# Let's Talk Blue Rose



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Your friendfly neibhood PDF Reviewer here talking about my ltest and highly anticipated book: Green Ronin's Blue Rose.  It is availible from RPGNow if you want the PDF, and the print version should be along ast some point in a few weekis I'd guess.

This book is not like anything else we have seen.  I know many people are a little off put by the idea of Romantic Fantasy, but I'm here to tell you don't be.  All it means is that there are more social and role playing ideas in this setting and its rules then pretty much anything e;se I've seen for d20.  THis is a Role Players setting and game.  Sure, it has rules and has fights and conflicts, but it allows for more space in the main book to talk about the little details like the socail envirments of the place.  

Now, it does come with some basic assumptions people might not like.  It is a little black and white, having good guys and bad guys.  The land of the good guys is very accepting.  There really is no racism in it, no sexism, no qualms on who you marry like what race or sex they are, it is a very accepting place.  Nature is good, nature is there to work with and protect.  

I like the scaled down classes, skills, and the way they have done feats.  No more complaining about not enough feats.  

Magic and psionics are built right into the system and the setting even has the basics of like what people's reaction to them are.  Brilliant.  THe details always get to me, and this book has the details I like and what make a campaign world come to life.  MAgic and psionics are different, more feat and skill based.  It is odd while they are weaker, there are things that one can do in this system that would take epic spells to do in regular d20.  

The system is not going to perfect, and it is not going to be for everyone.  But it is thought out, it makes sense within its defined parameters.  Questions?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Now, it does come with some basic assumptions people might not like.  It is a little black and white, having good guys and bad guys.  The land of the good guys is very accepting.  There really is no racism in it, no sexism, no qualms on who you marry like what race or sex they are, it is a very accepting place.  Nature is good, nature is there to work with and protect.



Liberal Good?  Obviously, it fits the source material, though.



> The system is not going to perfect, and it is not going to be for everyone.  But it is thought out, it makes sense within its defined parameters.  Questions?



How portable are the rules? Could I raid this book and use the rules easily in straight-up D&D?

How about the world? Is it a complete world, or would it be possible for it just to be a different region of an established world quite easily? (i.e. no major world-scale changes.)


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

*looked better in general forum......*

MAgic and psionic systemare completely different, classes are like the three general classes found in Unearthed Arcana but different since they alos get defense and reputaion, skill are different in you either get max ranks or non depending on if you take the skill as favored but then there are less skills.  Some ofthe feats you could use, the guidlines for social encounters are better and can be used. 

There is a lot that is changed from normal d20 making this product tough to raid for rules, but for ideas there are plenty.

The part of the world shown here is three countries, I think the map is about 100 miles acorss give or take, so it could easily fit into a bigger world.  There is enough here to run the world but obviously greater detail on that will come out later.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2005)

I was just reading the history excerpt on the official site and there are a LOT of grammatical errors and typos. Since it was put up relatively recently, one would think it was taken from a late proof of the book. How is the editing in the PDF?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

the editing in the book looks top notch.  I have yet to notice a single error in the book


----------



## Aaron2 (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There is a lot that is changed from normal d20 making this product tough to raid for rules, but for ideas there are plenty.



I'm curious how the Toughness save increases by level (if it does increase by level, that is). Can you share the formula?


Aaron


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

the three differnet rates are the same as the three different BAB progressions.  The characters get many more feats then normal d20 and can use feats to improve this.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm gonna wait for a book, but I'm really interested in this game. In some ways, based on what I've read about it, it reminds me of Pendragon.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

I can see that in a way.  I'm not as familar with Pendragon but from I know it does share similiarities.  Personally, I'm finding it reminds me in ways like Ars Magica....


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 8, 2005)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> I'm curious how the Toughness save increases by level (if it does increase by level, that is). Can you share the formula?




Adepts - 0.5 per level
Experts - 0.75 per level
Warriors - 1 per level

They also have a conversion table in the back for all the standard d20 Hit die types, in addition to conversion guidelines for weapon damage, healing spells (there are recovery rolls in the damage save system, insted of getting back hitpoints) and Feats.

Blue Rose looks like a great rendition of d20.  

Jon


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

nice sections on role playing emotion, romatic interests, and intrigue....  not all of those need to apear in the game but you'd think in 5 years of the 3.X D&D role playing game they would have been coivered by now.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> MAgic and psionics are different, more feat and skill based.




So is this the same/similar skill and feat based system first seen in Green Ronin's _The Psychic's Handbook_?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> So is this the same/similar skill and feat based system first seen in Green Ronin's _The Psychic's Handbook_?




not really.  there are some basic similarities but for the most part they look a lot different.  A lot of that has to do with feats every level and allowing players to customize their character that way.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 8, 2005)

Thanks. 

Definitely want to pick this up - it sounds like something I'd enjoy in its own right, plus I want to continue to reward print publishers who trust their paying customers and offer their PDFs at RPGNow without any restrictions or watermarks.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

the magic and psionic systems are different enough that I'm going to want to really take another good read through befoire I get them down.  But so far this book has yet to fail on anything I have wanted it to be.  It might be the best book Green Ronin has put out yet.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 8, 2005)

How are the ability bonuses determined? Distribute X points among the abilities? Can you lower a score to less than 0 (and raise another score instead)?


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 8, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> How are the ability bonuses determined? Distribute X points among the abilities? Can you lower a score to less than 0 (and raise another score instead)?



You distribute 6 points among the abilities.  Yeah, you can lower one below 0 to get back points.  You increase your ability every 6th level instead of every 4th level.

Jon


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

you get 6 points to distrubute, each point is a +1 and no more then +5 can go into one attibute.  Racial mods can go higher though.  you can take abilities down as low as -5 and get bonus points to apply to other attributes.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 8, 2005)

6 points... Ok.

Thanks, guys.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

some races with good attibute bonuses though do get only 4 points.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 8, 2005)

Fair, I guess.

How many races are there? Apart from humans, I saw some kind of cat in the fast-play...


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

About 8, most are alt talking animal types like the cat you saw.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 8, 2005)

Well, Blue Rose is about as cool a product as I thought it would be. I'm already prepping up some game stuff for it, and expect to see a lot of interest from my players, if I can ever round them all up. 

The magic system is strongly geared towards my preferred flavor, so I'm excited about that. 

I plan to steer my game more towards LeGuin and Dunsany than Lackey, however, but I don't see that being a problem in any way - romantic fantasy already has a lot in common with the mystical, lyrical writings of Earthsea and The King of Elfland's Daughter, so I'll have no troubles.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

heck, I'd love to take the rules and the influences and apply them to Thieves World game, but I know I could never do that with my current group.  It'd be a very different and odd TW game, but it could be so cool......


----------



## Turanil (Feb 8, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> I plan to steer my game more towards LeGuin and Dunsany than Lackey, however, but I don't see that being a problem in any way - romantic fantasy already has a lot in common with the mystical, lyrical writings of Earthsea and The King of Elfland's Daughter, so I'll have no troubles.



Earthsea and Blue rose... that looks a great idea indeed. I would like to try the game in that contest. anyway, i am considering buying the PDF although I don't think I will ever run it.


----------



## Wrathamon (Feb 8, 2005)

Okay since the Attributes are basically just the modifiers... how do they handle things like Ability damage?  Poison for example?

curious

thanks


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Feb 8, 2005)

I have given the pdf a quick read and I'm very imrpressed. I really want to use these rules right away.

I have one question for those with the pdf. I seem to be missing the part where it says that you get extra attacks for a high BAB. Or do PCs only get one attack a round?

I wonder how compatible BR is with MnM.... It would make it possible to do true point buy in BR. Input?


----------



## Fate Lawson (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm still of the opinion that Blue Rose could make a good engine for bringing Brust's Vlad Taltos series to RPG life.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> Okay since the Attributes are basically just the modifiers... how do they handle things like Ability damage?  Poison for example?
> 
> curious
> 
> thanks




Poisons still does ability damage but there are no example poisons listed.  I imagine its the same just the dice value is halved.  So, d2 instead of d4s for instance.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I wonder how compatible BR is with MnM.... It would make it possible to do true point buy in BR. Input?




MnM is true classless where Blue Rose isn't so that might cause some problesm.  Also, MnM uses the old numbers for attrutes, and assumes a higher level of power since some of the poiints are usually spent on super powers.  It could be done but I think it would take some real work to get the numbers right.


----------



## Wrathamon (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Poisons still does ability damage but there are no example poisons listed.  I imagine its the same just the dice value is halved.  So, d2 instead of d4s for instance.





So if you reach below -5 in an ability that is the same as reaching 0?

It seems really vague.

I am surprised they didnt concider this.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> So if you reach below -5 in an ability that is the same as reaching 0?
> 
> It seems really vague.
> 
> I am surprised they didnt concider this.




abilities that go lower then -5 are delt with the same as a zero attribute, its fully spelled out in the book.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 8, 2005)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> So if you reach below -5 in an ability that is the same as reaching 0?
> 
> It seems really vague.
> 
> I am surprised they didnt concider this.



Well, while the section on poisons is small and there is no single list of poisons, creatures with poison attacks have that written in their write-up.  For example, from the viper stat block:



> Poison: A viper’s bite requires a Difficulty 10 Fortitude saving throw. The venom deals initial and secondary damage of 2 Constitution.



There's also an appendix that gives conversion guidelines for turning dice into BR damage bonuses.  Because BR uses modifiers instead of the ability scores, you would have to halve this damage bonus.

Jon


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> MnM is true classless where Blue Rose isn't so that might cause some problesm.  Also, MnM uses the old numbers for attrutes, and assumes a higher level of power since some of the poiints are usually spent on super powers.  It could be done but I think it would take some real work to get the numbers right.




I think it could be done with besm d20. That is, making BR classless. Not that I don't like BR as is, but using some of the point buy ideas of besm d20 might make the BR engine truly universal.

I will look into it.

BTW I'm still confused about iterative (sp?) attacks. Anyone has any ideas?
Thanks


----------



## Wrathamon (Feb 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> abilities that go lower then -5 are delt with the same as a zero attribute, its fully spelled out in the book.




okay that is better, thanks for clarifying. The previous answer made it seem like this was overlooked. It's good that it wasnt.


----------



## DanMcS (Feb 8, 2005)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I have given the pdf a quick read and I'm very imrpressed. I really want to use these rules right away.
> 
> I have one question for those with the pdf. I seem to be missing the part where it says that you get extra attacks for a high BAB. Or do PCs only get one attack a round?
> 
> I wonder how compatible BR is with MnM.... It would make it possible to do true point buy in BR. Input?




There were no iterative attacks in MnM.  Since they were trying to trim stuff in BR as well, I doubt they put them back in.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> okay that is better, thanks for clarifying. The previous answer made it seem like this was overlooked. It's good that it wasnt.




well, the answers I give are simple and not always fully complete for the whole topic at hande.....


----------



## Crothian (Feb 8, 2005)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> I think it could be done with besm d20. That is, making BR classless. Not that I don't like BR as is, but using some of the point buy ideas of besm d20 might make the BR engine truly universal.
> 
> I will look into it.
> 
> ...




according to my close and personal friend Steve Kensen (who admittingly I don't even know  ) has said there are no extra attacks for a high BAB.  so, single attacks only except with two weapon fighting


----------



## Wrathamon (Feb 9, 2005)

I am waiting for someone to do the old 1st edition way.

3 attacks this round 2 next


----------



## dvvega (Feb 9, 2005)

Is the fluff of the book easily adapted to another system? For example pure d20? Or are there too many "new" mechanics?

For example the skills thing you mentioned could be similar to the Unearthed Arcana skill options.

D


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2005)

the setting is easy to take to another system.  THe feel with go best with something not so rules heavy, but any system is doible.  

The rule changes are all pretty familar.  defese class bonus, reputation, wealth, skills at max ranks, toughness instead of HP....the magic is really the only thing that hasn't been seen in another book.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2005)

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=120064

the review


----------



## Starglim (Feb 9, 2005)

I hadn't considered Earthsea and would definitely like to see how Blue Rose would handle it. (What's the Toughness save DC for being bitten in half by a dragon?)


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2005)

well, I would assume that being cut in half means a critical.  A dragon bite isn't actually listed, but we''l say that it does a nasty +20 damage (dire shark does +14 on a bite) so critical that becomes +40, or a damage save of 55.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 9, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> heck, I'd love to take the rules and the influences and apply them to Thieves World game, but I know I could never do that with my current group.  It'd be a very different and odd TW game, but it could be so cool......





But this is the big question.  If I wanted to use these rule in a totally different genre (but one where social interaction could still be important), how hard would it be?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 9, 2005)

I think it woulkd be pretty easy.  You'd have to come up with your own races as many of the races here won't work in just any setting.  But the human and the backgrounds area great way to get started.  THe classes are simpel and it is easy for people to use them in other settings and the feats.  There realy isn't anything except the races that are reallt ied fast to the setting.


----------



## JEL (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think it woulkd be pretty easy.  You'd have to come up with your own races as many of the races here won't work in just any setting.  But the human and the backgrounds area great way to get started.  THe classes are simpel and it is easy for people to use them in other settings and the feats.  There realy isn't anything except the races that are reallt ied fast to the setting.




From conversations elsewhere, it sounds like the magic has a lot of ties to the setting.  How hard will it be to strip them out?  I too am thinking about getting this for the rules to be used with a different setting/genre.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

I don't think the magic is that tied to the setting, no more then the basic magic system is to Forgotten Realms for instance.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 10, 2005)

JEL said:
			
		

> From conversations elsewhere, it sounds like the magic has a lot of ties to the setting.  How hard will it be to strip them out?  I too am thinking about getting this for the rules to be used with a different setting/genre.




Magic isn't tied to the setting (actually besides the races nothing mechanically is tied to the setting). Magic is based around 6 different areas - Animism, Healing, Meditative, Psychic, Shaping, Visionary. Magic which is particularly offence or controlling is called Sorcery and cause corruption and degeneration. 

Overall the magic is a ideas cherry picked from SWd20, the Psychic's Handbook and others. These are then then streamlined and improved (especially the SWd20 stuff) . 

Best of all things are very flexible. Want to restrict magic then just restrict access to the Adept Class or change one or two Feats. Want to create psychic, arcane and divine distinctions. Just choose which three areas fall into which three catergories and simply restrict people to cross over.


----------



## JEL (Feb 10, 2005)

Very cool.  Thanks for the answers.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 10, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> Magic isn't tied to the setting (actually besides the races nothing mechanically is tied to the setting). Magic is based around 6 different areas - Animism, Healing, Meditative, Psychic, Shaping, Visionary. Magic which is particularly offence or controlling is called Sorcery and cause corruption and degeneration.
> 
> Overall the magic is a ideas cherry picked from SWd20, the Psychic's Handbook and others. These are then then streamlined and improved (especially the SWd20 stuff) .
> 
> Best of all things are very flexible. Want to restrict magic then just restrict access to the Adept Class or change one or two Feats. Want to create psychic, arcane and divine distinctions. Just choose which three areas fall into which three catergories and simply restrict people to cross over.




Cool indeed...and it does look this could used for very different kinds of fantasy


----------



## Benben (Feb 10, 2005)

*A few of my favorite things.*

I'm still digesting this pdf but I'm seeing a lot of things that I like.


Expanding the uses of the social skills.  Gather Information and Intimidate get the best treatment too.  It's very interesting that the more active skills: listen and spot, hide and move silently, were folded into more generalized skills while the social skills were not.  I've been wanting to have notice and sneak for a long time, but after looking at the skill in BR I want to merge bluff and diplomacy into one skill.  
It's nice to have a new, weaker level in the Exhaustion and Fatigue conditions: Winded.  I had added that into a homebrew game a few months ago and was wondering if anybody else thought there needed to be another level of being tired.
The magic system does a good job of merging arcane and psychic skills into a coherent whole, and it avoids the Greek names (eg telepathy).  It does a good job of capturing the feel of magic in the Mercedes Lackey books.
Mechanically this feels like the "Best of D20" with a nice customizable setting.
I'm really excited to see how this plays.


----------



## Benben (Feb 10, 2005)

This would also be the perfect system to handle an Elfquest game.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 10, 2005)

I've never quite been able to decide if this *genre* is more stomach-turning or offensive.  

Blue Rose itself, however, seems like a very nice package of *rules* that would be worth porting to other genres.  I'm always glad to see social skills expanded upon and non-D&D magic systems introduced.  And removing the completely outmoded ability score system in favor of a ability modifier system can only be a good thing.

I and my players would hate to give up class (or combat) options, but I'd sure like a robust social skill system, balanced and rare magic and faster skill levelling.  Maybe damage saves, too, but I doubt it.

How well do you think Blue Rose would work with standard d20 classes?  A rules mix of, say, 20% Blue Rose (skills and social), 20% Conan the RPG (combat, armor and weapons), 10% d20 Modern (class defense), 30% D&D and Arcana Unearthed (classes) and 10% homebrew (action structure)?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

wow, that's something else.  Not knowing what the action structure of the homebrew is, I'll say the rest is actually really easy.  

Since we are using AU for classes and magic it seems since you don't list magic anywhere, that is our base.  Class defense is actually found in a lot of books and should be really easy to use.  It is just assigning the right progression to the right classes.  

Now, combat from conan, is that also going to have their dodge and parry rules?  THat seems redunat with class defense.  But using their armor and weapons should be easy enough.  

Using the skills and social rules from BR will also be easy, but you might get in some trouble since AU assumes more skills.  I don't recall any big trouble areas but there might be some.  

So, ya this can work.  It might take some time pairing everything up into the AU classes, but other then that sounds good.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 10, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I and my players would hate to give up class (or combat) options, but I'd sure like a robust social skill system, balanced and rare magic and faster skill levelling.  Maybe damage saves, too, but I doubt it.




