Pundy is Wrong, Blue Rose is Cool

[selfdeleteduser00001]

If you viewed Blue Rose in a kind of vacuum, you might be able to argue that it 'treats homosexuality as a regular thing', but since Blue Rose did not appear in a vacuum but in a tornado of self-righteous smugness about how 'significant' and 'socially concious' the setting was for being a setting that celebrates LGBT relationships, that makes it all seem pretty smarmy and opportunistic.

I disagree with this. I think that Blue Rose was significant and socially conscious. I think it was progressive in delivering an alternate fantasy in which social liberalism and tolerance was the norm, and the status quo was a world in which sexuality and gender were different and more like the hippy utopia that *some* people aspire to.

What is wasn't was a gritty dark cynical setting, and that's actually why I had problems with getting my mind around running it. I like conflict and dark and subterfuge and twisted agendas and repression, it gives the players something to kick against. I could have taken it and exposed it all as a hollow sham and had the PCs kick against the pan-sexual poly-amorous utopia, but *I didn't want to*, that is my idea of a lovely society. Others may disagree, but even for them, the development of a new socially liberal setting for the ole tabletop should be an idea to welcome if not play.

I shall buy the new edition and see if it has an offering to me that allows me to build games that can challenge players and, and this is the crux, without having to destroy the fantasy.

We have a very wide range of dystopias, utopias, technocracies, anarchies, and fantasies in the box of SF and Fantasy, where is the harm in enjoying them all.

Now, if you are engaged in deep trench warfare between illiberal social justic warriors and a mix of libertarians, reactionaries, social conservatives and apolitical people. If that trench warfare is in a small niche of the Internet where everything seems SO VERY IMPORTANT, you might not realise that outside that micro bubble, in the FLGS and real tabletops of the hobby, no-one cared or cares. So people did or didn't play Blue Rose, some nodded at the social message, some didn't care, it probably reflected the emergence of a pro-liberation message in attitudes to sexuality and gender, but it's really not worth getting all het up about micro politics about something that brought a new dimension to our gaming choices.

smarmy and opportunistic

Why? Because a small publisher felt they wanted to develop a game setting which represented a kind of fantasy that might appeal to women and social liberals? A setting type few had done? Well yes, of course it was entrepreneurial, I felt it was also personal, and isnt that what you, as a free market right wing liberal, believe in? They didn't get a government grant..

To be smarmy it would have to be 'ingratiating and insincere' and I see no evidence of that, in fact was any US company publishing an openly pansexual setting at that time going to be ingratiating in a country with such a strong and noisy anti-gay minority?

[P&P]

RPGnet is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech, used in this case without their permission.  It's thataway --->.

[Trond]

Are Blue Rose books preachy about being inclusive, or is it simply one of many aspects of the game?

When I looked at their kickstarter, I got a bit of the preachy feel from it, but also a bit D&D vibe actually (or ironically?). I'm not too fond of either, but that's me.

[Necrozius]

It would be interesting to play a campaign in which the main society was actually "good" and evil comes form outside, threatening that utopia. The player characters get motivated to protect their homes without irony or cynicism.

OR you could play it the other way: in that the core setting of Blue Rose represents the Golden Age and it is in decline for some reason (global tragedy?).

Either way, it has caught my attention.

[Spinachcat]

If Tzunder enjoyed Blue Rose, Blue Rose is enjoyable for Tzunder.

I will not debate this fact, nor disparage him.

Maybe Blue Rose was an eye-opener for some gamers who were surprised a fantasy world could exist without gender or sexual discrimination. If BR was a revelation of setting design for some people, then that's a good thing.

For me, the Imperial Guard in 40k are the ultimate inclusive.

Do you have Human DNA? Yes? Here is your lasgun. Point it at the rest of universe trying to kill us all and keep shooting.

[Moracai]

Do you have Human DNA? Yes?

"Check your priviledge!"

Shouted the Imperial Ogryn

[crkrueger]

Ogryns and Ratlings are Abhumans, they have human DNA in there somewhere.  So did the original Squats.

[Moracai]

Yeah, my bad. I was thinking if that were the case before/after posting, but couldn't bring myself to finding the facts.

[selfdeleteduser00001]

RPGnet is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech, used in this case without their permission. It's thataway --->.

Thanks, I didn't know

Are Blue Rose books preachy about being inclusive, or is it simply one of many aspects of the game?

When I looked at their kickstarter, I got a bit of the preachy feel from it, but also a bit D&D vibe actually (or ironically?). I'm not too fond of either, but that's me.

The first Blue Rose didn't (in the books or the website) make a big play of the fact that the norms were tolerant of all relationships, including some polyamorous ones that I think I have only seen in SF. But it was there and the "bad guys" did include a nation of repressive patriarchs, (think typical Earth repressive patriarchies), as well as the evil Necromancers.

I'd say it's been flagged a little more in the Kickstarter this time around, and that must be because of the changes in Europe and the Americas since then with regard to equality in marriage.

