Spike -- I'm not going to address all the complaints here, but I'd first make a few factual corrections.  

Quote from: SpikeOne: Very VERY preachy about it's take on sexuality... so much so that even outspoken pro-gays can, and did, find it offensive and 'treacly'.  But only one specific type of 'gay' is canon, as someone else pointed out.  Sure, it's Genre. I know, I've read a few. But this goes far enough out there to squick. At least in the average 'genre' novel, its only squicky when they put the actual scenes on the page, here the setting does the job for you! Huzzah. I don't play RPG's for the freaky sex I get from them.

There is nothing about the act of sex in the Blue Rose book.  There is background material about marriage practices, and various couples are portrayed as NPCs.  However, that's about it.  It seems to me that having, say, a merchantman and his wife appear as NPCs is fine -- but if a homosexual couple appear, then its "squicky" and all about "freaky sex".  

Now, if one does have the reaction that having homosexual couples appear in the game is freaky and twisted -- then probably this is not the game for you.  But let's be clear what this is.  

Quote from: SpikeTwo: Every freaking animal in the world is psychic! And playable! Including the god damned DOLPHINS! Look, leave aside the annoyance of a world where you are either a vegitarian or a potential cannable (expanded out to include consumption of any sentient life),

This is simply false.  There are rhydan versions of a handful of ordinary animals (cat, wolf, horse); but most are not.  So there are a few rhydan horses that have magical powers, but the vast majority of horses are ordinary animals.  This is pretty much the same as in Tolkien, where there were a few intelligent versions of animals like worgs and eagles.  

There are another handful of creatures which are always rhydan, including griffins, unicorns, and yes, dolphins and whales.  In all, there are 11 types of rhydan, of which 4 are given stats for use as PCs -- namely horses, wolves, cats, and dolphins.  

I also felt it was odd to include stats for including dolphins as PCs.  My impression is that they included all the rhydan which were 0 ECL.  In general, though, I would have preferred that they provide more options for PCs (like D&D3 with ECL and monsters-as-PCs or Fantasy Hero's open design) rather than further restricting options.  

Quote from: Spike(Re: the Golden Hart)    Never mind that it's track record is abyssmal. Out of 11 kings chosen, TWO have gone horribly horribly wrong. Not a little wrong, not a bit selfish and out to put their own children on the throne, damn tradition and the Hart... not, bugfuck crazy evil. Child eating monster evil.  Out of eleven kings you managed to squeeze elizabeth bathory and Vlad Tepes in there! Way to GO Magic Deer!!! Woot!

Again, false.  It's true that the Golden Hart twice appeared to remove a sovereign from the throne, and the sovereign was considered to have gone insane.  However, you have simply made up out of whole cloth the idea that they were child-eating monsters.  

For the record, King Valin destroyed a demonic gateway in battle but in the process was psychically exposed to a demon.  As a result, over the next two years he became increasingly paranoid and started replacing nobles with those personally loyal to him, and sidestepping the councils.  This caused unrest which nearly erupted into civil war when the Hart appeared to choose another.  Queen Larai, always eccentric, slowly slid into dementia in her old age after decades of rule.  She talked to imaginary people and neglected her duties, but didn't do anything violent.  

So -- true that these two were insane (paranoia and dementia, respectively) and were removed.  However, false that they were baby-eating evil.  Also, neither of these particularly reflects on the Hart's original choice, I would say.

Spike gets extra points for fitting "bugfuck" into a sentence.

My gripe with Aldis would be that it just doesn't interest me as much as other happy, shiny settings.  Uresia seems pretty A-Ok with different sexualities (at the Uresia I've encountered) or adventures that could come from Saturday morning TV.  It's also largely free of holy wars for and against its use as a setting.

This thread will now segue into discussion of S John Ross and his anime opus.

Please?

I still don't get the controversy...

I mean, it's romantic fantasy.  It's cool if it's not your bag, but the setting is far from abnormal for the genre.

Bitching about monarchs being selected in a non-traditional way is like bitching about investigators going insane in Lovecraft, or spellflinging wizards in D&D.

-O

Can anyone point me at the best example of "romantic fantasy"?  For the most part I haven't read any fantasy published after LotR, which makes fantasy subgenres totally alien to me.