A few comments:

1. BR has all the combat options of D&D as far as I can see except AoO (if you consider that an option). The simplifications in BR revolve around making the systems faster not less of them.
2. In BR, magic is actually very common. Non-Adept roles can learn magic through the Wild Talent and Arcanum feat. Again the main difference is that BR magic is a faster system than D&D and probably does not increase at the same rate. 
3. Skills don't increase any faster than standard D20. The Skill system is identical to D&D except that rather than using Skill Points, it is assumed that max ranks are taken.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> How well do you think Blue Rose would work with standard d20 classes?  A rules mix of, say, 20% Blue Rose (skills and social), 20% Conan the RPG (combat, armor and weapons), 10% d20 Modern (class defense), 30% D&D and Arcana Unearthed (classes) and 10% homebrew (action structure)?




To be honest that sounds like a crazy mish mash  BR presents a nice streamlined package of the d20 system. It adds and takes away very little. Instead it focusses on improving simplification and speed.

BR comes with a nice 3 pages D20 appendix that makes it easy to convert over. However, if all you want from BR is the skills and social then the actually book isn't going to add much at all. The skills are the same, even the social ones. It is just the emphasis put on them is different. No reason why you couldn't do that with existing D&D or just download the social interaction pdf off the Blue Rose site. I would recommend looking at Dynasties and Demagogues by Atlas than BR.

Also, looking at your selections of games it would appear that Conan would cover it all. Rare magic, class defence, combat. Just give more emphasis to the social skills and it is almost done.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 11, 2005)

Thanks, all.

I use class defense INSTEAD of dodge/parry; otherwise, yeah, they'd be redundant.  And what little magic I'm using is more d20 Call of Cthulu than anything else.  

I'll probably skip Blue Rose for now, although I'll certainly browse it at the very least.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 11, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> And what little magic I'm using is more d20 Call of Cthulu than anything else.




It sounds more and more like D20 Conan is what you are looking for. The magic system is very CoC.


----------



## dvvega (Feb 11, 2005)

Correct me if I am wrong, however the damage save system and the max skill ranks system are very similar (if not identical) to two optional rules in Unearthed Arcana correct?

D


----------



## whydirt (Feb 11, 2005)

dvvega said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, however the damage save system and the max skill ranks system are very similar (if not identical) to two optional rules in Unearthed Arcana correct?
> 
> D



You're correct, although the damage save originally comes from Green Ronin's *Mutants and Masterminds* game.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 11, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> It sounds more and more like D20 Conan is what you are looking for. The magic system is very CoC.




Yeah, Conan is the "Core" of my homebrew system.  I just prefer class defense to dodge/parry and allow a much greater variety of classes.  And I'm always hunting for new systems to cannibalize and assimilate.

Blue Rose may be next... its resistance is futile.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 11, 2005)

dvvega said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, however the damage save system and the max skill ranks system are very similar (if not identical) to two optional rules in Unearthed Arcana correct?




On the surface yes. However, things are quite different when more closely examined. 

The damage save in Unearth Arcana is actually based on the one from Mutants and Masterminds, an RPG done by the same guys who do Blue Rose. 

1. It doesn't use the Fortitude Save but a new save called Toughness. Statistically the Toughness Save works a little better than the Fortitude Save which was not designed for damage saves. 

2. Damage Saves were originally designed to be used in line with Hero Points, or Conviction in Blue Rose. These are points that can be spent to increase the Toughness Save roll. Without them, the UA version is much more lethal and arbitrary. 

3. The damage conditions in BR are a little better spread than the all or nothing approach of the UA variation.

As for the skill system, BR uses the concept of Favoured and Known in replacement of Class and Skill points. As with Damage Saves the result is that BR's system is a little smoother, especially in combination with the three open classes and reduced number of skills used in BR.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 11, 2005)

Benben said:
			
		

> [*]Expanding the uses of the social skills.  Gather Information and Intimidate get the best treatment too.  It's very interesting that the more active skills: listen and spot, hide and move silently, were folded into more generalized skills while the social skills were not.  I've been wanting to have notice and sneak for a long time, but after looking at the skill in BR I want to merge bluff and diplomacy into one skill.




The difference I see is that Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently will generally be taken together as they fit under the same concept and difficult to seperate. In general, someone is perceptive or not or someone is stealthy or not. Though one may be higher than the other it is generally not that important in the overall concept, so they can be bundled together.

However, with Bluff and Diplomacy, there are many times where one will be suitable to a concept but not the other. Rogues are good with Bluff and not Diplomacy. Nobles are good (generally) with Diplomacy and not Bluff. Sure, some have both but to me the distinction is more likely to split a concept than with "aware" or "stealthy".  

What I wanted to see is that with Balance and Tumble being wrapped into Acrobatics that  Jump, Climb and Swim should have been wrapped together under Athletics.


----------



## GreatLemur (Feb 11, 2005)

I've been watching the development of Blue Rose for a while, and I'm horribly conflicted about the whole thing. The mechanics sound absolutely sublime--almost exactly what I've wanted to see d20 evolve towards--but the default setting is so obnoxious that I don't know if I could bear to buy the book.

Still, I just might be able to buy it as a PDF file, instead.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 11, 2005)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I've been watching the development of Blue Rose for a while, and I'm horribly conflicted about the whole thing. The mechanics sound absolutely sublime--almost exactly what I've wanted to see d20 evolve towards--but the default setting is so obnoxious that I don't know if I could bear to buy the book.




First off, as has been said before, at maximum there is only 40 pages dedicated to the setting, not adding in the trade dress. For a core rulebook the book is remarkably considerate to be full of flavour whilst allowing a reader to take as much and as little as one likes.

Second, the setting is a matter of taste. However, I think calling it "obnoxious" is a little far, unless you are an extreme conservative. It is unlikely to cause harm, be offensive or promote evil (the normal meaning of obnoxious) amongst most RPGers YMMV. 

The setting is one where the primary country is a tolerant one, one to look up to. I find this to be a breath of fresh air in what has become a sea of similar dark fantasy settings with medieval ideals. Aldea may not be exactly my cup of tea but I admire the setting none the less and can recognise that it is well done. At the very least it isn't hard to give a slightly different focus to get something more GRR Martin, Jordan, Lewis, Keyes or Le Guin


----------



## Emiricol (Feb 11, 2005)

Obnoxious.  Hmmm.... well, some folks of a particular stripe might think it so.  Whatever.  I just view it as "doesn't work well for me."

But anyway.  Hey Crothian, etc - if a PC has Favored Skill for a couple levels then takes another class (Adept to Expert, for example), does the Favored Skill drop in rank?  How does this work for multiclass PCs?  (Apologies if this is answered in the book - I've not delved *too* deeply into it yet).


----------



## GreatLemur (Feb 11, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> Second, the setting is a matter of taste. However, I think calling it "obnoxious" is a little far, unless you are an extreme conservative. It is unlikely to cause harm, be offensive or promote evil (the normal meaning of obnoxious) amongst most RPGers YMMV.
> 
> The setting is one where the primary country is a tolerant one, one to look up to. I find this to be a breath of fresh air in what has become a sea of similar dark fantasy settings with medieval ideals.



I think we're using different definitions of "obnoxious," here.  I'm not morally offended by Aldea, I'm aesthetically irritated by it.

It's certainly nice to see settings that aren't relentlessly, retardedly darkity-dark-dark, but when major concepts in a setting are named things like "the Golden Hart" and "the Blue Rose Scepter," and the words "Light" and "Shadow" are explicitly given moral implications, and then the goddamned _psychic cats_ show up . . . well, at about that point I start rolling my eyes so badly that I can no longer see.

I love Steve Kenson's work, but the Blue Rose fluff makes me want to use quite a few uncharitable words in addition to obnoxious, such as "pandering," "insulting," "hackneyed," and others.  It _makes my teeth ache_.

Sorry to rant.  I really do wish the game well, and will probably buy it myself.  It's just that the designers set out to work in an idiom that I already cannot stand, and managed to exaggerate that idiom to near-parody levels in the process.


----------



## Henry (Feb 11, 2005)

> I love Steve Kenson's work, but the Blue Rose fluff makes me want to use quite a few uncharitable words in addition to obnoxious,




On the other hand, their target audience is probably in love with it. There's a whole other side to fantasy than the Conan "blood and iron" or the Tolkien "epic longing and sacrifice" take, and it appeals to a lot of folks. With a little luck, some people who aren't normally role-players will be attracted by friends who DO roleplay who tell them about this game. Whether they're questing for "The Staff of Gar'duok" or "The Blue Rose Scepter", they're roleplaying, which is what I like seeing.


----------



## Aaron2 (Feb 11, 2005)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> if a PC has Favored Skill for a couple levels then takes another class (Adept to Expert, for example), does the Favored Skill drop in rank?  How does this work for multiclass PCs?  (Apologies if this is answered in the book - I've not delved *too* deeply into it yet).



The skill never drops. When a character gets a new class, he gains one new Known skill if the new class has fewer known skills (forex an Expert taking a level in Warrior) or he gains two know skills if the new class has more (forex: A Warrior taking a level in Expert). If the new class has more favored skills, the character gets one per level until he reaches the new number. If the new class has less favored skills, he gets nothing. Its kinda wonky.


Aaron


----------



## Crothian (Feb 11, 2005)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Sorry to rant.  I really do wish the game well, and will probably buy it myself.  It's just that the designers set out to work in an idiom that I already cannot stand, and managed to exaggerate that idiom to near-parody levels in the process.




THe book does not hit you over the head with the setting.  In fact, while the stuff is there it can easily be removed.  If you don't want the animal races, don't use them.  The book is just so well put togther that not a lot of this is tied together, Blue Rose is not a house of cards waiting to fall down.  I want to try the system out with Thieves World, and if you know that setting it is about as anti Blue Rose as you can get.  But the rules will work for it.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 11, 2005)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> The skill never drops. When a character gets a new class, he gains one new Known skill if the new class has fewer known skills (forex an Expert taking a level in Warrior) or he gains two know skills if the new class has more (forex: A Warrior taking a level in Expert). If the new class has more favored skills, the character gets one per level until he reaches the new number. If the new class has less favored skills, he gets nothing. Its kinda wonky.




I'm not sure it is really that wonky, it seems to make sense to me.  And with feats gained ever level you can get feats that will help out your skills.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 11, 2005)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> I've been watching the development of Blue Rose for a while, and I'm horribly conflicted about the whole thing. The mechanics sound absolutely sublime--almost exactly what I've wanted to see d20 evolve towards--but the default setting is so obnoxious that I don't know if I could bear to buy the book.



Meh.

Not many are fans of _Greyhawk,_ but they tolerated the setting used throughout the _D&D Core & Supplements_ line. I'm not a fan of _Rokugan d20,_ but I still cherished my copy of _Oriental Adventures_ (especially after seeing a 3.5e revision of the samurai class in _Complete Warrior._)

Granted, the setting may not be suitable for your taste (though I hear it's a great way to score gamer grrls), but at least check out the rules. Treat the rules as if you would treat _D&D Core Rulebooks_ and use it in another setting.


----------



## Benben (Feb 11, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> However, with Bluff and Diplomacy, there are many times where one will be suitable to a concept but not the other. Rogues are good with Bluff and not Diplomacy. Nobles are good (generally) with Diplomacy and not Bluff. Sure, some have both but to me the distinction is more likely to split a concept than with "aware" or "stealthy".




From a mechanical stand point having two skills both based off of Charisma that work to influence a person's reaction to a situation.    I can see both of them being folded into a "smooth operator" concept; however, I like that they are split because it puts more weight on social interaction.

And a hearty "yes!" to folding climb, balance, and swim into an athletics skill.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh.
> 
> Not many are fans of _Greyhawk,_ but they tolerated the setting used throughout the _D&D Core & Supplements_ line. I'm not a fan of _Rokugan d20,_ but I still cherished my copy of _Oriental Adventures_ (especially after seeing a 3.5e revision of the samurai class in _Complete Warrior._)
> 
> Granted, the setting may not be suitable for your taste (though I hear it's a great way to score gamer grrls), but at least check out the rules. Treat the rules as if you would treat _D&D Core Rulebooks_ and use it in another setting.




Agreed.

This setting is literally the least appealing of any I've seen translated into an RPG form (I can take _Bunnies & Burrows_ much more seriously - and of course enjoy it as the non-serious setting it's intended as), but the mechanics sound quite lovely and the book worth picking up.

I use 2e material for fluff though I hate the crunch; why not Blue Rose material for crunch though I hate the fluff?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 12, 2005)

II think the game turned out more flexible then even they imagined since we can do this so easily.


----------



## Emiricol (Feb 12, 2005)

Ok, here's another question.  If I take 3 levels of adept and 3 levels of warrior, is my PC "broken" like some might consider it in D&D?  You know - the old complaint about multiclassing casters being a poor choice...


----------



## Emiricol (Feb 12, 2005)

And another - what are these cards for "destiny"?  It says you can pick or draw, but I can't find any correlation to a real deck of cards.  Is that just faux flavor?


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 12, 2005)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> And another - what are these cards for "destiny"? It says you can pick or draw, but I can't find any correlation to a real deck of cards. Is that just faux flavor?




It corresponds to a normal Waite-Rider Tarot deck. Rods = Staves, Chalices = Cups, Swords = Swords, Pentacles = Pentacles. The Adept = The Magician, The Exarch = The Devil.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 12, 2005)

It's a deck of Tarot cards, man - the major arcana, and then the suits. You can get them in pretty much any bookstore, and I think there are virtual tarot decks online, too.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 12, 2005)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> Ok, here's another question.  If I take 3 levels of adept and 3 levels of warrior, is my PC "broken" like some might consider it in D&D?  You know - the old complaint about multiclassing casters being a poor choice...





in a traditional Blue Rose game, not so much.  THe emphasis of the game is on role playing and not combat.  So, while you might be a little weaker in certain areas it doesn't matter as much.  But you won't be as weak as a wiz3, Fig 3 since there are no spell levels.  Magic is weaker overall .


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 12, 2005)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> Ok, here's another question. If I take 3 levels of adept and 3 levels of warrior, is my PC "broken" like some might consider it in D&D? You know - the old complaint about multiclassing casters being a poor choice...




It doesn't seem as crippling, no. Many of the Arcane feats use your character level rather than your Adept level. You'd be missing the opportunity to gain more Arcane feats and thus open up more talents. You could use Arcane Training on your 'off' levels to gain more Arcana in talents you already have, though.


----------



## Emiricol (Feb 12, 2005)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> And another - what are these cards for "destiny"? It says you can pick or draw, but I can't find any correlation to a real deck of cards. Is that just faux flavor?




D'oh!  Tarot cards!  Thanks guys.  That makes much more sense now


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 12, 2005)

*Blue Rose RPG*

I’ve just looked over the Blue Rose roleplaying game and wanted to share a few thoughts. I can pretty much sum up all of my sentiments towards this game in one sentence:



“Never in fifteen years of gaming have I seen such an aesthetically brilliant system of mechanics paired with such an awkward setting.”





Rules-wise the Blue Rose RPG is a “masterwork” of the D20 system. Table-top has been polluted with Playstation-esque “roll playing” for far too long. This system encourages a refreshing return to dramatic social interaction and character development. When the time comes to dispense with formalities and get to the kicking of posterior ends, this is also handled with gratifying sublime beauty. Almost all of the “clunky” conventions of standard D20 products have been replaced by slick, cinematic, enjoyable alternatives (much like the Mutants & Masterminds gameline.) For example, I never realized how much I hated ‘attacks of opportunity’ until now. Although I cannot express how happy I am to finally see conventions such as level-based defense modifiers, reputation scores, and semi-custom classes, I was somewhat astonished to learn that there was no traditional system for gaining experience points in TBRRPG. The players simply express that they believe their character has developed enough to obtain the next level, and the gamemaster (narrator) either agrees, or explains that more playing is required. It will be interesting to see how this concept works out. On one hand, I worry about the potential for abuse from bad players or inexperienced gamemasters. On the other hand, I will shed no tears to see all those CR charts and calculators go.



Unfortunately, all this is offset by the romantic fantasy setting. Just as I feared, The Blue Rose RPG might as well have been entitled “Liberal Propaganda: The Role Playing Game.” Personally, I wish that Green Ronin had handled the distribution of this gameline differently. It would have been nice to buy the game mechanics as a separate “core” system, and then sold settings as supplementary material. However, this is a purely subjective matter, and I find it phenomenal that the ONLY thing I can really find “wrong” with this game comes down to personal taste. That says a lot in itself.



If you share my personal tastes in this matter, then I’m afraid you’re still stuck in your current dellema: Should you buy the game only for the system mechanics for use in an alternate setting?



The answer comes down to economics- If you have the extra money, DO IT NOW. It is really worth it, and the default setting is not in any way an integral part of the design- From what I can tell, even a moderately experienced gamemaster would have no trouble lifting the parts that they like (and there is a great deal to like) and incorporating them into any other published or homebrew D20 game. However, if you’re tight on money, I would say wait. A system this inspired is destined to find its way somewhere else… Eventually.


----------



## whydirt (Feb 12, 2005)

Can someone cite specifics of what about the setting is turning people off?  I'd be willing to bet if Blue Rose didn't have the word "romantic" in the title that most of these complaints wouldn't exist.  Everything I've read about the setting seems to make it pretty standard fantasy stuff.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 12, 2005)

whydirt said:
			
		

> Can someone cite specifics of what about the setting is turning people off?  I'd be willing to bet if Blue Rose didn't have the word "romantic" in the title that most of these complaints wouldn't exist.  Everything I've read about the setting seems to make it pretty standard fantasy stuff.




It attempts to fulfill the interests and desires of an audience most rpg games don't bother to acknowledge, and adopts the conceits of a popular genre of fantasy that most games and gamers like to pretend doesn't exist.

Which, if you haven't guessed by now, I consider to be a great feature of the game. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 12, 2005)

whydirt said:
			
		

> Can someone cite specifics of what about the setting is turning people off? I'd be willing to bet if Blue Rose didn't have the word "romantic" in the title that most of these complaints wouldn't exist. Everything I've read about the setting seems to make it pretty standard fantasy stuff.




