the game for me, but what the fuck do you care if it's the game for someone else - or even if it's just some smug thing some people buy and stick on their shelf so they can feel more smug about it being on their shelf?

Quote from: Mistwell;821817...or even if it's just some smug thing some people buy and stick on their shelf so they can feel more smug about it being on their shelf?

I can ASSURE you my shelf is already DRIPPING in smugness. It's ultra smug. Like a fucking smug bomb went off up in that bookshelf. MASSIVE smug. In fact, I'm pretty sure the smug is SMUG.

Kind of strikes me as bizarre.  AGE (the generic version of the Dragon Age system) doesn't seem like it would be as good of a fit as Chronicle (the generic version of the Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying system).

Blue Rose interest seems like it would be better served with a more narrative system with built in stuff for creating families, realms, etc (like Chronicle does.)

Odd Choice, but more power to 'em.  Might get the Usual G+ Suspects to actually purchase and play a game for the first time in their lives.  Might make them happier and less concerned with destroying anything in life that makes them uncomfortable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821827Kind of strikes me as bizarre.  AGE (the generic version of the Dragon Age system) doesn't seem like it would be as good of a fit as Chronicle (the generic version of the Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying system).

Blue Rose interest seems like it would be better served with a more narrative system with built in stuff for creating families, realms, etc (like Chronicle does.)

Chronicle is probably too brutal a system, given the default for Blue Rose is more swashbuckler meets Star Wars.

Also, John Snead, BR's creator, is pretty strongly opposed to narrative systems and prefers to leave relationships and social interaction to roleplaying. That was one reason why they went with a D20 mod for the original game.

On saying that, I would expect to see AGE's social stunt system developed a little for Blue Rose, so that you get to do extra things on social rolls and the like.

BTW, isn't Blue Rose the place where there are "normal humans", the elf analogue are "good magical humans" who are pale with white hair, the evil race analogue is "evil corrupted humans" with black skin, and the orc analogue is the "Night People"?

Isn't this setup the kind of thing that gets the Outrage Brigade going crazy? ;)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;821640Snakeye and nape, on those coords.

DungeonDelver, you've been warned about using Vietnam Era ordinance on forest animals before (RE: The "Operation:Bambi" suspension).  Leave the thread or I'll have to report you to SEPIA. (Society for the Ethical Protection of Imaginary Animals).

Quote from: RPGPundit;821629So yeah, that's a thing (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ronin-round-table-blue-rose-returns/).  What do you think?

Good for them. I hope it sells as well as it did before.

Sadly, I won't be able to plunder it for my D&D game. But, the outrage of those who can't handle a truly benevolent dictatorship will amuse me. I am indifferent to the social / sexual identity aspect of the game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821836BTW, isn't Blue Rose the place where there are "normal humans", the elf analogue are "good magical humans" who are pale with white hair, the evil race analogue is "evil corrupted humans" with black skin, and the orc analogue is the "Night People"?

Isn't this setup the kind of thing that gets the Outrage Brigade going crazy? ;)

Existing in any state of Not Gluten-Free, Allergy-Free Quinoa Salad is the kind of thing that gets the Outrage Brigade going crazy. Trust me, as a quiche lorraine, I know.
:(

Quote from: CRKrueger;821844DungeonDelver, you've been warned about using Vietnam Era ordinance on forest animals before (RE: The "Operation:Bambi" suspension).  Leave the thread or I'll have to report you to SEPIA. (Society for the Ethical Protection of Imaginary Animals).

I need more color-based acronyms in my life! Quick: now do mauve!

Quote from: Opaopajr;821849I need more color-based acronyms in my life! Quick: now do mauve!

MAUVE: Majestic Animals Under Venisonocracy Everlasting?

Given how things have changed in the past decade, I'm mildly curious to see if Jarzon is going to remain "well-intentioned but misguided" or move towards two-dimensional, moustache-twirling malevolence. :)

Quote from: Bren;821735Interesting. I've seen more than a few Blue Rose threads here and elsewhere, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about the uniqueness of the magic system in comparison to the many predecessor systems like as D&D, Runequest/BRP, GURPS, Hero Games, WHFRP, or White Wolf.

jhkim went into a little more detail on the mechanics of the game, but for the genre in general magic tends more toward the psionic/psychic than spells, grimoires, or summonings.

Quote from: jhkim;821736Have you seen the Blue Rose companion books? They expanded the world a little, though not as much as you suggest. Given the relatively brief all-in-one Blue Rose corebook, I think covering only two cultures was OK for that short a book. I dislike the practice of companion books with a hodge-podge of expansions, though. I'd prefer something like a dedicated world-book that expands out to the 10 to 15 polities you suggest, along with a dedicated player expansion book and a dedicated campaign book for GMs.

Yup, got the whole set, which is where the 10-15 comes from. I got a good look at a bigger map, and saw lots of nice river valleys that could be their own thing, and thought it would be a much more interesting setting if there were multiple good, neutral, and evil states. Keep the ones there, but reduced in size. Put an isolated good state near Kern, maybe in the Golga Badlands, do the same with a small evil state near Aldis, split Rezea, chop off bits of Aldis for a couple other states, turn that lake-valley north of Aldis into something, split a couple of the cities off into city states, turn a couple areas into abandoned ruins etc.