Quote from: apparition13I'm not talking about actual play, but about implementation (so maybe "when the hypothetical dice hit the hypothetical mat" would have been better). Your players come to you and say "this blue rose thing looks kind of interesting, can we do a few sessions to see what it's like?", how would you implement the setting?

I wouldn't. I don't have a bunch of people who are "my players", I have a bunch of roleplaying friends and acquaintances who get together to run games when some GM says "hey, I'm going to run a campaign of this". Restricting yourself to a single gaming group which remains constant for years makes no sense in that context.

And even if I did have such a setup, I wouldn't do command performances. I'd say "Well, I'm not really interested in GMing it, but if one of you guys wants to run a few sessions I'll play if it looks fun."

Quote from: obrynI still don't get the controversy...

I mean, it's romantic fantasy.  It's cool if it's not your bag, but the setting is far from abnormal for the genre.

This whole thing makes me think that romantic fantasy isn't suited for roleplaying games - or at best, only for games which focus nigh-exclusively on the romantic/slashy elements, and in which all the players agree to focus on those areas.

That most romantic fantasy kingdoms make no sense is irrelevant to most readers of romantic fantasy, because they want to read about a romantic relationship, not criticise the culture it's set in. However, if you're in an RPG then there's next-to-no way of making sure nobody knocks over the cardboard sets unless all the players make a conscious effort to avoid drawing attention to such things. Because you're playing an RPG, you're thinking "okay, my character lives in this world, it's set up in this way... what happens when I do this?" This sort of experimentation is all very well in a setting which is reasonably consistent, but in a setting where consistency and well-thought-out societal structures aren't really a consideration, it's going to show up the cracks in the scenery.

Quote from: apparition13Okay, I'm still having a WTF reaction, but not nearly as strong. I think I'm tantalizingly close to getting what you are trying to say, but I suspect that there is still some disconnect in worldviews working against us. How about we try to go around it, and see if that helps. What would you need to change, and how, to make Blue Rose empowering and conducive to growth?

The first step would be to get rid of the damn deer. Let the people of Aldis choose their leaders themselves. Let them make mistakes, and learn from them. A more balanced approach to human society would help too. Incorporate individuality and personal initiative on the Good side of the ledger.

I think you can have romantic fantasy and a more realistic world together, and I'd like to see somebody give it a try.

Quote from: fonkaygarryCan anyone point me at the best example of "romantic fantasy"?  For the most part I haven't read any fantasy published after LotR, which makes fantasy subgenres totally alien to me.

I'd say Mercedes Lackey's extensive Valdemar series is pretty much the genre's archetype.

-O

Quote from: WarthurThis whole thing makes me think that romantic fantasy isn't suited for roleplaying games - or at best, only for games which focus nigh-exclusively on the romantic/slashy elements, and in which all the players agree to focus on those areas.

That most romantic fantasy kingdoms make no sense is irrelevant to most readers of romantic fantasy, because they want to read about a romantic relationship, not criticise the culture it's set in. However, if you're in an RPG then there's next-to-no way of making sure nobody knocks over the cardboard sets unless all the players make a conscious effort to avoid drawing attention to such things. Because you're playing an RPG, you're thinking "okay, my character lives in this world, it's set up in this way... what happens when I do this?" This sort of experimentation is all very well in a setting which is reasonably consistent, but in a setting where consistency and well-thought-out societal structures aren't really a consideration, it's going to show up the cracks in the scenery.

I'd more say that you'd need to have a group of players who are into the genre, and who are down with its tropes.  I mean, if your group is the type who's going to talk about furries every time an animal talks, or start bar fights just to make the night exciting, they won't be into it.  They need to exercise more constraint in their own behaviors than in most other games.

Personally, I would have little interest in such a game.  It might be fun as a one-shot, or a 3-4 session adventure, but I can't imagine putting up with it for long.

I've read a few romantic fantasy novels - moreso when I was younger than now - and I can see how you could make a game around them.  I just don't know that it's a game that (1) I'd want to play/run, or (2) I could find players for.

-O

Quote from: fonkaygarryCan anyone point me at the best example of "romantic fantasy"?  For the most part I haven't read any fantasy published after LotR, which makes fantasy subgenres totally alien to me.