What got me in the end wasn’t any one specific thing, it was the overall flavor of the game:



You basically have a perfect “open minded” utopian community threatened by thinly disguised right-wing conservatives.  The goal in adventuring is to either “open the eyes” of these villains, or do away with them in the name of progressive thinking.  All this while trying to save the environment with the aid of friendly talking animals



Now, I did NOT vote for our current U.S. president, but even I found the whole thing disruptively odd.  Or, I guess to be more honest about it, I would feel somewhat goofy presenting such a game world to my current role playing circle.  Again, this is just a matter of personal style and taste.



The “romance” aspect of the game didn’t bother me at all.  If anything, the section on “emotional roleplaying” was well done and made me realize how odd it was that most systems didn’t devote a section of the rulebook to such considerations.  After all, humans are motivated by their emotions above all else, and playing them as such should be rewarded.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 12, 2005)

Nomad4life, welcome to the boards. 

By the way, let's be careful not get too much into modern-day real-world politics. Which wouldn't be appropriate for EN World (for reference, the EN World rules.).
Thus, phrasing comments relating to such is best done with great care.

This goes for everyone, in case it needs to be said.

Thanks.

If anyone has questions, e-mail me.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 12, 2005)

The Blue Rose setting as described on previews looked bland, archetypal black'n'white, common fantasy setting to me. But as described by Nomad4life, it would make me reconsider buying this book...    In any case, there would still be the option of creating an Earthsea homebrew for it. In fact I don't know why, but Earthsea (that I did read so long ago) strikes me as THE setting that would be cool with Blue Rose (except you would need to add in some naval / sea rules). 

Anyway, for me the real question is that not only the d20 market is overflooded, but that my gaming shelf too is overcrowded. Until now most d20 books are compatible the ones with the others; but this Blue Rose is in fact almost a new kind of game, which is just similar to d20 so you don't need much effort to learn it. Well, two years ago (when I had yet to buy 3.5 and most of my d20 books) I would have bought it. But now it's to late for me. It's not a question of money, but of time available to play so many stuff!


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 12, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> The Blue Rose setting as described on previews looked bland, archetypal black'n'white, common fantasy setting to me. But as described by Nomad4life, it would make me reconsider buying this book...  In any case, there would still be the option of creating an Earthsea homebrew for it. In fact I don't know why, but Earthsea (that I did read so long ago) strikes me as THE setting that would be cool with Blue Rose (except you would need to add in some naval / sea rules).
> 
> Anyway, for me the real question is that not only the d20 market is overflooded, but that my gaming shelf too is overcrowded. Until now most d20 books are compatible the ones with the others; but this Blue Rose is in fact almost a new kind of game, which is just similar to d20 so you don't need much effort to learn it. Well, two years ago (when I had yet to buy 3.5 and most of my d20 books) I would have bought it. But now it's to late for me. It's not a question of money, but of time available to play so many stuff!





Easy:  Buy another shelf. 


Anyway, remember that I’m not a fan of the genre, so I’m probably interpreting the overall setting wrong.  Actually, every time I look through it, I do find some pretty interesting ideas…  I just don’t know that I’m equipped to run the game the way you’re supposed to.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 12, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Rules-wise the Blue Rose RPG is a “masterwork” of the D20 system.



I thought _C&C_ is the masterwork _d20 System._  

I can only go so far as to say that _Blue Rose_ ruleset, derived from _MnM_ ruleset, is a second-generation (or 2Gen) _d20 System_ engine.


----------



## Aaron2 (Feb 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it is really that wonky, it seems to make sense to me.  And with feats gained ever level you can get feats that will help out your skills.




The multi-classing skill system seems wonky to me because when you gain a new class you get favored skills one at time until you get them all but you only get 1 or 2 known skills all at once and never gain them all.  You think they would have used the same rules for both.


Aaron


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 13, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I thought _C&C_ is the masterwork _d20 System._
> 
> I can only go so far as to say that _Blue Rose_ ruleset, derived from _MnM_ ruleset, is a second-generation (or 2Gen) _d20 System_ engine.




Whoa!!!  Are you the same Ranger REG from the WoTC message boards?


----------



## Wombat (Feb 13, 2005)

The more I look over BR, the more I like the rules.  

The setting is something entirely different; I never been a fan of Mercedes Lackey and her ilk, sad  but true.  OTOH, I think, with just a little bit of work, many games could be adjusted to this system.  Heck, with a little bit of work I might be able to work it over into Star Trek  

I like the de-emphasis on combat, the greater emphasis on social skills, the streamlining of many die rolls, the simplicity of the wealth mechanics, etc.  This is an elegant set of rules.  I want to switch over to these rules as quickly as I may!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 13, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Whoa!!!  Are you the same Ranger REG from the WoTC message boards?



There's another?


----------



## Von Ether (Feb 13, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Granted, the setting may not be suitable for your taste (though I hear it's a great way to score gamer grrls), but at least check out the rules.




LOL! On that note, the game could have a lot more converts. It would be the RPG version of "going to the mall with the g/f." Something men dread, but do anyway for the few bright moments in Radio Shack and to keep the g/f happy.

The default type setting does nothing for me. OTOH, This system with Eberron or GRRM's Fire and Ice setting would be the cat's pajamas.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 13, 2005)

I don't really have  aproblem with the base setting.  The utopian like country with many enimies seems like a huge potential for plot lines to show exactly how hard and near impossible it would be to have.  So, I relaly want to give the setting a try to see exactly how it plays.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 13, 2005)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> The multi-classing skill system seems wonky to me because when you gain a new class you get favored skills one at time until you get them all but you only get 1 or 2 known skills all at once and never gain them all.  You think they would have used the same rules for both.




Not necessarily. All Known Skills automatically increase every level. The default thinking is that your Skill Points are automatically spent on Skills you already know. Getting new Known Skills is actually very powerful. If you Multiclassed at 10th level you suddenly get 13 more Skill Points. Hence why this only happens at 1st level to reflect the new role. You otherwise need to spend Feats.

As for Favoured Skills, they are immediately less powerful and tend to reflect new potential or more likely the increase of existing known Skills. A Warrior has Stealth as a Non-Favoured and then takes Expert to become a Rogue. He takes Stealth as Non-Favoured. This will increase his Skill by half. A big increase but not in comparison to getting a new Known Skill.

So I think the multiclassing rules are actually well balanced.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 13, 2005)

Emiricol said:
			
		

> Ok, here's another question.  If I take 3 levels of adept and 3 levels of warrior, is my PC "broken" like some might consider it in D&D?  You know - the old complaint about multiclassing casters being a poor choice...




No. One thing to remember is that despite the difference in appearance BR is very muc a d20 ruleset. The wonky multiclassing rules actually recreate the same effect as multiclassing in 3e. An Adept 3/Warrior3 will be a good all rounded but but less good in each area than a specialist.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 13, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> You basically have a perfect “open minded” utopian community threatened by thinly disguised right-wing conservatives.




I think you are reading too much into the setting and adding you own complexity where there isn't any. Like Star Wars, the game is trying to present absolutes for Good and Evil. The suspicious, jaded and cynical will struggle with this idea of Utopia as it isn't possibility in the real world. But hey this is a fantasy game. The intention behind this approach, at least in romantic fantasy, is to try and avoid being bogged down by these issues. There is good and there is evil. The PCs are good and doing the right thing. It really is that simple.

I can understand why it can be hard to swallow but I think you may be reading more into the setting than that is there. As for thinly disguised right-wing conservatives, I find this hard to believe. As presented, the Kingdom of Aldea could hardly be said to be right-wing (toleranct to sexuality, religion, race). Naiive maybe but not right-wing


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 13, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> I think you are reading too much into the setting and adding you own complexity where there isn't any.




Very possible... I am, after all, an English grad student! 



			
				Skywalker said:
			
		

> As for thinly disguised right-wing conservatives, I find this hard to believe. As presented, the Kingdom of Aldea could hardly be said to be right-wing (toleranct to sexuality, religion, race).




I was specifically referring to the realm of Jarzon among other factions, not Aldea.



I can see your point about the game authors trying to portray a clear “good vs. evil” setting like Star Wars, though... In fact, the game makes more sense when I go back and look at it that way. It’s just that such objectivity wouldn’t mesh well with my current gaming group (although ironically, they’re almost all huge Star Wars fans?)


----------



## Crothian (Feb 13, 2005)

well, Blue Rose does deal with a few subjects that Star Wars stays away from.


----------



## Psion (Feb 13, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Rules-wise the Blue Rose RPG is a “masterwork” of the D20 system.  Table-top has been polluted with Playstation-esque “roll playing”




Sigh. Time to ressurect the .sig.



> Although I cannot express how happy I am to finally see conventions such as level-based defense modifiers, reputation scores, and semi-custom classes,




Finally?

Does someone else want to tell him?


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 13, 2005)

Public Notice: Making sigs that attempt to portray standard terminology as somehow being “antiquated” is not cute or funny or clever anymore. If it ever was.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Finally?
> 
> Does someone else want to tell him?




Oh? There’s another D20 fantasy game setting besides WoT that uses these?



Unearthed Arcana doesn’t count IMO. A “patch” just isn’t the same thing...


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 13, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> I was specifically referring to the realm of Jarzon among other factions, not Aldea.




My bad 



			
				Nomad4life said:
			
		

> I can see your point about the game authors trying to portray a clear “good vs. evil” setting like Star Wars, though... In fact, the game makes more sense when I go back and look at it that way. It’s just that such objectivity wouldn’t mesh well with my current gaming group (although ironically, they’re almost all huge Star Wars fans?)




As mentioned below, BR deals with some more "controversial" matters than SW. Also, most people encountered SW in the bloom of naiive youth 

However, the basic intention is the same. It is to be expected that many RPGers who haven't read much of the inspirational fiction might find the setting to be a little too hard to believe. However, as mentioned above, at its basics the setting is pretty straightforward. It would not be hard to emphasis certain elements over others to create the appropriate feeling you desire.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 13, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Oh? There’s another D20 fantasy game setting besides WoT that uses these?




Well there is a lot of d20 products out there and some tackle these such as Grim Tales. I note that even WoT didn't have customisable classes. 

However, I agree with your sentiment. BR brings these (and other elements) altogether in a fantasy game for the first time in a way I am completely satisfied with.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 13, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> Well there is a lot of d20 products out there and some tackle these such as Grim Tales. I note that even WoT didn't have customisable classes.




Ah.  Haven’t gotten around to Grim Tales yet, but I may have to take a look at it now.  *Sigh* I’m half the gamer I used to be.  Guess that’s what I get for getting married.


----------



## Psion (Feb 13, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Oh? There’s another D20 fantasy game setting besides WoT that uses these?




I'm sure there are, but actually I was thinking Star Wars, which has been using class based defense and reputation for a long time. UA just repeated the same material as open content, but other d20 variants have made their own hacks on those concepts in the meantime.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 13, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm sure there are, but actually I was thinking Star Wars, which has been using class based defense and reputation for a long time. UA just repeated the same material as open content, but other d20 variants have made their own hacks on those concepts in the meantime.




::Nods::  



I loved the SWRPG so much that I didn’t even complain when the RCR was released soon after (remember how everyone thought it was just some kind of rip-off scandal?)  

Next to the ideas found in MnM, VP/WP is my second favorite D20 innovation.



However, I was thinking specifically of D20 fantasy games with those mechanics already built in.  WoT has a some of them, but I have a few other minor complaints about that game system (interesting approach to magic, though.)



As someone else mentioned, many of the 2nd generation D20 games have parts of these systems, but there are none I can think of that blend them all together so well at once as BR has done.



I’ve got nothing against UA for presenting these ideas to standard D&D gamers…  But if you’ve ever tried to GM one of these variants, you may agree that it’s just NOT the same as a game (such as the SWRPG) with such mechanics already in place.


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 13, 2005)

In terms of mechanics, this sounds like a rather interesting game, as it appears to get rid of many of the things that irritate me the most about 3E D&D.

How hard would it be to run a campaign in a 'standard' fantasy setting using these rules?  I am thinking of something like Middle-earth or Jack Vance's Lyonesse here.  That is, a setting that allows for intrigue, social interactions, etc., as well as some old-fashioned orc-killing.

Also, how easy would it be to use standard 3E adventures, etc. with these rules?

It is, IMO, a real crying *pity* that these rules are presented in a 'romantic fantasy' package.  The New Agey, neo-pagan, flakey elements of that genre fill me with nausea.  If only the rules had been presented separately from the campaign setting.

Oh well.   :\


----------



## Crothian (Feb 13, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> How hard would it be to run a campaign in a 'standard' fantasy setting using these rules?  I am thinking of something like Middle-earth or Jack Vance's Lyonesse here.  That is, a setting that allows for intrigue, social interactions, etc., as well as some old-fashioned orc-killing.




not terrible hard but it would take some work.  You'd hgave to for instance create the orc as there are no orcs in the book.  That would be the hardiest part creating things that your setting has that this one does not.  Also, high powered monsters like Dragons would kick majot ass in this rules system as players just don't really get powerful enough to take them out as they are presented in the MM.



> Also, how easy would it be to use standard 3E adventures, etc. with these rules?




Agian the conversion of things to the rule set will be the problem area.  It won't be hard and once you would get used to doing it it might not take as much time.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 13, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> It is, IMO, a real crying *pity* that these rules are presented in a 'romantic fantasy' package.  The New Agey, neo-pagan, flakey elements of that genre fill me with nausea.  If only the rules had been presented separately from the campaign setting.
> 
> Oh well.   :\



FWIW, at least they stopped short of putting _Barbie_ and Fabio on the cover.

Hasbro's rival Mattel would have a fit if they saw that ... _Barbie_ I mean, not Fabio.  

Granted, I'm not Marion Zimmer Bradley fan (forgive the spelling), but I think this would help bring those fans into our hobby.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 13, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Also, how easy would it be to use standard 3E adventures, etc. with these rules?




Having answered this question elsewhere, I will just say that BR would do wonders for Middle Earth. All you would need to do is add Favoured Feats and Skills to the Middle Earth races and maybe get rid of Psychic Arcana. Otherwise, BR would run like a dream IMO.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 13, 2005)

And, conversely, I consider it a crying *pity* that gamers are proving so dismissive and close-minded of a setting that doesn't pander to the tropes of what they consider "standard" fantasy. 

There are already dozens, if not hundreds of games and settings that fit the "social interactions + orc killing" mold - it's a strength of Blue Rose, and a credit to its designers that they didn't just default to that mold like so many other games do.

Romantic fantasy is a huge market, and it's about time there was a major company that acknowledged that the game industry has never bothered trying to serve that audience's interests. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Psion (Feb 14, 2005)

I might point out that some of what might be termed "romantic fantasy" is actually quite gritty by the terms of those who are looking for more low fantasy style games.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 14, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You'd hgave to for instance create the orc as there are no orcs in the book.




The Night People are pretty darn close, and the Vata could be tweaked into Elves without to much work.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 14, 2005)

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> The Night People are pretty darn close, and the Vata could be tweaked into Elves without to much work.




that is true, but it also depensds on what the orcs and elves the person wants are going to be like.  they do vary some from setting to setting.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 14, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> FWIW, at least they stopped short of putting _Barbie_ and Fabio on the cover.




Wow.  What an interesting game THAT would have been…  



Fabio:  I roll to believe that it’s not butter…

GM:  You got a “1”.  Looks like you failed…

Fabio:  Nooo!   I can’t believe that it’s not butter!!!

Barbie:  Good thing.  Real butter would KILL my CHA modifier…


----------



## Kesh (Feb 14, 2005)

I'll say this much: the thread here has convinced me to pick up the _Blue Rose_ PDF, and buy some Mercedes Lackey novels off eReader when the next paycheck comes. 8)

Romantic fantasy does seem a bit too close to the so-called "fluffy pagan" trope I've come to know, but it'll be interesting to see how it really reads. And the RPG itself sounds like half the ideas I was working on for my homebrew world anyway.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 14, 2005)

Mercedes Lackey is the only romantic fantasy author I have really read but I really don't mind her books.  THe ones were she writes with whats his name are very simplistic but some of her solo Valdemar ones can actually be quite fun.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 14, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I'll say this much: the thread here has convinced me to pick up the _Blue Rose_ PDF, and buy some Mercedes Lackey novels off eReader when the next paycheck comes. 8)




Though Mercedes Lackey is very successful in the realm of romantic fantasy, I recommend Robin McKinley (Blue Sword and Hero & the Crown) or Greg Keyes (Briar King and Charnel House) over the Valdemar series. Some of the later Valdemar stuff is quite good but the first trilogy is not that great and aimed for a young female audience.


----------



## Benben (Feb 14, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Romantic fantasy does seem a bit too close to the so-called "fluffy pagan" trope I've come to know, but it'll be interesting to see how it really reads. And the RPG itself sounds like half the ideas I was working on for my homebrew world anyway.




The Heralds of Valdemar trilogy is one of her better ones, and is available on ereader.  If you're looking for print books too I recommend her Vows and Honor trilogy.  It's mostly a collection of short stories, and has the romantic fantasy equivalent of Fahrd and the Grey Mouser.


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 14, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> And, conversely, I consider it a crying *pity* that gamers are proving so dismissive and close-minded of a setting that doesn't pander to the tropes of what they consider "standard" fantasy.
> 
> There are already dozens, if not hundreds of games and settings that fit the "social interactions + orc killing" mold - it's a strength of Blue Rose, and a credit to its designers that they didn't just default to that mold like so many other games do.
> 
> ...




I have nothing against a company trying to crack into the 'romantic fantasy' market.  All the more power to them.  It is not a product that I would ever want, but I certainly do not begrudge the fact that there are plenty of people out there who might want some neo-pagan/New Age style setting.

I was just expressing my dismay that in order to get to something that is of interest to me -- an interesting 'rules light' version of d20 fantasy -- I have to dig through a bunch of 'packaging' and setting info that I actively loathe.