The setting is, in contrast to any meritocratic or egalitarian tendencies, quite romantic in having a monarch selected by a White Hart (I think it was a stag, might be wrong), and so one can happily enjoy a sweet world in which not only are all the knights honest and truthful and brave, but also men and women and possibly gay, bi, transgendered, asexual, etc.

[The first system was a looser version of  D&D which became True20. Pundy and I also agree that it was a very good system and it became a 'thing' for a while and was ported to many settings before losing it's momentum. The system this time is Fantasy Age which is the 'vanilla' version of Dragon Age that Wheaton is using for Titansgrave. I like it, it's light, has modern trad sensibilities and yet feels like mid range tabletop fantasy. (yes, you can die)]

The setting, however, would be  a cool place to live for some of us, but of course it is a fantasy.

It would be interesting to play a campaign in which the main society was actually "good" and evil comes form outside, threatening that utopia. The player characters get motivated to protect their homes without irony or cynicism.
OR you could play it the other way: in that the core setting of Blue Rose represents the Golden Age and it is in decline for some reason (global tragedy?).

My problem, and truth be told, & Pundy was right about this in his review years ago, is that it doesn't easily lead to conflict without breaking the core utopia. But then again, when I ran Glorantha many years ago one of my players was very sad because I portrayed the Sun Dome Templars as essentially hypocrites with traitors in the nest. He was sad because he personally identified with their society and their principles of virtue and honesty.

My Third Imperium in Traveller is a corrupt oligarchy masquerading as a feudal state with a heartless cynicism to people and their lives. The Zhodani are better guys in my games. Mind you, if I then ran a Zhodani game, they'd end up being deeply flawed as well..

I think it might be time to try and run a game where the core society is, genuinely, what is seems, and 'good'  by the gaming group's standards. Now, of course, you may not like the Blue Rose setting, that's your bag, but does anyone else run games where the core society is straight down the line good by your standards, where the baddies are outside and beating down the door?

Or is it me? Am I always the only  subversive cynic who never played a straight game with any society in an rpg?

[Nexus]

I think it might be time to try and run a game where the core society is, genuinely, what is seems, and 'good'  by the gaming group's standards. Now, of course, you may not like the Blue Rose setting, that's your bag, but does anyone else run games where the core society is straight down the line good by your standards, where the baddies are outside and beating down the door?

I think its a spectrum like most things but I lean more towards this style. I got pretty burned out on grim settings in the late 80s or so. I still run some things  that are darker and more cynical but its an exception these days.

[selfdeleteduser00001]

I think its a spectrum like most things but I lean more towards this style. I got pretty burned out on grim settings in the late 80s or so. I still run some things  that are darker and more cynical but its an exception these days.

That's it: GRIMBURN..
Problem is, that sounds like exactly the setting I am trying to avoid..

[Battle Mad Ronin]

I think its a spectrum like most things but I lean more towards this style. I got pretty burned out on grim settings in the late 80s or so. I still run some things  that are darker and more cynical but its an exception these days.

Amen. The trend of cynical fantasy fiction in gaming and literature has gone far enough to become almost self-parody. Violence, often cruel and sexual, infests so terribly much of the genre, often being labeled as 'realism' or 'maturity' when really it is mostly the opposite.

And I'm glad someone is standing up for Blue Rose. It might not be for everyone, and that probably isn't the intention either, it is just good to see a game that keeps a positive outlook.

[Snowman0147]

My only issue is two fold.  A magical deer gets to select the leader and the fact you hunt down shadow souls.  Your banishing people for having a different opinion.  Not to mention people can change their opinion at any time for any reason so any one can become a shadow soul.  You are playing as thought police while hiding behind the shield of good intentions.  We all know what the road to hell is paved in.

[selfdeleteduser00001]

My only issue is two fold.  A magical deer gets to select the leader

Not sure what the issue is here, this is a suitably magical romantic animal fantasy thing. It's different and fun. Not sure what kind of government it is though, I don't think Traveller ever had 'democracy when the electorate is a single magic animal', bet GURPS did. I like they didn't really explain it, so one can do what one likes with it.

and the fact you hunt down shadow souls.  Your banishing people for having a different opinion.  Not to mention people can change their opinion at any time for any reason so any one can become a shadow soul.  You are playing as thought police while hiding behind the shield of good intentions.  We all know what the road to hell is paved in.

Excellent point, and that is why it would be so very easy to take this and run with it, and destroy the setting from the inside. Happy faced fascism. That's the crux, not that you couldn't do that, but thwarting our cynical instincts and actually making it the fact that on the whole you are going to be genuinely nice..

tvtropes makes a very good point, this setting exhibits:

Redemption Earns Life: In this setting, mercy towards one's enemies is a Good Thing, except for creatures that are irredeemably part of the Shadow (and even then, a case can be made for trying). Aldis has no death penalty, and the book instructs players not to kill when redemption is an option. [Source: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/BlueRose]

so it's likely that the good guys will genuinely try to achieve redemption, and capital punishment is a redacted option.

[i love tvtropes]

[Kiero]

My issues are thus:
1) Utopias are dull.
2) Fuck anthropomorphic animals (the proper definition, not "furries), even moreso when they're infallible and omniscient.
3) I have no use whatsoever for "romantic fantasy".