You could still do an Aldis campaign, but you could also do surrounded and beleaguered defenders of good, exploring ruins looking for treasure (or macguffins), diplomatic missions and alliance building, political intrigue, and so forth.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821836BTW, isn't Blue Rose the place where there are "normal humans", the elf analogue are "good magical humans" who are pale with white hair, the evil race analogue is "evil corrupted humans" with black skin, and the orc analogue is the "Night People"?

Isn't this setup the kind of thing that gets the Outrage Brigade going crazy? ;)

Hey, it's ok to like problematic things. Well, it's ok for me, not for you   is the usual bullshit I hear.

However, as far as Blue Rose is concerned? I'm not the target audience but I wish them luck.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821836BTW, isn't Blue Rose the place where there are "normal humans", the elf analogue are "good magical humans" who are pale with white hair, the evil race analogue is "evil corrupted humans" with black skin, and the orc analogue is the "Night People"?

Isn't this setup the kind of thing that gets the Outrage Brigade going crazy? ;)

Well, some people have to balance their sense of racial outrage with thinking Drow and Orcs are cool. ;)

JG

Quote from: Skywalker;821830Also, John Snead, BR's creator, is pretty strongly opposed to narrative systems and prefers to leave relationships and social interaction to roleplaying.

Oh! I didn't know Mr. Snead wrote it. I generally like what I've seen come from him. Never much gave BR a consideration but maybe it's something I oughtta look at.

Quote from: jhkim;821808I'll post more on the the magic system. Here's what I said in my review:...

Thanks. That gives me a better sense of what the system does. Not unique, but also not D&D.

Quote from: James Gillen;821900Well, some people have to balance their sense of racial outrage with thinking Drow and Orcs are cool. ;)

JG

I can tell you with certainty that orcs are NOT cool. I once saw one wearing sandals with plate armor at a convention.. I mean, come on, there is no way to make that cool.

While we are on the subject of the AGE system, am I the only one that finds the stunt system unsatisfying? I ran a Dragon Age one shot for a group of fans of the IP. All of them had table top experience and not a single one thought the system fit the setting.

So, I don't know if our dissatisfaction was due to setting/system mismatch or if we just didn't like AGE. I'm not sure that I see it as a fit for Blue Rose either, but I'm not really a qualified judge.

Quote from: Simlasa;821902Oh! I didn't know Mr. Snead wrote it. I generally like what I've seen come from him. Never much gave BR a consideration but maybe it's something I oughtta look at.

There were 4 writers credited, but the setting was John's baby initially. The others are Steve Kenson, Jeremy Crawford and Dawn Elliot.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821844DungeonDelver, you've been warned about using Vietnam Era ordinance on forest animals before (RE: The "Operation:Bambi" suspension).  Leave the thread or I'll have to report you to SEPIA. (Society for the Ethical Protection of Imaginary Animals).

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VA-DqGGFKfg/TfwZmObf_rI/AAAAAAAAAMM/AfigPX3heJI/s1600/a-bomb-JC.png)

Take it to OrdinanceTickets, and do not post in this thread again

I like my fantasy like I like my steaks - dark and bloody, so I'll pass.

Might be interesting, the kickstarter will probably do fairly well.  I might pick up the pdf level, depends.

I've always been vaguely interested in the system from watching Wil Wheaton play it on Tabletop, but I've never been into the computer game and didn't want to get the sets, so now I'll apparently get the options of getting the system with the computer game background or getting it with golden hart background.  I'll probably in part see which I can get cheaper.

Quote from: jcfiala;822057I've always been vaguely interested in the system from watching Wil Wheaton play it on Tabletop, but I've never been into the computer game and didn't want to get the sets, so now I'll apparently get the options of getting the system with the computer game background or getting it with golden hart background.  I'll probably in part see which I can get cheaper.

I believe that a setting-less AGE rulebook is in the works too.

So they're hoping to relaunch Blue Rose?

Sounds cool.  It's not for me though.  I bought the core, companion, and world books when I happened upon them at a local store for $5 apiece.  I think they're pretty good.  They convinced me to give True20 another shot, at least.  That said, I'm not in the market to buy the same or revised material again.  Regardless, I hope they manage to relaunch and have a good one.

I wish the best of luck to Green Ronin. Although I liked the AGE system I'd probably would have used an updated True20.

Re: Politics
I think that arguing about the politics of fantasy is silly.
Strange women in ponds handing swords and all that stuff...

Quote from: RPGPundit;821629So yeah, that's a thing (http://greenronin.com/blog/2015/03/23/ronin-round-table-blue-rose-returns/).  What do you think?

Don't care.

Quote from: MrHurst;821702Can't say I dislike that, but I'm much more interested in the mechanics, anyone have anything nice to say about the dragon age system they're basing it on?

It's pretty mechanically robust, although I'd almost worry it's too much grit-and-gears for the intended audience.  If you preferred earlier versions of D&D, it works pretty well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;821836BTW, isn't Blue Rose the place where there are "normal humans", the elf analogue are "good magical humans" who are pale with white hair, the evil race analogue is "evil corrupted humans" with black skin, and the orc analogue is the "Night People"?

Isn't this setup the kind of thing that gets the Outrage Brigade going crazy? ;)

The Vata'sha (Drow-with-serial-numbers-filed-off) and Night People (Orcs-with-serial-numbers-filed-off) are more put on a pedestal than than anything else -- the corebook goes out of their way to say any living in Aldis are extremely loyal and honest because Aldis is nice to them while the other evil countries discriminate against them.