Well, Blue Rose is most closely modeled on the novels of Mercedes Lackey -- including most of her Valdemar novels, of which there are I think 21 (seven trilogies).  I haven't read most of her stuff, though I read Exile's Honor which was fair but kind of slow IMO.  It's about a veteran soldier, Alberich, from a conservative theocracy who is betrayed by his people, and is forced into neighboring liberal Valdemar where he becomes one of the heralds.  (The heralds are an elite force formed of those chosen by the Companions, who are psychic horses.)  

More generally, I haven't read enough to make any claims about what is best.  My favorite among what I have read is Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small series, which is generally classed as young adult, but less juvenile than Harry Potter, in my opinion.  It's about Keladry of Mindelan, the first girl to openly train for knighthood in the Kingdom of Tortall.  I also liked Barbara Hambly's The Ladies of Mandrigyn -- which was about a warlord, Sun Wolf, and his lieutenant Star Hawk, who are hired by the women of the city of Mandrigyn to kill the sorcerer-king who had conquered the city and enslaved the men.  

Neither of these are on Blue Rose's list of recommended reading, but they fit in the general tone.  

In most of these, romantic relationships are pretty much absent, though the Hambly book does have a love story.  The term "romantic" in the genre refers primarily to the fanciful tone of the novels rather than love stories.  They have similar action to high fantasy - wars, fighting into the castle of a sorcerer-king, monsters, etc.  However, there is a bit more emphasis on culture and description along the way -- and there are more prominent female characters.  

Quote from: mythusmageThe first step would be to get rid of the damn deer. Let the people of Aldis choose their leaders themselves. Let them make mistakes, and learn from them. A more balanced approach to human society would help too.

Yeah!  Rise up against the Man!  They should join forces with Gondor to overthrow their King, and Aquilonia against their King, and... and...   Good god!!  All these fantasy worlds are filled with countries that aren't good, free-thinking liberal democracies.  What a terrible genre!!  Someone should do something about these horrible writers who trample on the inalienable rights of their own characters.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: jhkimYeah!  Rise up against the Man!  They should join forces with Gondor to overthrow their King, and Aquilonia against their King, and... and...   Good god!!  All these fantasy worlds are filled with countries that aren't good, free-thinking liberal democracies.  What a terrible genre!!  Someone should do something about these horrible writers who trample on the inalienable rights of their own characters.   :rolleyes:

Whenever people criticise Aldis, people say "But the designers were trying to make a game with values that readers of romantic fantasy can get behind!" This implies the liberal values which you yourself point out are espoused in the Valdemar series. On the other hand, because Aldis is founded on the Divine Right of Kings and doesn't care much for individualism it isn't actually as liberal and free as it is claimed to be. So it fails on the realism angle, *and* fails on the liberalism angle.

Tolkein never claimed, to my knowledge, that Gondor was meant to be a kingdom with modern values which modern-day people could get behind. Apples and oranges.

Quote from: WarthurWhenever people criticise Aldis, people say "But the designers were trying to make a game with values that readers of romantic fantasy can get behind!" This implies the liberal values which you yourself point out are espoused in the Valdemar series. On the other hand, because Aldis is founded on the Divine Right of Kings and doesn't care much for individualism it isn't actually as liberal and free as it is claimed to be. So it fails on the realism angle, *and* fails on the liberalism angle.

Tolkein never claimed, to my knowledge, that Gondor was meant to be a kingdom with modern values which modern-day people could get behind. Apples and oranges.

Yes, that's very unrealistic.

There are also talking animals and magic.

-O

Quote from: obrynYes, that's very unrealistic.

There are also talking animals and magic.

I'm using "realism" in the sense of "verisimilitude" and "internal consistency" as opposed to "realism" as in "resembling our world". As should be obvious in pretty much any roleplaying discussion.

The problems with Aldis is that firstly, it defines the most central traits of both modern civilization and the heroic story as "evil" by their standards. It makes objectively evil the qualities that most normal people consider to be good. And secondly, it creates an avatar to represent this fixed conception of good and evil in the form of the magic deer, that exists only to insure that any kind of change in the setting would be impossible.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurI'm using "realism" in the sense of "verisimilitude" and "internal consistency" as opposed to "realism" as in "resembling our world". As should be obvious in pretty much any roleplaying discussion.

Actually, it's very germane.  This is simply a part of the setting - it's one of the tropes of romantic fantasy.  Non-hereditary monarchy (with the monarch selected by outside forces to make sure they have the good of the people in mind) is simply as much a part of romantic fantasy as talking animals.  It's perfectly internally consistent for the genre.

-O