If the rules had been sold separately from the setting, I would almost certainly pick this up.  As it is, I am not so sure.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 14, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I have nothing against a company trying to crack into the 'romantic fantasy' market.  All the more power to them.  It is not a product that I would ever want, but I certainly do not begrudge the fact that there are plenty of people out there who might want some neo-pagan/New Age style setting.
> 
> I was just expressing my dismay that in order to get to something that is of interest to me -- an interesting 'rules light' version of d20 fantasy -- I have to dig through a bunch of 'packaging' and setting info that I actively loathe.
> 
> If the rules had been sold separately from the setting, I would almost certainly pick this up.  As it is, I am not so sure.




But really, don't we have to do this most products?  I bought Complete Arcana and I have all this Wu Jen stuff, the class most of its seppls are unique to it.  There is alway stuff in books I'd perfer not to see.  Few books I've liked most or everything in the book.  And as setting goes, so many people use their own favorite setting that people are pretty used to gettign setting books to steal from.


----------



## Benben (Feb 14, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> If the rules had been sold separately from the setting, I would almost certainly pick this up. As it is, I am not so sure.




Akrasia if you ignore everything before page 52 of the $14 pdf you'll be able to ignore 99% of the setting and flavour text.  Sure you might have to close your eyes to the generally gorgeous art, but the setting is entirely ignorable for for most of the book.

And, I have to ask, is your icon Buffy?  If it is I'm finding your disgust at the romantic fantasy confusing since Buffy: The Vampire Slayer was really a romantic horror/comedy.


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 14, 2005)

Benben said:
			
		

> ... And, I have to ask, is your icon Buffy?  If it is I'm finding your disgust at the romantic fantasy confusing since Buffy: The Vampire Slayer was really a romantic horror/comedy.




Wow.  It is amazing how two people can interpret the same thing in such radically different ways.

Indeed, I am hard pressed to think of a writer further away from the likes of Mercedes Lackey than Joss Whedon.
 

If Joss Whedon ever wrote a 'romantic fantasy' novel, I am sure that it would be dripping with irony, self-deprecation, and a sense of irreverent self-awareness completely alien to overly eager neo-pagan, tarot card-reading, crunchy New Age types that love the novels of ML, et al.

Sure Buffy tVS has a Wicca lesbian witch, etc.  But the tone of BtVS is fundamentally subversive and mocking.  As far as I can tell, the genre of 'romantic fantasy' utterly lacks this feature.

At least that's my suspicion.    

Sorry for the tangent.  Back to BLUE ROSE ...


----------



## Turanil (Feb 14, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I was just expressing my dismay that in order to get to something that is of interest to me -- an interesting 'rules light' version of d20 fantasy -- I have to dig through a bunch of 'packaging' and setting info that I actively loathe.
> 
> If the rules had been sold separately from the setting, I would almost certainly pick this up.  As it is, I am not so sure.



Well, there still is Castle & Crusade, isn't it?


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 14, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Well, there still is Castle & Crusade, isn't it?




Oh _most definitely_!     

My campaign is going very well.

I am curious about Blue Rose in case I want to try out a more 'Tolkienesque' campaign in the future.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> And, conversely, I consider it a crying *pity* that gamers are proving so dismissive and close-minded of a setting that doesn't pander to the tropes of what they consider "standard" fantasy.
> Patrick Y.




I don't see how it is fair or accurate to decribe being disinterested in a specific setting as being closed-minded.  It may have more to do with what it is than what it is not.

I'm interested in the magic system.  But a lot of other things described above do not interest me.  This includes but is not limited to the setting material.  I am quite satisfied with my current game, so I'm not sufficiently motivated to buy a whole book for a magic system.  So ultimately, I am in fact dismissing this product.  But no moreso than any other of the 50-odd products I didn't buy in the past few months.  

As far as the setting goes, I have very little experience with romantic fantasy.  I read the first (?) Mercedes Lackey series 15 or so years ago (Arrows of the Queen, etc...).  I really enjoyed it despite rolling my eyes multiple times at the political correctness.  I readily purchased the first book in the next series based on my enjoyment of the prior series.  To me, somewhere between the first and second series the focus shifted from a good story with PC elements to a PC message machine with a story built in.  I assumed she had clicked with a niche market and was serving that market.  Good for her, I hope she makes a million bucks.  But in the mean time, there are tons of books that I want to read and I just do not have time to read them all.  I have no choice but to skip something, so I'm going to stack the deck in my favor and start skipping Lackey.  I prejudge those books as not aimed at me and not entertaining to me.  Maybe I'm wrong.  And if I ever run out of books to read I'll readily give her another chance.  But as my backlog grows every year, I don't see that happening.  There is no malice or contempt to it.  I just prefer to be entertained.

Same with game stuff.  Theres got to be something I don't buy.  I'm going to stack the deck in my favor.  

I'd like to buy the magic system as a stand alone.  If they do not publish it that way, then it is no loss to me.  If they ever decide to do so, then it will be a bonus to me.


----------



## Brad Hindman (Feb 14, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd like to buy the magic system as a stand alone.  If they do not publish it that way, then it is no loss to me.  If they ever decide to do so, then it will be a bonus to me.




Without doing a side-by-side comparison, it appears to me that the magic system is pretty much a slight reworking of the Psychic's Handbook where the fatigue mechanic has been altered to swap out the hit point system in favor of the damage saves used in Blue Rose. In addition, there has been some tweaking and name changing so that the magic system matches the genre more closely. Has anyone else noticed major changes between the Blue Rose magic system and the Psychic's Handbook?


----------



## Mallus (Feb 14, 2005)

Question: could you do Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Darkover_ with Blue Rose? It sounds like it would be a good fit.

I've a big fan of the early-ish Darkover novels, up through _The Heritage of Hastur_.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2005)

Brad Hindman said:
			
		

> Without doing a side-by-side comparison, it appears to me that the magic system is pretty much a slight reworking of the Psychic's Handbook where the fatigue mechanic has been altered to swap out the hit point system in favor of the damage saves used in Blue Rose. In addition, there has been some tweaking and name changing so that the magic system matches the genre more closely.




Thanks.  That is very good to know.
I do very much like the Psychic's Handbook.


----------



## Benben (Feb 14, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Sure Buffy tVS has a Wicca lesbian witch, etc. But the tone of BtVS is fundamentally subversive and mocking. As far as I can tell, the genre of 'romantic fantasy' utterly lacks this feature.
> 
> At least that's my suspicion.
> 
> Sorry for the tangent. Back to BLUE ROSE ...




I wasn't even thinking of Willow, what I was thinking about what that the whole series was relationship driven.  Sure it had the occasional easily identifiable evil monster to kill, but at its core it was about Buffy and crew growing up.  Buffy hits a lot of the tropes of a a romantic fantasy.  The reason it doesn't feel like a Lackey novel is because Whedon is a better writer.

And since there is no such thing as game police, I'm going to happily have sarcasm, shades of grey, and political intrigue in the Blue Rose setting.  It easily supports it and also hands me easily identifiable evil creatures for the players to occasionally have fights with.


----------



## drnuncheon (Feb 14, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Wow.  It is amazing how two people can interpret the same thing in such radically different ways.
> 
> Indeed, I am hard pressed to think of a writer further away from the likes of Mercedes Lackey than Joss Whedon.




Thinking that all romantic fantasy is like Lackey is rather like thinking that all epic quest fantasy is like David Eddings.  While Lackey may be one of the best known authors, that doesn't mean she's one of the best.  You might consider some other authors who aren't nearly so twee:

Jane Lindskold's "Wolf" series features intelligent dire animals, subtle, mind-affecting sorcery, and political machinations.

Ellen Kushner's _Swordspoint_ is all about politics and betrayal.

While her first three books (starting with _Luck in the Shadows_) may leave a Lackey-like aftertaste in your mouth despite being better written, Lynn Flewelling's _The Bone Doll's Twin_ and sequel _The Hidden Warrior_ are nothing short of excellent - probably the _creepiest_ romantic fantasy I've read.

Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice series is another example of "good" romantic fiction - and as the title suggests, it's not all sweetness and light and happy talking animals.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 14, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Question: could you do Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Darkover_ with Blue Rose? It sounds like it would be a good fit. I've a big fan of the early-ish Darkover novels, up through _The Heritage of Hastur_.




I think so, though you'd cut out most of the races and Arcana. Without the book in front of me, I don't think there is a mechanism for combining the abilities of a number of Adepts. It would be a simple thing to add and then you could get up to the power levels of the Tower people where they were mining by telekinetically ripping metals out of the ground. The simple mind speaking and emotion reading abilities are already in there.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 14, 2005)

so, now that many people have seen Blue Rose: what is the one thing you'd like to see next for the setting?


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 14, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> so, now that many people have seen Blue Rose: what is the one thing you'd like to see next for the setting?




I really like the supplements that are planned. I am always a big fan of a gazette that covers the entire setting and a seperate book of rules options and additions. 

Aldea was presented in a very clear and concise way. I am interested to see how World of Aldea expands on this.

Beyond those two I would personally like to see an adventure and Live Action rules. Despite the common trend, I find official adventures to be very useful. As for live action, I can see a real potential and would love to see someone attempt a live action rule set for a fantasy/d20 setting.


----------



## Ace (Feb 14, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> so, now that many people have seen Blue Rose: what is the one thing you'd like to see next for the setting?




After the next 2 supplements are done I want a Faerie setting -- 

A '17th century" tech upgrade for Swashbuckling would be cool too


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 15, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> so, now that many people have seen Blue Rose: what is the one thing you'd like to see next for the setting?



The Blue Rose version of the Book of Vile Darkness ...  

Jon


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> The Blue Rose version of the Book of Vile Darkness ...
> 
> Jon




now that would be odd yet it actually would fit the setting with the shadow guys being about that evil.....


----------



## Afrodyte (Feb 15, 2005)

A Narrators' toolkit that helps adapt the Blue Rose system to other romantic fantasy settings other than Aldea.  Here is an idea of what I'd like to try.  Too bad nobody's picked up on it.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> A Narrators' toolkit that helps adapt the Blue Rose system to other romantic fantasy settings other than Aldea.  Here is an idea of what I'd like to try.  Too bad nobody's picked up on it.




You might have better luck on the BR forums.


----------



## talinthas (Feb 15, 2005)

I'm incredibly torn by this product, fluff wise.  On the one hand, i'm glad to finally see a game product specifically aimed at the shojou audience.  On the other hand, i hate shojou literature and the genre as a whole.  Mercedes Lackey, the prime inspiration, is probably my most strongly disliked author in fantasy.  I can't stand the whole "Girl and talking animal companion goes to the big city and falls in love with the prince while saving the world from evil men" type of story thing.  

However, i can fully acknowledge that there is indeed a huge market for this sort of stuff.  And if Blue Rose can get more women gaming, then by all means, bring it on =)

I just don't know that the rules can be divorced from the core shojou concept enough for me to swallow it.

(for those who don't know, shojou is the genre of girl's anime, but i find that the core ideas apply just as strongly to romantic fantasy.  Think stuff like Magic Knights Rayearth, Utena, Sailor Moon, Fushigi Yuugi, Rose of Versailles, etc.  Stuff that primarily appeals to women, with strong female characters, sometimes talking animal companions, etc.   There is nothing wrong with the genre; it simply doesnt appeal to me)


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 15, 2005)

talinthas said:
			
		

> (for those who don't know, shojou is the genre of girl's anime, but i find that the core ideas apply just as strongly to romantic fantasy.  Think stuff like Magic Knights Rayearth, Utena, Sailor Moon, Fushigi Yuugi, Rose of Versailles, etc.  Stuff that primarily appeals to women, with strong female characters, sometimes talking animal companions, etc.   There is nothing wrong with the genre; it simply doesnt appeal to me)




BTW Have you watched Twelve Kingdoms http://www.12kingdoms.us/? It is Shoujo but in a very subtle way. It is great inspiration for BR and I imagine would appeal to the greater audience of fantasy lovers.


----------



## JEL (Feb 15, 2005)

> (for those who don't know, shojou is the genre of girl's anime, but i find that the core ideas apply just as strongly to romantic fantasy. Think stuff like Magic Knights Rayearth, Utena, Sailor Moon, Fushigi Yuugi, Rose of Versailles, etc. Stuff that primarily appeals to women, with strong female characters, sometimes talking animal companions, etc. There is nothing wrong with the genre; it simply doesnt appeal to me)




"Shoujo" isn't a genre.  It's a target audience (young girls, usually centered around early adolescence) and it covers a lot of different genres, such as hard SF (They Were 11), horror (Kyouketsu Miyu), historical fiction (the afore mentioned Rose of Versailles), comedy (Kodomo no Omocha), and even fantasy (much of the stuff you mention above).  I think you might be able make an argument for "shoujo fantasy" as being a unique genre, but even then there's still a lot of diversity.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 15, 2005)

Benben said:
			
		

> I wasn't even thinking of Willow, what I was thinking about what that the whole series was relationship driven.  Sure it had the occasional easily identifiable evil monster to kill, but at its core it was about Buffy and crew growing up.  Buffy hits a lot of the tropes of a a romantic fantasy.  The reason it doesn't feel like a Lackey novel is because Whedon is a better writer.
> 
> And since there is no such thing as game police, I'm going to happily have sarcasm, shades of grey, and political intrigue in the Blue Rose setting.  It easily supports it and also hands me easily identifiable evil creatures for the players to occasionally have fights with.




My biggest problem with the "romantic fantasy" genre (possibly aside from its political overtones) is the way it coopted the term romantic fantasy.  I like writing and reading fantasy and relationships of soap operatic complexity.  The more serious variety of space opera still has room for both in sci-fi, without the baggage; relationship fantasy seems wholly dominated by a cadre exclusively female writers with a very PC (and outdated PC, at that) outlook.  Often with the interpersonal complexity divorced from ethical and plot complexity.

Which has nothing to do with "Blue Rose," of course.  

I'm still interested in the system, but I'm starting to wonder if I don't have sufficient pieces in place to do everything I wanted from it without actually, y'know, buying it.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 15, 2005)

As I continue to look over BR, I start to think that maybe, just maybe, the default romantic fantasy setting could work…  If you TWIST it around a little bit.



Examples: 



-An adventure where the environment is a danger to the common people (such as a festering swamp) but the “talking animals and neo-pagan girls” are dead-set on defending it anyway.



-Run a typical “misfit girl comes to town looking for friends and acceptance” adventure…  Only to discover that there was a GOOD REASON this girl was an outcast!



-Run an adventure where the big-bad-prejudiced-male actually turns out to unexpectedly “save the day” due to his irrational suspicions.



You see where I’m going with this…  Basically, keep the setting as it is, but remove the “objective” clear right/wrong element.  Now THAT could be interesting…



At any rate, the mechanics continue to amaze me.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

not interesting no....ia failed attempt at irony is what I think you are going for.  All you are doing is taking the things you don't like about the game and turning them 180 degrees.  

Now, in a serious BR doing one of these things every now and agian could be good, but every time just looks like you are attacking the setting while playing the setting; and that doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Turanil (Feb 15, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> As I continue to look over BR, I start to think that maybe, just maybe, the default romantic fantasy setting could work…  If you TWIST it around a little bit.
> 
> Examples:
> -An adventure where the environment is a danger to the common people (such as a festering swamp) but the “talking animals and neo-pagan girls” are dead-set on defending it anyway.
> ...



LOL! I like your twisted mind!


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> If Joss Whedon ever wrote a 'romantic fantasy' novel, I am sure that it would be dripping with irony, self-deprecation, and a sense of irreverent self-awareness completely alien to overly eager neo-pagan, tarot card-reading, crunchy New Age types that love the novels of ML, et al.
> 
> Sure Buffy tVS has a Wicca lesbian witch, etc.  But the tone of BtVS is fundamentally subversive and mocking.  As far as I can tell, the genre of 'romantic fantasy' utterly lacks this feature.
> 
> ...




First, you're seriously mischaracterizing the romantic fantasy audience, in the same way that those who say gamers are "fat virgin losers with dreams of grandeur" mischaracterize the D&D audience. 

Second, you're way off base with Buffy. It's a close cousin to romantic fantasy, through and through, even accounting for Joss Whedon's love of irreverence. 

The whole story, from season 1 through 7, is all about the transformation from child to adult, and the development of relationships, and Joss Whedon and his writers embrace the conventions of those sorts of stories as much as, or even more than they mock them.

Season 2's arc would fit perfectly as a romantic fantasy novel: love betrayed and redeemed, the world threatened by the actions of a lover, and saved by the sacrifice of the same.

Season 3 is about family, and to a lesser degree sisterhood, and the climax of the story isn't the death of the mayor, it's the moment where the teens of Sunnydale stand up and fight - they're leaving their childhood behind, and making a place as adults. 

Season 5 begins the story arc that runs through the rest of the seasons, with Spike beginning to be redeemed by his love for Buffy, and Buffy taking on the mother role as she assumes responsibility for her sister. And, again, the world is saved through a sacrifice made out of love - only this time, it's Buffy sacrificing herself to save her child/sister, Dawn. 

Season 6 is again about relationships, and love, and the world ending threat is sparked by pointless hatred (born from misogyny), and ended by an irony free scene about the redemptive power of love - a theme that's everywhere in romantic fantasy. 

Season 7 is all about female empowerment, and the strength of emotional bonds. We see Buffy reject the power offered by the men who bound the first slayer, and find her own strength with the help of her sisters, and we see the First evil destroyed only because of Spike's love for Buffy. 

And the character of Buffy is a subversion of the typical female horror role in the same way that many of the characters in romantic fantasy are subversions of the typical roles for women in fantasy.

It would be incredibly easy to use Blue Rose's setting, as is, to run a Buffy-style game. Minor villains and big bads as stand in for real world issues, romantic and familial entanglements... it's all right there in the setting. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 15, 2005)

_[Snarky comment deleted.] _ 



			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> ... Second, you're way off base with Buffy. It's a close cousin to romantic fantasy, through and through, even accounting for Joss Whedon's love of irreverence. ...




But the irreverence makes _all _ the difference.     

It is why "Dr.Strangelove" is a brilliant film, and "Failsafe" is not.

----

That point aside, if you can recommend a 'romantic fantasy' novel that does indeed resemble Buffy in tone and  character, I would be _most_happy to check it out!   

----

Okay, sorry for the tangent.  Back to BLUE ROSE.