The evil narrative equivalent to the cunning military-minded outsiders with torturous social norms are the Jarzoni (Christians), and the mindless and nameless evil folk are the Kernish (either thralls to a Lich or willing servants of evil).  

On the other hand, they did get some flack from the SJWs for iffy portrayal of the not-Romani Roamers.

Quote from: Skywalker;821665Given Blue Rose was one of GR's most successful properties in its time

True20 was the successful part of Blue Rose. People were buying the core book to plunder the d20 rules. The publishers refused to acknowledge this reality for a while, but eventually released a bucketload of True20 rulebooks, while BR withered in a dark corner.

Quote from: Ephemerer;821730Would Vampire: the Masquerade have had the same runaway success if it had come out in 1977?

White Wolf came up with a game about angst ridden Gothic immortals. People used it to play katana-wielding vampires in black trenchcoats fighting Nazi werewolves on top of steampunk zeppelins. With a Japanese glam metal soundtrack in the background.

How could this not succeed? ;)

QuoteI'd say Blue Rose has a better chance of success today than its last release.

This is probably accurate, and I imagine that a well-run Kickstarter can ensure at least a decent initial financial success. Whether its publishers can market it effectively in the long run or not is an entirely different question.

Quote from: jhkim;821808I don't think there's anything particularly story-gamish or political in the original game itself

Storygamish? No.

Political? Absolutely.  But we've gone over this before.    It says if you are a libertarian, individualist, or christian (or any ideology that's not Collectivist) you are OBJECTIVELY not-good, and objectively wrong. You are 'twilight' or 'shadow'.  That is an inherently POLITICAL statement.  

Also, you have seen the new link, right? You can't now pretend that the statement in the announcement isn't explicitly political, right?

I appreciated what Blue Rose was trying to do, in terms of being explicitly more "inclusive" and all, but the setting wasn't the best execution of romantic fantasy IMO.  For one thing, they seem not to have noticed that most of the protagonists of such stories are individuals working against some corrupt element of the larger system, cleaning it out, helping to both redeem it and find their place within it.

Aldis comes off as a place where all that work was taken care of before any of the PCs came along, and so leaves them with the standard "good-guy kingdom vs. bad-guy kingdom" trope.

That said, I did appreciate the inclusion of talking animals as PC options.

I'm not familiar with the Dragon Age rules, but I'm willing to give Blue Rose another look.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822791Storygamish? No.

Political? Absolutely.  But we've gone over this before.    It says if you are a libertarian, individualist, or christian (or any ideology that's not Collectivist) you are OBJECTIVELY not-good, and objectively wrong. You are 'twilight' or 'shadow'.  That is an inherently POLITICAL statement.  

Also, you have seen the new link, right? You can't now pretend that the statement in the announcement isn't explicitly political, right?

Yes, I have seen the new link, and I already expressed that I didn't like how they were selling it.

As for the alignment rules, I disagree and I've already written a FAQ on the subject. cf. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/bluerose/goldenhart.html

QuoteThe alignments are a part of the background of Aldis in that there is an artifact that tests whether a candidate is of Light alignment before becoming a noble. Within Blue Rose, the alignments are Light, Twilight, and Shadow -- tying them into the mythology of the game-world. This distances them slightly from being strictly real-world morals, though Light is clearly more moral than Shadow.

Light alignment is described in the core rulebook as follows: "Generally, the Light-aligned believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest. They seek peace, harmonious coexistence, and the general good; although, there is sometimes disagreement as to what exactly is the best for everyone." This is rather vague, since it refers to believing in and seeking good for all, but not what "good" means.

This is similar though not identical to other alignment systems. For example, in Dungeons & Dragons, the Good alignments are described by saying: "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." These are distinct, but have similar connotations. Light and good characters both care about others rather than caring only for themselves (i.e. "altruism" and "general good"). They prefer peaceful means and avoid killing unless it is necessary (i.e. "peace" and "respect for life").

However, the description of Light specifically mentions community and the good of all. This does not necessarily mean either lawfulness or obedience, since a character may care about and protect their people without obeying the laws. Vigilantes or rebels may believe in their community, but not accept the law as what is best for them. Within the D&D alignment scheme, lawfulness implies belief in community, but belief in community does not imply lawfulness. On the D&D alignment scale, this might be roughly illustrated as shown below.

(http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/bluerose/img/alignments.gif)

In other words, someone who is Lawful Good is definitely Light. Someone who is Chaotic Evil is definitely Shadow. Someone who is Chaotic Good might be Light if they care about the community but simply work outside its laws; or they might be Twilight if they are more loners and drifters.

The Blue Rose alignments have been criticized as "collectivist", but that is imposing a specific interpretation on a vague sentence. "Belief in community" or "general good" are pretty open for interpretation by different gaming groups. There are no specific guidelines than this, and the range of light and shadow natures are broad.

Quote from: jhkim;822802Yes, I have seen the new link, and I already expressed that I didn't like how they were selling it.

As for the alignment rules, I disagree and I've already written a FAQ on the subject. cf. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/bluerose/goldenhart.html

You mention "belief in community" and "general good" not being political.  Only problem is, those are your words, not Blue Rose's.  What BR actually says is "Generally, the Light-aligned believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest. They seek peace, harmonious coexistence, and the general good; although, there is sometimes disagreement as to what exactly is the best for everyone." You replace Light-Aligned with Liberal, you've got NPR ad copy.