----------



## Psion (Feb 15, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> -Run a typical “misfit girl comes to town looking for friends and acceptance” adventure…  Only to discover that there was a GOOD REASON this girl was an outcast!




Adapt the Witchfire trilogy to BR, maybe?


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 15, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> not interesting no....ia failed attempt at irony is what I think you are going for. All you are doing is taking the things you don't like about the game and turning them 180 degrees.
> 
> Now, in a serious BR doing one of these things every now and agian could be good, but every time just looks like you are attacking the setting while playing the setting; and that doesn't make sense to me.




Ah, but you see, it IS attacking the setting without any attempt to “play the setting.” Since the first gut reaction of my players would be to attack such a setting, it seems that the best thing to do might be just roll with it and give them what they want. This way, I could use the history and organization segments within BR (some of which I would like to try) without forcing the players to swallow other aspects of the game that will not appeal to them.  Obviously, I would explain this before hand, so they don’t get confused as to what the romantic fantasy genre normally entails.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 15, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Adapt the Witchfire trilogy to BR, maybe?




Alas, not familiar with Witchfire...  Is it any good?


----------



## Psion (Feb 15, 2005)

The first adventure was pretty highly praised. I got the third, and found it pretty and moody, but very scripted.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 15, 2005)

Nomad's ideas are really inspiring me to want to run such a game.  

As to the Witchfire Trilogy (from Privateer Press), it's classic Iron Kingdoms - clunky and poor mechanically, but gorgeous and packed full of fascinating fluff.  IMO, it's not quite what you're looking for, though, since it does eventually wind its way back roughly to the typical ending you're trying to avoid and/or mock.


----------



## CrusaderX (Feb 15, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> As I continue to look over BR, I start to think that maybe, just maybe, the default romantic fantasy setting could work…  If you TWIST it around a little bit.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> ...




All excellent ideas.  I usually twist around most campaign settings anyway, so I love stuff like this.

If I played Blue Rose, I'd have the oh-so-tolerant "heroes" learn to be more tolarant of religion.  Any notion that the church is "bad" simply stems from nothing more than intolerant anti-religious propaganda.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 15, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> If I played Blue Rose, I'd have the oh-so-tolerant "heroes" learn to be more tolarant of religion. Any notion that the church is "bad" simply stems from nothing more than intolerant anti-religious propaganda.




The main source of friction between Aldis and Jarzon isn't over the nature of religion, it's over (1) the Aldisian distaste for the repressive nature of the Jarzon state and (2) the Jarzoni distaste over how Alidisians use Arcana. Both have good reasons why each side distrusts the other. In other words this is the prime example of the much-touted 'how can two Good nations in D&D be at odds with each other?' trope AND the 'how can a Good god have bad followers' trope. Both nations have a lot going for them, both have equal reasons to dislike the other.


----------



## CrusaderX (Feb 15, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The main source of friction between Aldis and Jarzon isn't over the nature of religion, it's over (1) the Aldisian distaste for the repressive nature of the Jarzon state and (2) the Jarzoni distaste over how Alidisians use Arcana. Both have good reasons why each side distrusts the other. In other words this is the prime example of the much-touted 'how can two Good nations in D&D be at odds with each other?' trope AND the 'how can a Good god have bad followers' trope. Both nations have a lot going for them, both have equal reasons to dislike the other.




I admitedly know nothing about this setting beyond what I'm reading on these boards.  But based on this quote from above...



> You basically have a perfect “open minded” utopian community threatened by thinly disguised right-wing conservatives. The goal in adventuring is to either “open the eyes” of these villains, or do away with them in the name of progressive thinking. All this while trying to save the environment with the aid of friendly talking animals




As well as this quote...



> Like Star Wars, the game is trying to present absolutes for Good and Evil.




And this portion of a review...



> Blue Rose is a setting and twist on the d20 system to make it a bit more rules light and to adapt it to the setting and structure of Romantic Fantasy. That begs the question of what is Romantic Fantasy? It is a genre that has really only been around for twenty of so years. It deals more with personal connections, character emotion and growth, and can tend to be rather black and white. The good guys accept all kinds of people and all kinds of life styles. Ones sex, race, religion, or personally beliefs does not matter as long as you are not making life worse for your neighbor. It deals with an almost utopian based society but it has its enemies. The bad guys are controlling and just evil. They live to destroy the good society and usually come really close but never succeed.




Everything I'm reading has so far screamed "this is a black and white setting", where, it seems, Aldis is clearly the white and Jarzon is clearly the black.  If I'm wrong, please let me know.  But you even describe Jarzon as being repressive in your post above, and I have a hunch that such repression isn't portrayed as being a good thing.  

So is it black & white, or is it shades of grey?  Does the setting really portray the "repressive Jarzon" as being "good"?  Does the setting give examples of, say, having the heroes be from Jarzon, while having the villians be the Alidisians?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

it is both.  There are places that are very good verse evil, but there are options for in the middle as well.  The new alignment system they have is basically like good, neutral, evil but it uses different names.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 15, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> First, you're seriously mischaracterizing the romantic fantasy audience, in the same way that those who say gamers are "fat virgin losers with dreams of grandeur" mischaracterize the D&D audience.



Um...nevermind.  :\ 


			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Second, you're way off base with Buffy. It's a close cousin to romantic fantasy, through and through, even accounting for Joss Whedon's love of irreverence.



I think you misunderstand his issue with "romantic fantasy" -- which is _not_ that it's _romantic_ (or _fantasy_), but that it's laughably politically correct with a facile "tolerant" philosophy.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> but that it's laughably politically correct with a facile "tolerant" philosophy.




but it really isn't.  PCU was a movie that fit that describtion.  THis is just a world where some places don't have prejudice and other places do.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 15, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> ...but that it's laughably politically correct with a facile "tolerant" philosophy.



Would that be more, less, or about as facile as a Conanesque "I want to crush my enemies beneath my heels and hear the lamentations of their girlfriends" ubermensch philosophy?

Just asking...


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 15, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Would that be more, less, or about as facile as a Conanesque "I want to crush my enemies beneath my heels and hear the lamentations of their girlfriends" ubermensch philosophy?
> 
> Just asking...




Yeah, you and Crothian have hit the heart of it. 

Romantic Fantasy is a subgenre with many different authors, each of whom brings their own viewpoints to their writing. 

Calling all of it "laughably politically correct" is completely false, because it's entirely wrong, in the same way that saying all sword & sorcery is "laughably ubermensch" is entirely wrong.

Kushiel's Dart fits comfortably in romantic fantasy, as does Robin Hobb's Assassins trilogy, but the two books are very, very different.


----------



## CrusaderX (Feb 15, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> it is both.  There are places that are very good verse evil, but there are options for in the middle as well.  The new alignment system they have is basically like good, neutral, evil but it uses different names.




Here's the game's description at RPG Now:



> Aldis, the Kingdom of the Blue Rose, shines as a new light following the dark age of the Sorcerer Kings. Now, envoys of the Sovereign’s Finest strive to protect Aldis from threats like the Lich Kingdom of Kern and the fanatical Theocracy of Jarzon, as well as monsters and dark magic left over from the Shadow Wars of the Sorcerer Kings. Aided by the rhydan—their psychic animal companions—the champions of the Blue Rose guard the Light against the power of the Shadow.
> .
> .
> .
> ...





This isn't black and white?  Not to be argumentive, but clearly, Aldis is portrayed here as the good guys, while "the fanatical Theocracy of Jarzon" is portrayed as the bad guys (heck, they're thrown in right alongside the liches and the monsters  )   Is this ad copy wrong?

And I'm not saying that a black & white setting is bad.  Not at all.  But again, everything I'm reading says that the tolerant neo-pagans are the white, and the repressive, fanatical theocracy is the black.   Which doesn't jive with WayneLigon saying that they're both equally "good".  What am I missing here?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> And I'm not saying that a black & white setting is bad.  Not at all.  But again, everything I'm reading says that the tolerant neo-pagans are the white, and the repressive, fanatical theocracy is the black.   Which doesn't jive with WayneLigon saying that they're both equally "good".  What am I missing here?




Yes, that aspect in that light is very black and white.  What you are missing is the actually game doesn't present it as that extreme, though there is a portayal of good verse evil.  And the alinmgnets and the gods are not all good or evil, there is middle ground.


----------



## CrusaderX (Feb 15, 2005)

Maybe Aldis just has a better PR machine.


----------



## Psion (Feb 15, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> This isn't black and white?  Not to be argumentive, but clearly, Aldis is portrayed here as the good guys, while "the fanatical Theocracy of Jarzon" is portrayed as the bad guys (heck, they're thrown in right alongside the liches and the monsters  )   Is this ad copy wrong?




When I first saw that, I was so wanting to run a character or game putting the Theocracy in the light of being right, just to turn the assumed subtext on its head.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> When I first saw that, I was so wanting to run a character or game putting the Theocracy in the light of being right, just to turn the assumed subtext on its head.




Just like running a Star Wars game from the view of the Empire....


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 15, 2005)

I could buy the Jarzoni as a "grey hats" if it were not for one passage in the book: 

_Because of the prevalence of darkﬁends and aberrations
in their land, particularly near the Shadow Barrens,
the inhabitants of Jarzon dislike any creature that
even vaguely resembles such monsters. To the Jarzoni
imagination, rhydan, vata’sha, and the night people have
such a resemblance, so they often attack them on sight,
trying to capture them so that they can be handed over to
Jarzon’s priests, who cast them into temple ﬁres._ 

To me, the parallels that evokes pushes them squarely into the dark side.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 15, 2005)

Ya, but their reasons are not just because they are evil.  They suffered at the hands of monsters and now don't try to distinguish between monsters good and bad.  So, you can have the fanatical priests who are against all these creatures and also the woodsman who has minor experiecnes with some good creatures and doubts the beliefs he has been taught.


----------



## arkham618 (Feb 15, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Yeah, you and Crothian have hit the heart of it.
> 
> Romantic Fantasy is a subgenre with many different authors, each of whom brings their own viewpoints to their writing.
> 
> ...




I think the critics of the genre have lost sight of the literary denotation of "romance," which is 1) a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural; 2) a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious; 3) a love story. The Arthurian tales are romantic fantasies, and no one would think to call them either politically correct or facile.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 16, 2005)

OK, back at home now with the book.

*Jarzon*: Jarzoni dislike magic in the extreme, because they remember how sorcery (which is a type of inherently corrupting and evil magic) destroyed one of the old nations. Only priests can use magic of any type because only they can be trusted with it. They kill anything of Shadow. Night People (goblins and the like) are killed out of hand. They arrest Vata'sha (dark elves), and accept Vata'an (normal elves). They can take or leave the talking animals but are suspicious of those who form psychic bonds with them. They use mind-magic to reform criminals, heretics and dissidents. They spread rumors of Aldisian psychics toying with the minds of non-criminals. They do not tolerate reilgious diversity; inqusitors are quick to root out and burn out beliefs that are not the hard-line set by the Church of Pure Light. Women are second-class citizens, though are strongly protected. They discriminate against the cepia (those who are attracted to their same sex) because Jarzoni society is strongly geared towards family and procreation - they were very hard hit during the great rebellion against the sorcerer kings, and much of their land is harsh and unforgiving. They lost a great many people and have no use for someone who won't produce babies.

*Aldis*: They like magic. The queen even accepts that there should be study - but not practice - of sorcery (though they are still strongly suspicious of even the study of sorcery). Aldisians try their best to tolerate any living thing unless it proves itself hurtful or tainted with Shadow. They try to rehabilitate any criminal, even sorcerers. Those they can not rehabilitate are exiled. They beleive in the sanctity of the mind and no principled psychic will invade someone elses mind against his wishes. They couldn't care less about caria/cepia differences. Women and men are interchangable in almost any trade. 

Both countries revere the gods of Light. Both hate the Shadowkind and destroy Shadowgates whenever possible. 

Two quotes to show that neither society is totally black or white: 

On the Jerzoni religion: 

_The religion is deeply divided in many ways: militaristic but valuing peace, preaching love but often practicing hate. Its priests and the faithful run the gamut, from Light- to Shadow-aligned. The upper levels of the church are riddled with hypocrisy and corruption, but also have some truly good men trying to do what they fervently believe is right, although often based on ignorant views of the world beyond Jarzon’s borders._ pp 48

Aldisian views on diversity in the central valley:

_While everyone understands ignoring the differences between people is foolish, anyone who judges someone based upon his or her appearance, customs, gender, or similar factors is considered boorish and uncouth, at best. The people of the central valleys know they live in one of the most diverse kingdoms in the world and take pride in the fact that people can live together without the constant feuding and petty hatreds marking interactions of different groups elsewhere. Most residents consider anyone displaying open bigotry a threat to their diversity and their unique way of life. Wiser and kinder residents explain to newcomers and bigots the value of diversity, while others who are less patient either pointedly ignore such people or openly mock their ignorance. Ironically, this gives Aldins a reputation as haughty and arrogant in lands like Jarzon._ pp 42


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 16, 2005)

arkham618 said:
			
		

> I think the critics of the genre have lost sight of the literary denotation of "romance," ...The Arthurian tales are romantic fantasies, and no one would think to call them either politically correct or facile.




True but the traditional literary definition doesn't really apply to this modern fantasy sub-genre. It's unfortunate they use the same words. The PC label can (ironically) swing both ways:

_1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters._

Most people now use the term referring to the second definition; as with all popular buzzwords, it quickly lost it's original meaning. 

The amount of 'depth' in the genre is a matter of perception, as it is in all fiction. It varies. There are shallow romantic fantasies and deep, moving ones. Which is which is a matter of opinion.


----------



## GreatLemur (Feb 16, 2005)

Personally, my issue with the setting has nothing to do with romance or political correctness, (although things are set up as a bit laughably black and white, in that regard), but with its Pretty Fairy Princess-sounding terminology, its unimaginative fantasy novel cliches, and the whole general feeling that the reader is being pandered to.



			
				Skywalker said:
			
		

> Though Mercedes Lackey is very successful in the realm of romantic fantasy, I recommend Robin McKinley (Blue Sword and Hero & the Crown) or Greg Keyes (Briar King and Charnel House) over the Valdemar series. Some of the later Valdemar stuff is quite good but the first trilogy is not that great and aimed for a young female audience.



If the Blue Rose fluff took its influences from Keyes, I wouldn't be so conflicted about it. Keyes is deeply, deeply awesome.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 16, 2005)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Personally, my issue with the setting has nothing to do with romance or political correctness, (although things are set up as a bit laughably black and white, in that regard), but with its Pretty Fairy Princess-sounding terminology, its unimaginative fantasy novel cliches, and the whole general feeling that the reader is being pandered to.




If you don't mind me asking, which terminology and cliches are you referring to?



			
				GreatLemur said:
			
		

> If the Blue Rose fluff took its influences from Keyes, I wouldn't be so conflicted about it. Keyes is deeply, deeply awesome.




I think this is where we differ. After reading BR, the world of Aldea and the rule system appear to me to provide a framework that fits almost any romantic fantasy (and potentially any fantasy) story. The rules are essentially a generic fantasy ruleset. The setting is full of areas to fill in, only the very basics have been sketched out. GR have intentionally left open a number of places on just how clear cut or confused and how light or dark things really are. For example, from the material provided so far the nobility could be presented as a den of scheming and WFRP-like corruption or an enlightened state of democracy.

So I can't help feeling that an an unfortunate consequence of GR actually taking efforts to open up the setting, people are filling them with their worst fears. Personally, I like GRs approach. It is more efficient than GR going out of its way to set out exactly what style of fantasy to use BR for. If they do that at all then it seems GR have split that off into a seperate book World of Aldea. 

To me BR does Greg Keyes very well


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 16, 2005)

Ace said:
			
		

> After the next 2 supplements are done I want a Faerie setting --
> 
> A '17th century" tech upgrade for Swashbuckling would be cool too



Those would be very nice indeed.  It's a shame that Blue Rose didn't come out before 7th Sea d20.  The setting would be perfect for the BR rules.

I'd also like to see some extra "crunch" support.  Stats for additional types of creatures, maybe some extra feats, and definitely additional arcane powers.  I'd like to see arcana for shapeshifting, glamors (semi-real illusions), transformations, curses, geasa, and other stapes of pseudo-celtic literature.


----------



## whydirt (Feb 16, 2005)

Imagine how different people would be reacting to Blue Rose if didn't use the word 'romantic' in the title and the art and trade dress style were changed to mirror standard d20 fantasy games.

Every complaint people have made against the setting of Aldea could probably be made for almost any other fantasy setting if you wanted to make an objective critique.

I guess the silver lining of all of this is that the controversy will hopefully create more buzz and lead to higher sales of Blue Rose.


----------



## GreatLemur (Feb 16, 2005)

'Sup, whydirt!



			
				Skywalker said:
			
		

> If you don't mind me asking, which terminology and cliches are you referring to?



The Eternal Dance. Spirit dancers. The Gods of Light. The Knights of Purity. Darkfiends. The Scatterstar Archipelago. Star marriages. Every permutation of the word "Shadow" in the book.

I can't stand the fact that they actually call their Generic Formless Evil "the Shadow." I can't stand the tarot card silliness. I can't stand the fact that all rhydan are exactly the types of animals one expects to see on airbrushed Trapper Keepers from the early 90s. I can't stand the relentless _prettiness_ of every concept in the setting.

It's as if, in trying to embody the ideals of romantic fantasy, they took it a few steps too far and produced something that feels more like a parody of the fantasy genre. (That's not to say that most other fantasy RPGs tend to be full of revolutionary new spins on the genre, of course. It's just that I find the particular tone here to be rather grating.)

I don't really get the feeling that the authors are _into_ this kind of thing themselves, but are assuming their intended audience is. And I think their intended audience ought to feel a little insulted.



> I think this is where we differ. After reading BR, the world of Aldea and the rule system appear to me to provide a framework that fits almost any romantic fantasy (and potentially any fantasy) story. The rules are essentially a generic fantasy ruleset.



Oh, I wouldn't claim that the Blue Rose rules aren't reuseable, not by a long shot. I'm definitely interested in repurposing them for a completely new setting. I'd replace the existing races, shift the emphasis of magic away from nature-wankery, scrap alignment completely, and generally houserule it up a little, but the bare bones of the thing--superior bare bones to those of standard d20, I think--aren't inextricable from the setting.

Honestly, I'd be first in line to play if somebody wanted to run a Blue Rose game on these forums.  I just really dislike about 50% of the designers' decisions.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 16, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Would that be more, less, or about as facile as a Conanesque "I want to crush my enemies beneath my heels and hear the lamentations of their girlfriends" ubermensch philosophy?
> 
> Just asking...



Absolutely.  Only it's a "manly" philosophy rather than a "girly" one.  It's "why don't we just kick all their asses?" rather than "why can't everyone just get along?"


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Feb 16, 2005)

So, the real burning question on my mind is, how easy is the game to run? How quick can you set up NPC's? That's one of my real burning concerns lately. I'm looking for a game that's super easy to use. Especially with regards to generating NPC's, opponents, and monsters in short amounts of time. The prep-work (mostly of generating foes) unfortunately has killed my alternate M&M game, and stalled my D20 game.

And on a random, completely setting based note, I think I could really use the setting well. While some of it sounds a little _done_, there is a lot of stuff in there that's usable. I think it's a good set up for contrast. Things sound pretty decent and generally straightforward. That makes the twists that come up during play even better. It's like a free upgrade from unsettling to mind wrenching. Plus, it could help out with the 'having to use bad ends towards good things', idea that I alwasy seem to find in my games.

Besides, there are some people I can lure into games with it.

Now... If it's just easy to use.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 16, 2005)

creating NPCs like all games will vary mostly by how well you know the system.  Blue rose makes skills pretty easy since they are either maxed out or no ranks in them, but feats are tougher since you get one every level and that's more to choose.  The classes themselves are easy even if multi classing occurance since it is just bab, saves, reputaion, defnse...you just add them up.  

so, basically once you learn and are familar with the feats it should get easy.  The magic system is feat related so it does complicate that some.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't see how it is fair or accurate to decribe being disinterested in a specific setting as being closed-minded.



The comments he was responding to weren't people who were disinterested: People said they felt physically sick based on the setting, or that they "loathed" it.

I'm disinterested in NASCAR, but under no circumstances does it make me want to vomit.

It's fun to exagerate on the Internet, but at the same time, what one writes is all one can be judged on here -- taken at face value, people were absolutely not merely disinterested. They were overreacting, to put it mildly.

If someone had described themselves as nauseated because the Player's Handbook included some relatively light setting info on the World of Greyhawk, most ENWorlders would, rightly, look at them like they had two heads. Just because BR has a different baseline than standard D&D doesn't mean that the hyperbole is any more appropriate here.

We get it, folks. Girls and kissing are icky. Get over it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Everything I'm reading has so far screamed "this is a black and white setting", where, it seems, Aldis is clearly the white and Jarzon is clearly the black.  If I'm wrong, please let me know.



Jarzon isn't the black. Jarzon is the gray. The black is the scary evil lich king.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 16, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The comments he was responding to weren't people who were disinterested: People said they felt physically sick based on the setting, or that they "loathed" it.
> 
> I'm disinterested in NASCAR, but under no circumstances does it make me want to vomit.
> 
> ...




This is exactly right.

It isn't disinterest that bothers me - it's the passionate rejection, and outright derision of a setting and style that goes against the established norm.

Romantic fantasy isn't new, it's been around the fantasy literary scene for _ages._ So I think the level of vehement rejection I've seen here, and on other message boards, is pretty telling in regards to how hidebound gamers are about what is, and what is not to be gamer approved. 

People don't even blink when Yet Another Realms Knockoff (tm) appears, complete with all the baggage and hoary cliches of 30 years of fantasy gaming tradition - but they line up to mock Blue Rose. And that frustrates me. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## arkham618 (Feb 16, 2005)

Has anyone else noticed how well BR would work as an alternative ruleset for Star Wars?


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 16, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The comments he was responding to weren't people who were disinterested: People said they felt physically sick based on the setting, or that they "loathed" it.
> 
> I'm disinterested in NASCAR, but under no circumstances does it make me want to vomit.
> ...




Well I do indeed _loathe_ the genre of 'romantic fantasy' (or at least the samples that I have encountered in the past).  Many apologies for actually expressing my opinion, and inquiring the extent to which I can ignore a genre that I loathe in order to get to the (what sound like fairly interesting) rules.

If someone really loathed R.E. Howard's work, but was interested in the mechanics of the Conan RPG, it would be perfectly appropriate for that person to make his/her dislike known, and inquire to what extent he/she could ignore the setting in order to get to the rules (or inquire to what extent he/she could use the rules for a non-Hyborian campaign).

(As for NASCAR, yeah, that _does_ make me want to vomit.)


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Well I do indeed _loathe_ the genre of 'romantic fantasy' (or at least the samples that I have encountered in the past). Many apologies for actually expressing my opinion, and inquiring the extent to which I can ignore a genre that I loathe in order to get to the (what sound like fairly interesting) rules.




Well, I think that the question has already been asked and answered a few times in other posts.

There is no real 'connect' between the rules and the setting save that Sorcery Arcana are indeed inherently evil and corrupting. Which you can get around by saying 'no it's not' and telling your players to ignore the Corruption rules. It's a really simple fix.

The mechanics take up the vast majority of the book, as has been said before. 

If you start just after the 'world of Aldea' section and stop before you get to the adventure portion, you'll probably never ancounter the romantic fantasy aspect save in a few references to how some of the nations or races use the various Arcana, or the tiny section on descriptive racial differences between the countries. And maybe in the monster section, though I have not read that one very thoroughly at the moment. But you can drop all that. There is a d20 conversion section so you can convert d20 monsters over to using the toughness and defense rules.

If you like I can give you some page breakdowns tonight when I'm at a PC with the PDF on it. I think one of Crothian's posts does some of that, though. It's something like 'Pages 1-23 are setting, history, and background. Avoid those.' The rest of the 200+page book is rules, classes, skills, feats, arcana (the quasi magic/psionics system used) and monsters.


----------



## Akrasia (Feb 16, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Well, I think that the question has already been asked and answered a few times in other posts.
> ....




Yes, I know.  

I was just replying to the claim that it was somehow _inappropriate_ for people to express their feelings about the genre in question.

Sorry for not being clearer.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 16, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> It isn't disinterest that bothers me - it's the passionate rejection, and outright derision of a setting and style that goes against the established norm.




If you think the fact that the Blue Rose setting goes against the established norm is why I dislike it, you obviously don't know what I like.  



			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Romantic fantasy isn't new, it's been around the fantasy literary scene for _ages._ So I think the level of vehement rejection I've seen here, and on other message boards, is pretty telling in regards to how hidebound gamers are about what is, and what is not to be gamer approved.




You're right, romantic fantasy isn't new.  We've had plenty of time to become familiar with the basic gist of it, and we despise that gist.  The whole "hidebound" thing might have worked when the genre first came out, and with a different objector.

I'm thrilled whenever I see steampunk fantasy, science fantasy, cyber-fantasy, alignmentless-gritty-fantasy, anthropomorphic animal fantasy, anime fantasy, spellless-gritty-fantasy, horror-fantasy, super hero fantasy, gritty-super-hero-fantasy, oriental fantasy, african fantasy, or any combination of the above.  Eberron I liked, until I realized it didn't go nearly far enough.  Spelljammer was my holy grail in 2e.  Dark Sun was number 2.  Conan is my cup of tea today.  The Iron Kingdoms and Rokugan are my prime alternates.  d20 Modern I prefer over D&D.  Call of Cthulu d20 is my favorite magic system.

If that's hidebound, I'd hate to meet open-minded.  

I have very specific complaints about Blue Rose's setting and the genre it's based on, and, yes, they do turn my stomach.  Or make me bust out laughing.



			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> People don't even blink when Yet Another Realms Knockoff (tm) appears, complete with all the baggage and hoary cliches of 30 years of fantasy gaming tradition - but they line up to mock Blue Rose. And that frustrates me.




Yet Another Realms Knockoff... I seem to recall tossing basically that accusation at quite a few products, particularly those that target D&D nostalgia, and finding them quite distasteful.

I see a lot of new ground that I like, setting-wise.  Blue Rose is most emphatically not among them.

Anyway, who's producing Yet Another Realms Knockoff these days?  Arcana Unearthed is too standard fantasy for my tastes, but it's certainly not much like the Realms.  Iron Kingdoms?  Conan?  Midnight?  Slavelords of Cydonia?  Black Company?  Warcraft?  Eberron?

About the closest I can see are the old skool products, Blackmoor and C&C, and those are more knockoffs (or in Blackmoor's case, a resurrection) of the setting(s) the Realms was something of a knockoff of in the first place.  And they're quite different in their own respective rights.


----------



## The_Warlock (Feb 16, 2005)

How do...So I've been reading Blue Rose, and I've been reading this board. I'm not going to get into the setting, it's great for a framework for simple/identifiable evil setting, and the concept of defending a utopia (real or perceived) is a good one for beginners, and sometimes for jaded elders, but I'm not here to convince anyone to like what they don't like for setting, as I believe that's impossible in a venue such as this (or at all, since it does seem to get a little bickersome after awhile - though at least EN World makes it moderately entertaining Victorian england bicker). But I digress...

Arkham618, I agree the baseline system seems perfect for Star Wars, replace corruption with the dark side, and make a feat or two to connect the psychic weapon abilities to physical/energy weapons for Jedi and light sabers.

I am blown away by the simplicity and flexibility of the basic role classes and feat system to replicate most of the core classes of D&D. If I hadn't just done a MASSIVE house rule rewrite for my home FR campaign, I would've jumped on this system. That said, the underlying system I can see being just the kind of flexible you need with alternates feats/arcana to do modern psychic investigators, as well as standard medieval fantasy and far future psi-war-esque things. I am thrilled with the system, and can see a great ability to simple add and subtract arcana/feats to tweak this to any genre very easily. 

Here's the thought though that really kicked me in the brain - I also just finished reading HARP by ICE. One of the things they have are training packages - groups of related skills that you can get at a discount price. I can see a concept like that applied lightly to Blue Rose. Under each of the 3 core roles they list basic applications of skills and feats to make "bards", "rogues", "rangers", etc, etc. What I would want to do with this system is come up with packages like they have suggested which have fewer skill/feat choices as you progress (ie already mostly chosen), but give such packaged roles an extra bonus every few levels, while retaining the ultimately customizable core roles for people who wanting to be raging roguing telekinetic psychics...my initial thought is to take say, an AU magister and see how I could make him in Blue Rose to test it.

As for NPC creation - it actually looks fairly easy for the average folks, just choose one of the predefined role concepts listed under a role, and max their level, and whammo, skill and many feat choices are somewhat preset. Any major NPC would require more time, much like any other system, but with the mostly pre-maxed system it's really just the feat choice that can slow you down from what I've read so far. I hope to get through combat and such today at lunch.

Anyone have any other interesting ways they think they could use/re-interpret the rules?


----------



## takyris (Feb 16, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I have very specific complaints about Blue Rose's setting and the genre it's based on, and, yes, they do turn my stomach.  Or make me bust out laughing.




Hey, MEM, question/request: Have you read Kristen Britain's "Green Rider"?  I believe that Kristen Britain was listed as one of the influences for the book, and, well, that's the first of her two books.  Having read and not been wowed by some Mercedes Lackey and Melanie Rawn, I gave Britain a chance without knowing that she was considered a romantic fantasy writer and really enjoyed her.  Of course, now that you know that she's arguably a romantic fantasy writer, that could color your perceptions and you'll be sick to death of it by page four. 

It's available at e-reader.com if you want to get it cheaper.  I'm sure it's in used bookstores, too.  If you do a lot of fantasy reading, I'd like to hear your take on this, as someone who dislikes romantic fantasy.  I thought it was pretty much a good light fantasy novel, with many of the usual tropes and a young adult female protagonist.  Not groundbreaking or life-changing for me, but a good read.  If Britain could write more than one book a decade, I think she'd have her own little marker on the bookshelf at Borders, like Rawn and Lackey do -- with the important difference being that I liked Britain...

My point, in as much as I've got one, is that I think that if it was ever possible to say, "I don't like (genre)," it's getting to be less and less so now, if only because genre definitions have become so mixed.  It's like the rock & roll lovers who claim to hate country music but listen happily whenever "Desperado" gets played on the classic rock station.  I can no longer say that I hate country music, but am stuck with, "I generally dislike it, don't spend much time hanging out on the country music station listening for good stuff, and don't intentionally listen to much except that Garth Brooks double live album and Faith Hill's "Breathe", the former proving that Brooks, like Elvis and the Beatles, was born to perform live."

It's complicated, being somebody who admits that the situation might be a bit fuzzier than wide sweeping generalizations would imply, but in the long run, it has its advantages.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 16, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> -snip-




I haven't read Britain, I'm afraid.  Honestly I don't read a lot of newer fantasy in general, and don't care for most of what I try to muddle through, "romantic" or otherwise.  

I'm more of a Sci-Fi/Space Oper/Sword and Sorcery reader.  However, I'll keep an eye out for the Green Rider.

What I'd really like to find is some good romantic fantasy in the sense of a family saga set in a fantasy world.


----------



## takyris (Feb 16, 2005)

Which is fair.  If you're not into general fantasy, I suspect that Green Rider is going to fail for that reason.  I don't *think* it'd fail for the "romantic fantasy" reason.  But I could be wrong on that. 

As far as what you're looking for... I don't know if you tried Robin Hobb's Liveship Traders series... it can be read along with her assassin books or alone, and it follows several members of a trading family as their world goes all to smithereens and they get scattered across the country... Some folks who read her assassin books complained about the difference in tone.  I *did* notice a difference, but it didn't bother me.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 16, 2005)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> It's as if, in trying to embody the ideals of romantic fantasy, they took it a few steps too far and produced something that feels more like a parody of the fantasy genre. (That's not to say that most other fantasy RPGs tend to be full of revolutionary new spins on the genre, of course. It's just that I find the particular tone here to be rather grating.)
> 
> I don't really get the feeling that the authors are _into_ this kind of thing themselves, but are assuming their intended audience is. And I think their intended audience ought to feel a little insulted.




Cheers for the detail. 

FWIW I agree that GR has made an uncompromising "romantic fantasy" break into the RPG market with BR. However, based on their track record of smart design and product decisions, I think they did this intentionally. By going in strong with a product you know may face a lot of criticism, you raise the general noise level for that product, it becomes easier to defend the product and it paves the way for other "romantic fantasy" products they are looking to sell.



			
				GreatLemur said:
			
		

> ...shift the emphasis of magic away from nature-wankery...




It is funny I thought the "psychic" elements would get more outcry from those who don't like romantic fantasy than "nature".  I didn't find that the magic system had an unusual focus on nature. In fact, it has less than LotR.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 16, 2005)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> So, the real burning question on my mind is, how easy is the game to run? How quick can you set up NPC's?
> 
> Besides, there are some people I can lure into games with it.
> 
> Now... If it's just easy to use.




Compared to M&M I would say it would be easier. The simplicity gained in not having superpowers could be lost if you have many high level multi-role NPCs. However, if you have single Role NPCs then it becomes easier as you don't need to juggle overall power points. Abilities are easily distributed. The Roles work out all stats except Skills and Feats. Skills are now simply choose X Known Skills. Most of the time you can assume that they are all Favoured. Choosing Feats may take a while but doing so normally covers any Arcana you are dealing with. The lack of magic items also helps.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Well I do indeed _loathe_ the genre of 'romantic fantasy' (or at least the samples that I have encountered in the past).  Many apologies for actually expressing my opinion, and inquiring the extent to which I can ignore a genre that I loathe in order to get to the (what sound like fairly interesting) rules.



I was responding to someone alleging that people were expressing their disinterest. I did not say you're not allowed to express your opinion, but surely you wouldn't characterize yourself as merely disinterested.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

A generational family saga fantasy novel sounds like a pretty good idea, actually. There have been some books that featured families and descendants and such, but not in the same way that non-fantasy books do generational sagas.


----------



## GreatLemur (Feb 16, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> It is funny I thought the "psychic" elements would get more outcry from those who don't like romantic fantasy than "nature".  I didn't find that the magic system had an unusual focus on nature. In fact, it has less than LotR.



I actually haven't had a chance to look through the LotR RPG, but I've got a some minor flavor issues with whole magical disciplines focused on manipulating plants and animals.  And if I never see a magical system involving the classical four elements again, it'll be too soon.

The psychic stuff, however, makes loads of sense to me.  I might ditch the word "psychic" itself, but the basic effects of those arcana fit very well with my atypically-scientific vision of magic.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The comments he was responding to weren't people who were disinterested: People said they felt physically sick based on the setting, or that they "loathed" it.




I read the comment he quoted and his reply.  I'll stick with my reply.



> It's fun to exagerate on the Internet, but at the same time, what one writes is all one can be judged on here -- taken at face value, people were absolutely not merely disinterested. They were overreacting, to put it mildly.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> We get it, folks. Girls and kissing are icky. Get over it.




umm........

OK, I think I'll just consider the source from now on when you post.
If you've got a thoughtful statement basedin reality, I'll take a look.  But hypocritical misrepresentastions are easy and boring.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Just like running a Star Wars game from the view of the Empire....




Except for that the Empire and the Dark side being bad is built into the system..  Right?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2005)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> This is exactly right.
> 
> It isn't disinterest that bothers me - it's the passionate rejection, and outright derision of a setting and style that goes against the established norm.
> 
> ...




Well, you are doing an extremely poor job of expressing yourself then.

You claim to be upset by rejection of a setting because it goes against norm, but come off as reflexively and aggressively defensive when a specific setting is not embraced for reasons that have nothign to do with the norm.

If people say they don't like the color yellow, then it would be one thing to try to convince them to like yellow.  But to say they are closed minded and repressive against all things non-blue would be a weak and foolish position.