The authors have said Blue Rose is the "gayest" RPG ever made.  It would be downright silly to pretend it wasn't the most liberal as well.  It's a Utopia, one that's equally as political and silly really as a fictional Randian Utopia would be.

All Utopias are impossible, because they depend on people not being people.  If the Magic Deer actually existed and could ensure the leaders weren't just as corrupt as the criminals, it would probably be a good place to live.

Pretending it isn't political though, that's one of those obvious Team Jersey lies that just make you look disingenuous.

It's got very strong political and religious beliefs...so?  A lot of great fantasy and a ton of great science fiction does too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;822809It's got very strong political and religious beliefs...so?  A lot of great fantasy and a ton of great science fiction does too.

I agree entirely. Narnia and Middle Earth to name a couple. I'll take it further and say practically everything has some political or social biases assumptions in it. Fiction is created by people and people have them and their creations will often reflex their beliefs even if to contrast, examine or deconstruct them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;822809It's got very strong political and religious beliefs...so?  A lot of great fantasy and a ton of great science fiction does too.

This is how I feel, too.

The mere fact that it is political does not, in itself, make it a bad game or setting, even if you don't agree with the politics or agenda on display.  I'm not a Christian, for instance, but I still think C.S. Lewis spun some good yarns.

My beef with Blue Rose, to the extent I had one, was that I thought it didn't actually reflect romantic fantasy all that well.

Several of the less metaphysically evil examples of Shadow and Twilight characters are explicitly tainted by fairly standard self-interest, and much of the shadow alignment and shadow natures are written from early 2000s progressivism.  There's not much of a fig leaf, there.  This actually works out ok in practice -- it's great for running Captain Planet-style adventures, and even if that's a bit shallow it's at least quick to get everyone to jump onto.

Quote from: King Truffle IV;822801For one thing, they seem not to have noticed that most of the protagonists of such stories are individuals working against some corrupt element of the larger system, cleaning it out, helping to both redeem it and find their place within it.

Aldis comes off as a place where all that work was taken care of before any of the PCs came along, and so leaves them with the standard "good-guy kingdom vs. bad-guy kingdom" trope.

I think that Jarzon was more the intended setting for that type of game, with the administration of the Church being explicitly Shadow-aligned and the majority of the people being explicitly Light- or Twilight- and merely misguided, hence why the sample adventure puts the heroes against a group of Jarzoni refugees.  Aldis proper is more Diane Duane or Mercedes Lackey emulation, where the system itself is good but individual components may be corrupted (aka 50% of the Merchant's and Noble's Councils) or external threats are involved and you need someone to protect.

Admittedly, the core book handles this pretty poorly; I think it was made more explicit in the settings books

Quote from: King Truffle IV;822801I appreciated what Blue Rose was trying to do, in terms of being explicitly more "inclusive" and all, but the setting wasn't the best execution of romantic fantasy IMO.  For one thing, they seem not to have noticed that most of the protagonists of such stories are individuals working against some corrupt element of the larger system, cleaning it out, helping to both redeem it and find their place within it.

Aldis comes off as a place where all that work was taken care of before any of the PCs came along, and so leaves them with the standard "good-guy kingdom vs. bad-guy kingdom" trope.

Aldis is most closely associated with Mercedes Lackey rather than other writers like, say, Tamora Pierce. I would have preferred something closer to Tortall, but I think there's no doubt that Mercedes Lackey is within the bounds of romantic fantasy. The core of good in Aldis is much like how Valdemar is kept positive by the presence of the Companions. (Those are innately good psychic horse-like animals who bond with certain humans, for those who don't know Mercedes Lackey.)

Still, nearly all of the adventure hooks are about fighting corruption and evil within Aldis, not making war on Kern. The "Threats to Aldis" section from pages 38 to 41 detail corrupt merchant guilds, fallen nobles, bandits, criminals (including the powerful syndicate The Silence), Shadow cults, and more. The vast majority of the adventure seeds from p176-177 are about internal threats.

In general, Aldis is portrayed as a kingdom whose heart is in the right place - so no need for a general revolution. However, there is plenty of corruption, crime, and conspiracy - as well as other differences.

Quote from: jhkim;822863In general, Aldis is portrayed as a kingdom whose heart is in the right place - so no need for a general revolution. However, there is plenty of corruption, crime, and conspiracy - as well as other differences.

So it's kind of like playing Star Trek inside the Federation but with talking animals and magic instead of starships and transporters?

Quote from: Bren;822869So it's kind of like playing Star Trek inside the Federation but with talking animals and magic instead of starships and transporters?

Deep Space 9 era, yeah, pretty much.

Quote from: gattsuru;822874Deep Space 9 era, yeah, pretty much.

I wonder if that is a less contentious way of talking about the setting.

Quote from: gattsuru;822874Deep Space 9 era, yeah, pretty much.

QUARK: I want you try something for me.  Take a sip of this.
GARAK: What is it?
Q: A human drink.  It's called root beer.
G: I don't know.
Q: Come on. Aren't you just a little bit curious?
[GARAK takes a drink and recoils.  QUARK looks at him.]
GARAK: It's vile!
QUARK: I know.  It's so.. bubbly and cloying.  And happy.  
G:...Just like the Federation.
Q: But you know what's really frightening?  If you drink enough of it- you start to like it.
G: It's insidious.
Q: JUST like the Federation.

Quote from: James Gillen;822890QUARK: I want you try something for me.  Take a sip of this.
GARAK: What is it?
Q: A human drink.  It's called root beer.
G: I don't know.
Q: Come on. Aren't you just a little bit curious?
[GARAK takes a drink and recoils.  QUARK looks at him.]
GARAK: It's vile!
QUARK: I know.  It's so.. bubbly and cloying.  And happy.  
G:...Just like the Federation.
Q: But you know what's really frightening?  If you drink enough of it- you start to like it.
G: It's insidious.
Q: JUST like the Federation.

Well, now I want to start a campaign, only I make one of my characters the "Chosen One" of the Jarzon religion, even though he doesn't care about it.  "No, no, you've got the bird birthmark on your left shoulder, you're the chosen one alright.  Unless... you're a false chosen one?"  *eyes get that tinge of madness, starts pulling at their sword* "We burn those at the stake!"

"Oh, no, no, I'm the chosen one alright, you betcha."  *nervously shuffles off*

Quote from: gattsuru;822874Deep Space 9 era, yeah, pretty much.

   Perhaps part of the problem is that Aldis wound up being misunderstood as too much like the early-TNG era Federation?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;822897Perhaps part of the problem is that Aldis wound up being misunderstood as too much like the early-TNG era Federation?

No, the earlier problem was that it was a setting that Players didn't want. I could see the Leader choosing magic deer show up, one of my Players would shoot it and then scream, "Divine venison for all!"

Now, I'm turned off because I want to get away from politics when I game. Green Ronin is trying to sell me on Blue Rose by appealing to the Social Justice Warriors? Not only no, but fuck no.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822791Storygamish? No.

Political? Absolutely.  But we've gone over this before.    It says if you are a libertarian, individualist, or christian (or any ideology that's not Collectivist) you are OBJECTIVELY not-good, and objectively wrong. You are 'twilight' or 'shadow'.  That is an inherently POLITICAL statement.  

Also, you have seen the new link, right? You can't now pretend that the statement in the announcement isn't explicitly political, right?

This.

This is the same reason that the first edition of Blue Planet (the other political "blue" game) turned me off.

Every game setting is going to have a certain point of view; however, if that setting explicitly states that my real-world point of view is inherently, objectively wrong? Sorry, not interested.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone liking such games, so long as they don't consider me a bad person for not liking them. Let the market decide, sez I.

I don't think I've ever come across a setting that made me "Nope!" harder.  Something about the world envisioned turns me off so much I'd rather play a game of Candyland than this shit.

Quote from: jhkim;822863Aldis is most closely associated with Mercedes Lackey rather than other writers like, say, Tamora Pierce. I would have preferred something closer to Tortall, but I think there's no doubt that Mercedes Lackey is within the bounds of romantic fantasy. The core of good in Aldis is much like how Valdemar is kept positive by the presence of the Companions. (Those are innately good psychic horse-like animals who bond with certain humans, for those who don't know Mercedes Lackey.)

Still, nearly all of the adventure hooks are about fighting corruption and evil within Aldis, not making war on Kern. The "Threats to Aldis" section from pages 38 to 41 detail corrupt merchant guilds, fallen nobles, bandits, criminals (including the powerful syndicate The Silence), Shadow cults, and more. The vast majority of the adventure seeds from p176-177 are about internal threats.

In general, Aldis is portrayed as a kingdom whose heart is in the right place - so no need for a general revolution. However, there is plenty of corruption, crime, and conspiracy - as well as other differences.

Ah, well, I confess I haven't looked at the setting in years, and was only posting based on my recalled overall impression.

Like I said, I'm willing to give it a second look, especially if it has material I can cannibalize for one of my OSR games.

This discussion has raised my interest in this game (up from zero)... I like the idea of a 'fantasy star trek' setting where many social ills have been done away with... but at what price? I'm sure (as I am with Star Trek) I'd be tempted to have some games focus on the outsiders who see the do-gooders as delusional tyrants... and work to expose their hypocrisy.

Quote from: jhkim;822802As for the alignment rules, I disagree and I've already written a FAQ on the subject. cf. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/bluerose/goldenhart.html

Aside from the point that you change the literal text descriptions of the alignments in BR (which someone else already covered), there's no question that there is a VALUE JUDGMENT going on in the very name of the alignments.
Saying "Light", "twilight" and "shadow" is suggesting fundamental flaws in individuals who do not support Collectivism.

Quote from: jeff37923;822903No, the earlier problem was that it was a setting that Players didn't want. I could see the Leader choosing magic deer show up, one of my Players would shoot it and then scream, "Divine venison for all!"

   I was just speculating a bit on why the setting was so negatively received. My own disinterest in the setting is largely the same as Dan Davenport's, albeit probably from a different perspective. "Traditional Christian (with serial numbers filed off) = misguided or willing servant of Darkness" is not something I want to support. I was willing to bracket or rework Aldis' sexual libertinism, but what I saw of Jarzon was a bridge too far.