I've been paying attention to this thread because, to date, Steve Kenson has not authored a single product that I did not think was excellent.  But reading the specifics has made me completely disinterested in the product itself.  But as a disinterested person who sees nothing wrong with the setting but just doesn't care, I see the defenders of BR as coming off as closed minded people unable to conceive of an alternate view.

Like I said, maybe you just are not doing a good job of saying what you mean.  But you certainly seem to be ready and eager to prejudge and assault in the ways you seem to be blaming the other side for.

If thats what it takes to like BR, then I don't want to.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 16, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But as a disinterested person who sees nothing wrong with the setting but just doesn't care, I see the defenders of BR as coming off as closed minded people unable to conceive of an alternate view.




which is also what the attackers of the setting are doing as well.  You really can't blame one side without blaming the other.  But the thrtead was desinged to talk about Blue Rose and not attack the setting for being something they just don't like.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 16, 2005)

What I would like to find is someone who liked Tribe 8 but disliked Blue Rose or vice versa. Tribe 8 has a real angry feminism vibe and in many ways is similar in BR in how it presents same sex marriages, strong female protaganists, anmistic magic and feminist terminology. Despite that, Tribe 8 doesn't get half the criticism that BR has.

I am wondering whether that is because:

1. The d20 crowd has in general a different opinion than Tribe 8 crowd.
2. Unforgiving angry feminism is more palatable than the softer yet uncompromising feel in BR.
3. Somehow BR built up people's expectations differently.

I suspect it is a combination of 1 and 2.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But hypocritical misrepresentastions are easy and boring.



Apparently this thread looks very very different from each of our chairs or hyperbole one agrees with seems less extreme as a general rule.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> If people say they don't like the color yellow, then it would be one thing to try to convince them to like yellow.  But to say they are closed minded and repressive against all things non-blue would be a weak and foolish position.



If people said the color yellow made them want to vomit, I think people would certainly have a strong reaction to that. You seem to be skimming posts or making large allowances for the people you agree with.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

And, lest anyone get a mistaken impression of my tastes, I've read both the first Heralds of Valdemar novel (its name has gone clear out of my head) and "Assassin's Apprentice." While I was not compelled to pick up the sequel to either (although I was more tempted with the assassin book), neither made me feel ill, which is apparently the correct response to romantic fantasy tropes.

Having said that, I think BR could pretty easily be moved gently towards a more middle of the road approach. Tolkein, after all, had his goody two shoes realms, and his realms of pure ebil. In many ways, fantasy (or fantasy settings) that emulate that sort of approach are a fairly classic setting -- with a few (very) notable exceptions, shades of gray are a relatively modern addition to the canon. I'm actually thinking it might be a nice skeleton setting to attach other content to, such as Freeport and Nyambe.

In addition to Earthsea, I could see BR being used to model Narnia, although Narnia's magic ramps up pretty impressively at the top end.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2005)

Given the nearly uniformly positive response to BR's system (ignoring the setting and its attendant debate), one has to wonder why 3.*E wasn't built more like this.

Is it that BR's goals aren't ones shared with the design team? I don't think that's it -- I remember the endless 3E preview interviews discussed stripping down the complexity of 2E and making the game a little more natural and obvious.

It might be that BR does away with sacred cows like 3-18 stats, the standard D&D classes and so on, along with a new magic system.

Or maybe it's just that BR's development required seeing the 3E system, and living with it. Making the change directly to a BR-style system from 2E might well have been too radical for a direct reimagining.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 16, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Given the nearly uniformly positive response to BR's system (ignoring the setting and its attendant debate), one has to wonder why 3.*E wasn't built more like this.




Well, in 3.x's defense, I'm very interested in the Blue Rose system but not necessarily to the exclusion of 3.x.  Although I might revise my opinion when I actually get a good long look at the system, I'm not prepared to declare it flatly better than D&D 3.5, still less than d20 Modern.

Also, 3.x has a proven track record of being popular, whereas Blue Rose doesn't (at least, not yet).  Popularity on ENWorld does not always translate into universal appeal.

For that matter, a somewhat less elegant and significantly more detailed system, Conan the Roleplaying Game, is, to the best of my knowledge, the most successful and widespread d20 variant on the market.

While I find both Conan and what I've seen of Blue Rose better in some respects than 3.x D&D, I wouldn't scrap the latter for either of the former.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Is it that BR's goals aren't ones shared with the design team? I don't think that's it -- I remember the endless 3E preview interviews discussed stripping down the complexity of 2E and making the game a little more natural and obvious.




And the 3e team did make the game more natural and obvious than 2e.  They may have reached a level of nature and obviousness that appeals to the largest contingent of gamers.  Then again, they may have erred in one direction or the other, or have made other compromises in the sake of nature and obviousness.  Blue Rose may do the same.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It might be that BR does away with sacred cows like 3-18 stats, the standard D&D classes and so on, along with a new magic system.




I'm certainly 100% in favor of all three of these changes.  

Although, I do prefer the gobs and gobs of base and prestige classes system to the 1-6 very flexible base classes system.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Or maybe it's just that BR's development required seeing the 3E system, and living with it. Making the change directly to a BR-style system from 2E might well have been too radical for a direct reimagining.




I think this is part of it, but not in the way you mean.

d20 introduced a level of consistency (and a focus on balance) that D&D never had before, and other RPGs had to a lesser extent.  I'm not even sure if SilCore was as elegant then as a stripped-down d20 is now, as I only have its rulebooks since the post-d20 revision.

Without the incredible amount of work that went into developing and hammering out the original d20 system, the more refined Blue Rose system probably would have been whole levels of development away.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 16, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> In many ways, fantasy (or fantasy settings) that emulate that sort of approach are a fairly classic setting -- with a few (very) notable exceptions, shades of gray are a relatively modern addition to the canon.




If you consider the entire sword and sorcery genre, which predates the Lord of the Rings and modern Epic Fantasy and constituted by far the largest branch of fantasy prior to the '60s, a "few" exceptions, then yes, shades of gray are a modern addition to the canon.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 17, 2005)

QUICK UPDATE:



I’ve come to decide that I -really- like the “alignment” system in the BR rpg…  I like how each character has a light AND dark nature, and that certain aspects of each are drawn out under different circumstances…  Very cool!



One thing that bothers me: Are there any stats for non-heroic “regular” characters in this game?  If so, could someone point them out to me?  I find it somewhat odd that "bandits" are mentioned as a serious problem at several points, yet I can’t find any stat-block for one.  If I made one myself, I would have to give the bandit “heroic” levels of something, since that’s all I’ve got to work with…  And do I use the standard 6-point spread for normal characters?  In other words, more “human” antagonists would have been nice...  Of course, this is from someone unfamiliar with the normal romantic fantasy setting- maybe human antagonists are uncommon in them?  Or regular people for that matter?


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Given the nearly uniformly positive response to BR's system (ignoring the setting and its attendant debate), one has to wonder why 3.*E wasn't built more like this.
> 
> ...
> 
> It might be that BR does away with sacred cows like 3-18 stats, the standard D&D classes and so on, along with a new magic system.




I think this is probably the biggest one. There are a lot of things I wouldn't change if I were in charge of 4e, but would change if I were creating a new fantasy RPG from scratch (or by revising and building on existing system like d20). Blue Rose implements many of the changes I'd make (I think I'd do magic differently, along the lines of XPH psionics, but I've never been all that fond of feats-and-skills magic systems) if I were starting from scratch.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 17, 2005)

there are no rules for them but looking at the examples from the back of the book...well, that doesn't help.   There are charcters of varying abilities.  Some have 3 points worth of attributes and another has seven.  I would use the classes they present.  They cover a lot of different roles and its the only option they give you.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> which is also what the attackers of the setting are doing as well.  You really can't blame one side without blaming the other.  But the thrtead was desinged to talk about Blue Rose and not attack the setting for being something they just don't like.




I don't dispute that.

But the pro-BR side has this whole "we are open-minded, therefore the other side must be closed minded, therefore, in the interest of open-mindedness, their position must not be tolerated." thing going.  And I'll readily admit that THAT is a real peeve of mine.

Based on comments by both pro and anti-BR people, I am distinctly of the impression that the BR "evil" Theocracy is a political cartoon caricature of real world political ideas that some people honestly view as "good" themselves.  Yet in this thread you have compared setting them as the good guys to favoring the Empire and in the thread over in general you compared it to favoring the evil gods of Midnight.  If you can not comprehend the vast difference between purely fictional presentations of pure evil and politically inspired characterizations of opposing views AS evil, then it is hard to accept that you have fairly considered the perspectives.  I'm certain I could throw out some campaign ideas that would get just as much vitrol from the other side.  

Honestly, my one concern is appearing to actually support the opposition to BR.  I'm not opposed to it.  I'm just opposed to its defenders here at ENWorld.  
I think the people who are attacking the setting outright are self-righteous and wrong.
I think the people who are counter attacking them are self-righteous and wrong and hypocritical.

I don't think anyone from Green Ronin falls in either of those groups.

I also don't see how this discussion can go much further without delving deeply into politics.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 17, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> One thing that bothers me: Are there any stats for non-heroic “regular” characters in this game?  If so, could someone point them out to me?  I find it somewhat odd that "bandits" are mentioned as a serious problem at several points, yet I can’t find any stat-block for one.  If I made one myself, I would have to give the bandit “heroic” levels of something, since that’s all I’ve got to work with…  And do I use the standard 6-point spread for normal characters?  In other words, more “human” antagonists would have been nice...  Of course, this is from someone unfamiliar with the normal romantic fantasy setting- maybe human antagonists are uncommon in them?  Or regular people for that matter?




At the moment there seems to be no rhyme nor reason to the NPC stats that aren't heroes. Unless the BR Companion has rules for it, I would suggest:

1. Just making them 1st level NPCs.
2. Choosing whatever stats seem appropriate.
3. Developing a 0 level NPC. My suggestion is that they should have 4 Ability points, 2 Feats and 2+Int Favoured/Known Skills. They get no bonus to Att, Def, Saves or Rep.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 17, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If you consider the entire sword and sorcery genre, which predates the Lord of the Rings and modern Epic Fantasy and constituted by far the largest branch of fantasy prior to the '60s, a "few" exceptions, then yes, shades of gray are a modern addition to the canon.



Well, we have to start our definition of "fantasy" somewhere, otherwise we end up going all the way back to the caves and wall paintings about thunder gods.

While I can certainly understand (and agree with, to an extent) arguments to the contrary, right or wrong, Lord of the Rings is effectively the beginning for modern fantasy. If we use that as our seminal event (wow, that's an interesting word in this context), it and the Chronicles of Narnia absolutely do present baseline fantasy worlds with very few shades of gray. They're present (Sarumon, the reluctant heroes who appear in Lord of the Rings, some of the supporting characters in Narnia), but on the whole, the world is sharply divided into Good and Evil.

Obviously, REH's work was popular throughout this period and presents a very different vision of the universe, and is in a lot of ways the thematic forebearer of a lot of today's more "realistic" fantasy fiction. But while Conan might have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in the 1960s, it was only after the flower children rediscovered Lord of the Rings and made it hugely popular. I loves me some Conan, but it would be tough to say REH's vision of fantasy is more dominant than the JRRT vision once both their works were in wide circulation.

The pendulum swung towards Conan and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and ultimately the Black Company and A Song of Ice and Fire in time (I bet it could be argued that Watergate and Vietnam changed the national perspective on pure and noble heroic leaders and absolute villainous opponents), but once the pendulum had swung far enough that direction, we got the reactionary (in the least perjorative sense) fiction that Blue Rose is based on. That is, a world where there is Good and Bad (which is mostly distinct from Evil, which also exists), where heroines (and even heroes) might be flawed, but to a much lesser degree than in the "shades of grey" fiction, and where hope is not a delusion but a vital and essential part of the world, and one where Good ultimately triumphs over Bad (and Evil) and where animals aren't frightening beasts of the wood, but helpers and companions.

I really see this as going full circle (in a new evolution) towards Narnia and Middle Earth, two of the core works of modern fantasy, especially the latter. But plenty of people don't need any more reheated Middle Earth works (I have a pretty strong aversion to most of the wannabe fiction clogging fantasy bookshelves nowadays) -- witness the popularity of The Black Company and A Song of Ice and Fire -- and I don't think, viewed in this light, it should be a surprise that they would dislike "romantic fantasy" which is a modern take on many of the themes that Tolkein and Lewis wrote about. Heck, Narnia even has a talking horse companion!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 17, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But the pro-BR side has this whole "we are open-minded, therefore the other side must be closed minded, therefore, in the interest of open-mindedness, their position must not be tolerated." thing going.  And I'll readily admit that THAT is a real peeve of mine.



I would assert, in the politest way possible, that you seem to be projecting a bit of this on the thread -- I suspect I know the types of people you're talking about in real life, and your reaction to them is being applied here.

Given the superheated political climate of the past 15 years (whatever side you're on), this is entirely natural and hardly surprising. Politics winds everyone up now, which is why I imagine ENWorld forces us to leave it at the door at swordpoint.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 17, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Given the nearly uniformly positive response to BR's system (ignoring the setting and its attendant debate), one has to wonder why 3.*E wasn't built more like this.




I think it because the market for D&D in its full form is much larger than the market for d20 streamlined as in BR. This is because much of D&D's fan-base likes:

1. Comprehensive rules.
2. D&D Traditions and Sacred Cows.
3. Tactical Elements.

The crowd that likes a more streamlined version of D&D as in BR are a subset of the greater crowd. It is still a significant number I have been surprised to see how long publishers have taken to exploit it. However, with Lone Wolf, BR and C&C, I think it shows that the d20 industry is now realising that it is a crowd worth investigating.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Feb 17, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> Compared to M&M I would say it would be easier. The simplicity gained in not having superpowers could be lost if you have many high level multi-role NPCs. However, if you have single Role NPCs then it becomes easier as you don't need to juggle overall power points. Abilities are easily distributed. The Roles work out all stats except Skills and Feats. Skills are now simply choose X Known Skills. Most of the time you can assume that they are all Favoured. Choosing Feats may take a while but doing so normally covers any Arcana you are dealing with. The lack of magic items also helps.




Thanks for the info. 
What I'm really looking at is this sort of situation.
Me: "You're attacking the guards? Why not ask the king?"
PCs:"Look, the fate of the kingdom is at stake, right?"
Me:"Yeah."
PCs:"Time is of the essence."
Me:"Yeah"
PCs:"And the King's a forgiving guy. After we save the world, he'll understand."
Me: "Uh.... ok. Can I have 5 minutes?"

There's nothing quite as frightening as the thursday before saturday's game when I realize that I haven't even started looking at stats yet.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 17, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Well, we have to start our definition of "fantasy" somewhere, otherwise we end up going all the way back to the caves and wall paintings about thunder gods.
> 
> While I can certainly understand (and agree with, to an extent) arguments to the contrary, right or wrong, Lord of the Rings is effectively the beginning for modern fantasy. If we use that as our seminal event (wow, that's an interesting word in this context), it and the Chronicles of Narnia absolutely do present baseline fantasy worlds with very few shades of gray. They're present (Sarumon, the reluctant heroes who appear in Lord of the Rings, some of the supporting characters in Narnia), but on the whole, the world is sharply divided into Good and Evil.
> 
> ...




Whether RE Howard and Fritz Lieber or JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis are the dominant influences on fantasy wasn't my point - you called gray areas like those repeatedly explored in sword and sorcery a "relatively modern development."  Since Howard's _pre-dated_ the fantasies of Tolkien and Lewis, it can't be a relatively modern development.

If you excise Howard from the fantasy canon for some reason, why does, for example, George R. R. Martin qualify as a valid fantasy writer to have introduced gray areas to the genre later?

Certainly I prefer sword and sorcery to epic fantasy, but my preferences have nothing to do with the chronological development of the subgenres and their attendant themes.

Of course, that sidesteps the very significant ideological differences between the likes of Lewis and Tolkien on the one hand and Mercedes Lackey on the other.  It's very possible for a reader to consider stark good and evil as seen in the former in a very different light than the same as seen in the latter.  Or vice versa.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 17, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> I think it because the market for D&D in its full form is much larger than the market for d20 streamlined as in BR. This is because much of D&D's fan-base likes:
> 
> 1. Comprehensive rules.
> 2. D&D Traditions and Sacred Cows.
> ...




I'm not entirely certain that this is true.

New (at least younger) gamers generally like comprehensive rules and tactical elements, but I seriously doubt they like D&D traditions and sacred cows when they essentially know nothing about them.

By contrast, most long-time gamers, the only group that could care about D&D traditions and sacred cows, I would say are probably split and not necessarily in favor of comprehensive rules and tactical elements.

Wizards probably could have done a better job serving (and hence selling to) both markets if they'd made more of a break between them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 17, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Whether RE Howard and Fritz Lieber or JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis are the dominant influences on fantasy wasn't my point - you called gray areas like those repeatedly explored in sword and sorcery a "relatively modern development."  Since Howard's _pre-dated_ the fantasies of Tolkien and Lewis, it can't be a relatively modern development.



That's why I talked about LotR being a de facto (if imperfect) start for modern fantasy. You're working with a different timeline, obviously. In a different timeline, Howard and his contemporaries obviously set the trend early on.

What point would you start with for fantasy? And do you not see a dividing line between the sword & sorcery and pulp fiction -- which to a large extent became a rather small part of genre publishing by the time LotR was rediscovered -- and what's come after LotR's renaissance in the 1960s?



> Of course, that sidesteps the very significant ideological differences between the likes of Lewis and Tolkien on the one hand and Mercedes Lackey on the other.  It's very possible for a reader to consider stark good and evil as seen in the former in a very different light than the same as seen in the latter.  Or vice versa.



The differences between Lewis and Lackey are more a matter of real-world religious and philosophical differences, rather than what's actually on the page. Both posit a world where Good and Evil are real forces, and both posit that Good is the default state of the universe, and that authority and groups in general tend towards Goodness in the absence of active interference by Evil.