  Although I did toy with the idea of reworking the setting to make Jarzon the generally good folks and Aldis the well-intentioned but decadent and complacent foil ... :)

QuoteNow, I'm turned off because I want to get away from politics when I game. Green Ronin is trying to sell me on Blue Rose by appealing to the Social Justice Warriors? Not only no, but fuck no.

   The counterpoint that the boosters are using seems to be "everything is political, so why are you criticizing Blue Rose?", ignoring the equivocal uses of the term 'political'. But it appears that Green Ronin has decided to openly take a side in contemporary debates and use this product, at least, to push their side. If you disagree with their point of view, or just don't want to involve contemporary controversies in your gaming, then that's going to be a point against the product.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;823039I was just speculating a bit on why the setting was so negatively received. My own disinterest in the setting is largely the same as Dan Davenport's, albeit probably from a different perspective. "Traditional Christian (with serial numbers filed off) = misguided or willing servant of Darkness" is not something I want to support. I was willing to bracket or rework Aldis' sexual libertinism, but what I saw of Jarzon was a bridge too far.

Actually, we agree completely.

I'm not sure exactly what I'd call myself in religious terms these days, although I was definitely a traditional Christian at one time. Regardless, I have no interest in playing a game that treats such people as objectively wrong/evil.

And I definitely agree with Pundit's point about collectivism.

Again, I do not care that this game exists. Frankly? I think it does a good job of what it sets out to do, so in that sense, it's a good game.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;822897Perhaps part of the problem is that Aldis wound up being misunderstood as too much like the early-TNG era Federation?

Kinda, but with more preachy episodes where Picard teaches everyone a Very Special Lesson about .  Aldis is less of a problem than Jarzon, though, which comes across as episode after episode trying to get the audience to take the Ferengi seriously by having them like money and stand snarling on rocks.

The first part is a little tedious, but the extent that Blue Rose tries to draw anyone who has the incorrect beliefs as not merely wrong but fundamentally and internally evil gets kinda old.  Part of this is just bad writing -- the corebook really doesn't handle the line between Corruption and Shadow alignment very clearly, even though there are significant mechanical differences and were probably supposed to be larger ones -- but as a practical matter it makes it a little teeth-grating to use the setting-as-written.

On the other hand, you can do some really interesting things by denying the Shadow-As-Evil and Light-As-Good objective morality play, so it's not all bad.

Quote from: CRKrueger;822809You mention "belief in community" and "general good" not being political.  Only problem is, those are your words, not Blue Rose's.  What BR actually says is "Generally, the Light-aligned believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest. They seek peace, harmonious coexistence, and the general good; although, there is sometimes disagreement as to what exactly is the best for everyone." You replace Light-Aligned with Liberal, you've got NPR ad copy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;823026Aside from the point that you change the literal text descriptions of the alignments in BR (which someone else already covered), there's no question that there is a VALUE JUDGMENT going on in the very name of the alignments.
Saying "Light", "twilight" and "shadow" is suggesting fundamental flaws in individuals who do not support Collectivism.

What the fuck are you two talking about?  

The text that CRKrueger posted is exactly the same as the text that I myself included in my post #85. Here is the goddamn link:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=822802&postcount=85

We both posted the exact text of the alignment. In my discussion of this, I later refer back to "the Light-aligned believe in community" as "belief in community" and "the good of all" as "general good". Since I posted the exact text just before, I don't see how this can be seen as twisting anything.

As 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".

Quote from: Dan Davenport;822906Every game setting is going to have a certain point of view; however, if that setting explicitly states that my real-world point of view is inherently, objectively wrong? Sorry, not interested.

That said, I don't begrudge anyone liking such games, so long as they don't consider me a bad person for not liking them. Let the market decide, sez I.

To be fair, I think that largely depends on the point of view the game is slapping down. Game disses you because you vote small-government Republican? We can talk. You object to a game because it's unfair to the Nazis and states that the Holocaust was real? I'm probably having second thoughts about you.

Incidentally, what was your specific beef with Blue Planet?

Quote from: Warthur;823073To be fair, I think that largely depends on the point of view the game is slapping down. Game disses you because you vote small-government Republican? We can talk. You object to a game because it's unfair to the Nazis and states that the Holocaust was real? I'm probably having second thoughts about you.

Incidentally, what was your specific beef with Blue Planet?

The first edition explicitly stated that the one-world government, the GEO, remained the best hope for the world. So, if you happened to believe that a one-world government would be horrific, then in terms of the setting, you were a Bad Guy. The second edition -- IIRC, in part because I pointed this out -- changed this wording.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;823039Although I did toy with the idea of reworking the setting to make Jarzon the generally good folks and Aldis the well-intentioned but decadent and complacent foil ... :)

Yeah, me too - even though I suspect I'd probably prefer living in Aldis than Jarzon myself, SJWing just gets my goat (or my deer).

Quote from: Dan Davenport;823080The first edition explicitly stated that the one-world government, the GEO, remained the best hope for the world. So, if you happened to believe that a one-world government would be horrific, then in terms of the setting, you were a Bad Guy.

The second edition -- IIRC, in part because I pointed this out -- changed this wording.

I haven't seen the first books, but I do have the 2nd Edition: I never found the right time to run a campaign, but the idea of mixing Shadowrun, Waterworld, Avatar and the Wild West keeps it in my mind...

I'm cool with politics as setting. Makes for great friction. It's from the chafing & bleeding (either IC PC or OOC player) that lubricates the fun.

Hell, I'd even CosPlay the whole thing if we can end up looking like some of those book covers. I choose accenting warm pastels over long, flowing ecru.

Quote from: jhkim;823069What the fuck are you two talking about?

John, you quote the text from the book early on, but later, when you are trying to dismiss the political aspects you generalize down to "belief in community" and "general good". Heck you just did it again, saying a Libertarian would have no problem with a "belief in community", but would a Libertarian "believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"  I think that would depend on how you define "mere" in that sentence.  I'm pretty sure a lot of Libertarians would read "mere self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual" at least in part.

Blue Rose may be in part Romantic Fantasy, but it's also a political screed in setting form - sexual, religious and social.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with that any more then I see anything wrong with Shadowrun, 40k, Eclipse Phase, or any other setting that has something to say about serious topics.  

But to say those political viewpoints aren't present (and in the case of Blue Rose, moved front and center affecting just about every aspect of the setting) is so obviously, completely false, it begs the question as to how you arrive at your argument.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;823080The first edition explicitly stated that the one-world government, the GEO, remained the best hope for the world. So, if you happened to believe that a one-world government would be horrific, then in terms of the setting, you were a Bad Guy. The second edition -- IIRC, in part because I pointed this out -- changed this wording.

Been a loooong time since I read Blue Planet, but if you're talking specifically about saving a world on the brink of ecological collapse, I think the concept was, only a government or some regulatory body with global reach is going to have the authority to do that.  So far, environmental concerns haven't really been addressed at all by Realpolitik except when regulations on pollution are part of unfair trade practices.

One World Government can be a nightmare, so can other forms of government, but I think specifically in terms of the global environment, the most gains can come from a global government, of course the meat of such a setting comes when you ask yourself "at what cost"?

As a Utopian setting, Blue Planet didn't think there could be much down side. :D

But hey, speculative Utopian and Dystopian settings based on all the religious, social, political ideas we don't talk about directly is one of the things Fantasy or Science Fiction is for.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823103Blue Rose may be in part Romantic Fantasy, but it's also a political screed in setting form - sexual, religious and social.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with that any more then I see anything wrong with Shadowrun, 40k, Eclipse Phase, or any other setting that has something to say about serious topics.  

But to say those political viewpoints aren't present (and in the case of Blue Rose, moved front and center affecting just about every aspect of the setting) is so obviously, completely false, it begs the question as to how you arrive at your argument.

My main point is, if you were to sit down and actually play a game of Blue Rose that I was running, for example, I don't think it would be any different than sitting down to a D&D game that I was running as far as politics is concerned. We'd interact with some NPCs, solve some mysteries, and fight some shadowspawn.

Most of the things you are going on about, are just nitpicking rather than serious differences in a real game of Blue Rose. For example, I think that if we switched out the Blue Rose "Light" alignment definition for the D&D "Good" alignment description - it would make essentially zero difference to the game. Likewise, the succession of the monarchy in Aldis makes virtually no practical difference to a game.

I would agree that there is politics to be found in all of Shadowrun, 40K, D&D, and Blue Rose - but I don't think that any of them should be called political screeds. Sure, if in a game, the closest Christian-analogues are lawful good paladins who fight demons - that has pro-Christian political implications. Likewise, if the closest Christian-analogues are an intolerant theocracy, that has anti-Christian political implications. I don't think either of these choices make the game into a political screed, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823103John, you quote the text from the book early on, but later, when you are trying to dismiss the political aspects you generalize down to "belief in community" and "general good". Heck you just did it again, saying a Libertarian would have no problem with a "belief in community", but would a Libertarian "believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"  I think that would depend on how you define "mere" in that sentence.  I'm pretty sure a lot of Libertarians would read "mere self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual" at least in part.

I would think they'd read "mere self-interest" as "self-interest". It seems a stretch to me to read "self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual".

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;823039I was just speculating a bit on why the setting was so negatively received. My own disinterest in the setting is largely the same as Dan Davenport's, albeit probably from a different perspective. "Traditional Christian (with serial numbers filed off) = misguided or willing servant of Darkness" is not something I want to support. I was willing to bracket or rework Aldis' sexual libertinism, but what I saw of Jarzon was a bridge too far.

I read Jarzon as a fundamentalist theocracy with more in common with the Empire in 40k than any real world analogue, though if it were a real world analogue it would be Iran, which is an actual fundamentalist theocracy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;823103John, you quote the text from the book early on, but later, when you are trying to dismiss the political aspects you generalize down to "belief in community" and "general good". Heck you just did it again, saying a Libertarian would have no problem with a "belief in community", but would a Libertarian "believe in community and the good of all over mere self-interest?"  I think that would depend on how you define "mere" in that sentence.  I'm pretty sure a lot of Libertarians would read "mere self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual" at least in part.

I read as it as mere selfishness. I can also read it as a critique of rational choice theory, but that's just me projecting.

I'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.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;823042Again, I do not care that this game exists. Frankly? I think it does a good job of what it sets out to do, so in that sense, it's a good game.

That's my opinion.
Of course, whether you agree with what this game sets out to do is another story.

JG

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.

"Kill them and take their stuff."

Quote from: jhkim;823108My main point is, if you were to sit down and actually play a game of Blue Rose that I was running, for example, I don't think it would be any different than sitting down to a D&D game that I was running as far as politics is concerned. We'd interact with some NPCs, solve some mysteries, and fight some shadowspawn.

Probably, but I could play FATAL without using the anal circumference tables and play RaHoWa without engaging in RaHoWa.  That doesn't change why the games were written as they are. (Yes, I used extreme examples.)

Quote from: jhkim;823108For example, I think that if we switched out the Blue Rose "Light" alignment definition for the D&D "Good" alignment description - it would make essentially zero difference to the game.

Maybe, but people have been ignoring and throwing out alignment and moral systems in every game that's ever had one, while others use them as is.  Also I think you're deliberately obfuscatory in your attempt to hide the clear economic political overtones to the Light/Twilight/Shadow.  This is not by any stretch of the imagination Lankhmar's White/Grey/Black for example.
 

Quote from: jhkim;823108Likewise, the succession of the monarchy in Aldis makes virtually no practical difference to a game.

Assuming 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.

Quote from: jhkim;823108I would agree that there is politics to be found in all of Shadowrun, 40K, D&D, and Blue Rose

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

Quote from: jhkim;823108- but I don't think that any of them should be called political screeds.

Would you consider the book Starship Troopers a political screed?  If not, fair enough.

Quote from: jhkim;823108Sure, if in a game, the closest Christian-analogues are lawful good paladins who fight demons - that has pro-Christian political implications. Likewise, if the closest Christian-analogues are an intolerant theocracy, that has anti-Christian political implications. I don't think either of these choices make the game into a political screed, though.

Not in isolation, no.  However, in Blue Rose, it's not in isolation, is it?  It's choice after choice after choice after choice, which go beyond the genre conventions of Romantic Fantasy.

Which is fine, and in many cases done well, and maybe you don't care one bit for the embedded liberal politics, you're just a real big Mercedes Lackey fan, but don't tell me they're not there.  You 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.

Quote from: jhkim;823108It seems a stretch to me to read "self-interest" as "freedoms of the individual".

Cues his Ronald Reagan tape (damn you for pushing me to this) "There you go again."

In 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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?

The thing about d&d and ideology is that it throws in a whole bunch of different and incompatible ideologies, just as it does with other sources. It's the Conan teams up with Aragorn and Roland and Elric to fight Dracula & King Kong game.
I guess one could argue that pre wotc & paizo, liberal progressivism was notably lacking from the melange, but wotc started skewing the Alignment system over to liberal values with 3.0, with no huge effect on the core game.

Blue Rose clearly has a single consistent ideology.

Quote from: RPGPundit;823890That'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?

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure what you mean by it. Maybe you should lay out the characteristics of a society you are referring to as collectivist.

After all, both Aldis and Jarzon are collectivist, the PRC and Japan are collectivist, traditional societies of all types are collectivist, team sports are collectivist, militaries are collectivist, hell, all societies are to some extent collectivist.  

By historical standards, given the lack of interest Aldean society has in mandating how individuals live their lives, Aldis is pretty individualistic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;823890That'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?

Personally, I don't give a shit about secret agenda.

According to the primary setting author, he loved Mercedes Lackey novels and wanted to make a fantasy setting like that. His politics are liberal (as are Lackey's, as far as I know), but he created it to make a fantasy setting to his tastes, not as propaganda to try to win people over to a collectivist political views.

Maybe he was lying about that. I don't care.

The game is what it is, and in practice it plays fine - I enjoyed all the adventures I've run with it. Like all fiction, one can analyze the setting for meaning and correctly tease out the author's ideologies - or you can be like a lot of literary analysis and just spout a ton of bullshit. Still, it's just a damn game. I can read books, watch movies, and play games even when the author doesn't align to my political views - although I'm sure that factors into which works I like.

I wasn't a big fan of the Magic Deer or the politics of Blue Rose, and I'm sure as shit not going to support it this round.

That said, I don't begrudge the game's right to exist, I simply won't throw any money at it.

It might be amusing to drop Yharnam (from the Bloodborne video game) into the setting to see what develops.

The Blood Moon rises over Aldis, the Queen turns into some sort of insane giant wolf monster, and the Magic Deer is revealed to be one of the extradimensional Great Ones named Kevashalax.

And the Queen's Royal Guard, who witness her transformation into a giant wolf beast, drop their weapons and say "a'ight, fuck this shit, I'm out."

Quote from: apparition13;823923You keep saying this, but I'm not sure what you mean by it. Maybe you should lay out the characteristics of a society you are referring to as collectivist.

After all, both Aldis and Jarzon are collectivist, the PRC and Japan are collectivist, traditional societies of all types are collectivist, team sports are collectivist, militaries are collectivist, hell, all societies are to some extent collectivist.  
.

You certainly make a good point. I should have stated Collectivism according to progressive middle-class west-coast (Seattle/Oregon) ideology.

Quote from: jhkim;823943Personally, I don't give a shit about secret agenda.

I think that in the context of their KS announcement and the comments that have been spread around by BR's supporters, it's pretty clear that "secret" is not part of the description.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824074You certainly make a good point. I should have stated Collectivism according to progressive middle-class west-coast (Seattle/Oregon) ideology.

That should be Seattle/Portland; these urban centers (and their suburbs) are quite different from the rest of their respective states.

Quote from: Lynn;824160That should be Seattle/Portland; these urban centers (and their suburbs) are quite different from the rest of their respective states.

Yes.