That's a huge difference from the worlds of Howard or (I always spell his name wrong) Leiber, and I would say a larger difference between what exists between Lewis and Lackey.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 17, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's why I talked about LotR being a de facto (if imperfect) start for modern fantasy. You're working with a different timeline, obviously. In a different timeline, Howard and his contemporaries obviously set the trend early on.
> 
> What point would you start with for fantasy? And do you not see a dividing line between the sword & sorcery and pulp fiction -- which to a large extent became a rather small part of genre publishing by the time LotR was rediscovered -- and what's come after LotR's renaissance in the 1960s?




I would tend to start modern fantasy with Howard's first Conan stories, with a nod to Lord Dunsany and Lewis Carol, because post-Howard (and post-Lovecraft), we have a relatively steady flow of new fantasy written in a related mileu, and the emergence of "fantasy" as a distinct genre.  Prior to Conan, fantasy is essentially lumped in with sci-fi, or even historical adventure.

Fantasy essentially undergoes a reset when Lord of the Rings becomes widely popular in the '60s, and a new generation of fantasy writers arises catering to this new market.  Epic fantasy becomes the dominat subgenre and sword and sorcery becomes comparatively obscured.  I'm not sure how much sword and sorcery really fades at this point; it's more a matter of epic fantasy being much bigger than sword and sorcery had been.

Nonetheless, the popularity of epic fantasy eventually leads to a renewed interest in sword and sorcery, as evidenced by the popularity of writers like Martin, and to hybrid "military fantasy" writers like Harry Turtledove, who essentially apply a sword and sorcery mindset to an epic fantasy plot.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The differences between Lewis and Lackey are more a matter of real-world religious and philosophical differences, rather than what's actually on the page. Both posit a world where Good and Evil are real forces, and both posit that Good is the default state of the universe, and that authority and groups in general tend towards Goodness in the absence of active interference by Evil.
> 
> That's a huge difference from the worlds of Howard or (I always spell his name wrong) Leiber, and I would say a larger difference between what exists between Lewis and Lackey.




I would largely agree with this.  However, the real-world religious and philosophical differences (and also, I wager, the difference in the caliber of writing between the two specific examples  ) make a huge difference in who enjoys the stories.


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> heck, I'd love to take the rules and the influences and apply them to Thieves World game, but I know I could never do that with my current group.  It'd be a very different and odd TW game, but it could be so cool......




That's funny, I had the exact same thought.. I wonder what it is about Thieves World that makes us think BR would be good for it?

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> I can see your point about the game authors trying to portray a clear “good vs. evil” setting like Star Wars, though... In fact, the game makes more sense when I go back and look at it that way. It’s just that such objectivity wouldn’t mesh well with my current gaming group (although ironically, they’re almost all huge Star Wars fans?)




In Star Wars the Sith and the Jedi are Black and White, but that's about the limit of it.
The PEOPLE in the setting are all grey, right up to and including the blindness of Yoda and the Jedi masters, the weakness of the senate, the selfishness of Han Solo, the survival instinct of Lando, and, of course, Anakin and Luke, two very imperfect protagonists.

Blue Rose, on the surface, appears to have nothing of that. Its a perfect form of government run by perfect people (they must be, the MAGIC DEER said they are), who are always good.
And what is FAR FAR WORSE is that their enemies, in Jarzon for example, are just plain bad. They have no redeeming qualities, until or unless they are willing to turn around and embrace the "tolerant society" of Aldis.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Granted, I'm not Marion Zimmer Bradley fan (forgive the spelling), but I think this would help bring those fans into our hobby.




I agree, but ONLY if Green Ronin advertises in places where these fans are likely to find out about the game, and can successfully make the game accessible to these fans.

Otherwise, no one will notice it.

I sure hope GR has a publicity campaign planned, because otherwise they're gonna miss out on a golden opportunity for them as a company and for the hobby overall.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Benben said:
			
		

> The Heralds of Valdemar trilogy is one of her better ones, and is available on ereader.  If you're looking for print books too I recommend her Vows and Honor trilogy.  It's mostly a collection of short stories, and has the romantic fantasy equivalent of Fahrd and the Grey Mouser.




Am I the only one who's confused by the fact that Rape and Incest scenes appear to be a staple of the "romantic fantasy" genre in general and Lackey's novels in particular?  And that this is marketed to a teen female audience? Anyone with a psychology degree care to explain it to me?

I mean, the male homosexuality thing I understand; that's why Yaoi Comics are mostly bought by japanese women.. 

Anyways, just thought it was the moment to ask about something that's always perplexed me about "romantic fantasy"... i for one don't grasp the "romance" of incest or rape...

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Indeed, I am hard pressed to think of a writer further away from the likes of Mercedes Lackey than Joss Whedon.
> 
> 
> If Joss Whedon ever wrote a 'romantic fantasy' novel, I am sure that it would be dripping with irony, self-deprecation, and a sense of irreverent self-awareness completely alien to overly eager neo-pagan, tarot card-reading, crunchy New Age types that love the novels of ML, et al.
> ...




And your suspicion would be correct.. the hallmarks of Romantic Fantasy are a real sincere belief in the "values" the settings promote, and a complete and utter inability to make fun of itself.. its all meant to be taken very very seriously.

Which is why Buffy is actually the kind of anti-romantic fantasy. It never really took itself seriously at all, nor did it suggest that teenage vampire slayers or lesbian teen witches were perfectly good, morally correct beings who would lead the world into utopia if only they weren't oppressed by evil men.  Instead it dared to present them as silly, human, often wrong, and generally flawed.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  Only it's a "manly" philosophy rather than a "girly" one.  It's "why don't we just kick all their asses?" rather than "why can't everyone just get along?"




Yup.. I hate the "Conan" genre with its underlying brutish "might makes right" principles just as much as I hate the "romantic fantasy" genre with its underlying "it takes a village" principle.

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Jarzon isn't the black. Jarzon is the gray. The black is the scary evil lich king.




More accurately: the evil lich king is presented as Objectively Evil,
 Jarzon as Objectively WRONG, and 
Aldis as both Objectively RIGHT and objectively GOOD.

And that, coupled with the "values" aldis considers "good", is what makes me dislike the setting (and "romantic fantasy" in general).

Nisarg


----------



## Nisarg (Feb 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Well I do indeed _loathe_ the genre of 'romantic fantasy' (or at least the samples that I have encountered in the past).  Many apologies for actually expressing my opinion, and inquiring the extent to which I can ignore a genre that I loathe in order to get to the (what sound like fairly interesting) rules.
> 
> If someone really loathed R.E. Howard's work, but was interested in the mechanics of the Conan RPG, it would be perfectly appropriate for that person to make his/her dislike known, and inquire to what extent he/she could ignore the setting in order to get to the rules (or inquire to what extent he/she could use the rules for a non-Hyborian campaign).




Here, I'll say it. I LOATHE Robert E. Howards work. I never read anything of his that didn't disgust me.

Maybe that will make Whizbang and Patrick feel better..

Nisarg


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2005)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Yup.. I hate the "Conan" genre with its underlying brutish "might makes right" principles just as much as I hate the "romantic fantasy" genre with its underlying "it takes a village" principle.
> 
> Nisarg




Hate wouldn't be the right word for me.  But other than that, this statement presents it well.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Feb 17, 2005)

So, what I've gotten from this thread:


Blue Rose has excellent mechanics.
The kingdom is utopian simplicity ala Mercedes Lackey and Marion Zimmer
It is either Good or Evil because a magic deer said so.
Those who like the kingdom are good.
Those who don't are intolerant and evil.
Blue Rose guarentees flame filled fun for all for at least six months on boards.
Green Ronin has created an excellent product that they are either using to get new gamers or brainwash everyone in vegan zombies.

You know, this game seems as if it will appeal to the females of the human species.

Don't a lot of gamers complain about the lack of female humans in the hobby?

So, if more women == good...

Why all the outrage?

I serious doubt that Green Ronin is going to get a credit line with Dial-a-thug so that they can send people to the houses of those who do not use the setting, or alter the setting, to beat them and tear up thier d20 books.

I'll admit, the setting (what I've read of it) doesn't appeal to me, but the rules do.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 17, 2005)

I find this debate kinda odd for two reasons...

First, while Blue Rose is new, the fiction that inspires it isn't. People like Marion Zimmer Bradley and Jo Clayton have been doing this since the 70's, well before the likes of Mercedes Lackey... I don't recall seeing many threads in the book section decrying this sort of thing, which has been going on for decades.

And don't male writers like David Eddings count as 'romantic fantasists', too? It took 'a village' to raise Garion. And who was "right" more often, Belgarath or Polgara?

Second, why does romanticizing a "Scandanavian Liberal Paradise" --to borrow the NationStates label, albeit one with lesbians riding giant telepathic cats, seem to yank peoples chains more than romanticizing things like _feudalism_ or _race war_?

What ever happned to the fine art of taking the things with a grain of salt? It's possible to enjoy _Atlas Shrugged_ without agreeing with Rand's politcal philosophies, or like TNG without becoming an advocate of space-based socialism, or some pulp extravaganza complete with half-dressed jungle girls and/or space vixens without being a chauvanist pig...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 17, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I find this debate kinda odd for two reasons...
> 
> First, while Blue Rose is new, the fiction that inspires it isn't. People like Marion Zimmer Bradley and Jo Clayton have been doing this since the 70's, well before the likes of Mercedes Lackey... I don't recall seeing many threads in the book section decrying this sort of thing, which has been going on for decades.
> 
> And don't male writers like David Eddings count as 'romantic fantasists', too? It took 'a village' to raise Garion. And who was "right" more often, Belgarath or Polgara?




And here we hit upon one of the many, many reasons I dislike almost all modern fantasy.  It's not just Lackey and her lackies.  Of course, I really didn't like the Lord of the Rings all that much, and I agree with most of what Tolkien stood for.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Second, why does romanticizing a "Scandanavian Liberal Paradise" --to borrow the NationStates label, albeit one with lesbians riding giant telepathic cats, seem to yank peoples chains more than romanticizing things like _feudalism_ or _race war_?




Well, I'm pro-feudal in real life, so any positive light on feudalism and hereditary government in general is always welcome in my book.  As for race war, aside from species competition (for example, orcs vs. humans), I'm not sure what RPG you're talking about.

The cats can stay, though.  Giant telepathic cats are welcome in any right-thinking society, be it feudal or socialist.  



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> What ever happned to the fine art of taking the things with a grain of salt? It's possible to enjoy _Atlas Shrugged_ without agreeing with Rand's politcal philosophies, or like TNG without becoming an advocate of space-based socialism, or some pulp extravaganza complete with half-dressed jungle girls and/or space vixens without being a chauvanist pig...




Well, TNG's space-based socialism turned me off almost as fast as its spineless captaincy, but I somehow think the TOS vs. TNG debate belongs elsewhere.


----------



## Emiricol (Feb 17, 2005)

I just thought it was a silly setting.  Not particularly likely to overthrow our social order any time soon.  A silly setting with interesting mechanics, though.


----------



## Benben (Feb 17, 2005)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who's confused by the fact that Rape and Incest scenes appear to be a staple of the "romantic fantasy" genre in general and Lackey's novels in particular? And that this is marketed to a teen female audience? Anyone with a psychology degree care to explain it to me?
> 
> Anyways, just thought it was the moment to ask about something that's always perplexed me about "romantic fantasy"... i for one don't grasp the "romance" of incest or rape...
> 
> Nisarg




Frankly this boggles my mind too.  Lackey, in particular, is terrible about this, I think more of her protaginists have been raped than those who have not.  It's one of my biggest complaints about her as an author.

I have a theory about why it's used.  It's a quick emotional trick to make the reader feel sympathy for the character.  In more male dominated genres, like comic books, the cliche is to kill or maim the girlfriend of the protagonist.  In a romance you have two equally important plote elements: the threat to the kingdom and the state of the primary relationship.  Killing off the other partner in the primary relationship means that the protagonist has lost that struggle.  Rape introduces pathos, and can give a difficulty in establishing or continuing the relationship.  The cousin of this plote device would be the love triangle, or the love septagrams you see in some of the more crazy shounen manga.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 17, 2005)

Nisarg said:
			
		

> That's funny, I had the exact same thought.. I wonder what it is about Thieves World that makes us think BR would be good for it?
> 
> Nisarg





It is a lethal setting, lower magic, character oriented (so the extra feats would be great) but it also has enough wierd stuff that the extras from BR could apply.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 17, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is a lethal setting, lower magic, character oriented (so the extra feats would be great) but it also has enough wierd stuff that the extras from BR could apply.




Don't forget that Green Ronin is supposed to be developing a Thieves World RPG...  so your dream of a BR mechanics based TW may come out in a more official form soon. 

--sam


----------



## Crothian (Feb 17, 2005)

Lalato said:
			
		

> Don't forget that Green Ronin is supposed to be developing a Thieves World RPG...  so your dream of a BR mechanics based TW may come out in a more official form soon.




Trust me I know.  I've been harping, yelling, bewgging, and bribing someone to do a TW setting for 6 straight years.  I was thrilled when they announced it last year at Gen Con!!!


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 17, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely certain that this is true.




There is no way to prove it for sure. However, both the size of the D&D market compared to the rest of the RPG industry and Wizards having the largest and most richly funded marketing and design teams in the RPG industry suggest that the market for the rule set in D&D3.5e is much larger than the rule set in BR.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 17, 2005)

Lalato said:
			
		

> Don't forget that Green Ronin is supposed to be developing a Thieves World RPG... so your dream of a BR mechanics based TW may come out in a more official form soon.
> --sam




I'll be interesting to see how they simulate the TW magic system(s). Can't wait. Reading the two new books got me ready for more TW goodness.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 17, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What ever happned to the fine art of taking the things with a grain of salt? It's possible to enjoy _Atlas Shrugged_ without agreeing with Rand's politcal philosophies, or like TNG without becoming an advocate of space-based socialism, or some pulp extravaganza complete with half-dressed jungle girls and/or space vixens without being a chauvanist pig...




You know, if I ever saw a game entitled “Half-dressed jungle girls and/or space vixens: The Role Playing Game” I think I would buy it on the spot.



After I had regained consciousness from laughing myself into a blackout.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Feb 18, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> You know, if I ever saw a game entitled “Half-dressed jungle girls and/or space vixens: The Role Playing Game” I think I would buy it on the spot.
> 
> After I had regained consciousness from laughing myself into a blackout.




Isn't that basically the gist of Macho Women With Guns?


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Isn't that basically the gist of Macho Women With Guns?




Pretty much. 

The "Our Sisters of Harley Davidson" supplement is priceless for the title alone.


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 18, 2005)

Not to derail the derailment, but a new version of the PDF was released, with some typoes & the like corrected. The title page has an interesting new addition: 
"POWERED BY THE TRUE20(tm) SYSTEM".

I guess GR has a trademark for the M&M/BR/no-dice-but-a-d20 system.


----------



## Skywalker (Feb 18, 2005)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Not to derail the derailment, but a new version of the PDF was released, with some typoes & the like corrected. The title page has an interesting new addition:
> "POWERED BY THE TRUE20(tm) SYSTEM".
> 
> I guess GR has a trademark for the M&M/BR/no-dice-but-a-d20 system.




Lets hope it bodes well for a seperate TRUE20 rulesbook and then many other products based on that system.


----------



## Nomad4life (Feb 18, 2005)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Not to derail the derailment, but a new version of the PDF was released, with some typoes & the like corrected. The title page has an interesting new addition:
> "POWERED BY THE TRUE20(tm) SYSTEM".
> 
> I guess GR has a trademark for the M&M/BR/no-dice-but-a-d20 system.




Yeah, mine just came in too.  ::Feels special::  



Hmmm…  I see the “True20” thing as well.  However, I'm not sure what EXACTLY "is" or "is not" part of the True20 setup.  Is it just the idea of using one die, or is it all of the crunch that goes with it?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Feb 18, 2005)

Benben said:
			
		

> The cousin of this plote device would be the love triangle, or the love septagrams you see in some of the more crazy shounen manga.




Love septagrams...hilarious! Made me laugh.

I expect that if GR doesn't release the rules seperately, I'll pick BR up, or at least leaf through it. It looks pretty cool.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 18, 2005)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> I am waiting for someone to do the old 1st edition way.
> 
> 3 attacks this round 2 next




Wasnt it 3/2, meaning three attacks every two rounds? 1st round you attack twice, next you attack once, and so on.


----------



## Kesh (Feb 19, 2005)

Nomad4life said:
			
		

> Yeah, mine just came in too.  ::Feels special::
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm…  I see the “True20” thing as well.  However, I'm not sure what EXACTLY "is" or "is not" part of the True20 setup.  Is it just the idea of using one die, or is it all of the crunch that goes with it?



 Oh, son of...

So, not only did my idea for a better damage system get pre-empted by Blue Rose, my idea for a "one die for all rules" got killed too? 

Ah well. I'll read Blue Rose, and see if theirs is better than the one I was coming up with.


----------



## Psion (Feb 19, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Oh, son of...
> 
> So, not only did my idea for a better damage system get pre-empted by Blue Rose, my idea for a "one die for all rules" got killed too?




You do know that this system is not new, don't you? It first appeared in Mutants & Masterminds, and was reprinted in a D&D context in AU.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 19, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> You do know that this system is not new, don't you? It first appeared in Mutants & Masterminds, and was reprinted in a D&D context in AU.





not d20, but HeroQuest uses a one die for everything ruleset.  The only disconcerting thing about it is that rolling low is good in that system.  So when you roll your d20 and you see a one come up... it takes several seconds before you yell "Booyah!!!"

--sam


----------



## Kesh (Feb 20, 2005)

I know the concept of a one-die system isn't new, but it's just the timing. 

And I hadn't seen M&M yet. The damage save system in UA didn't really impress me that much, but I heard Blue Rose had a slightly better version.


----------



## Psion (Feb 20, 2005)

I wasn't talking the concept of the one-die system (heck - that's been around since Traveller). I was talking the damage mechanic that specifically appeared in Blue Rose.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 20, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking the concept of the one-die system (heck - that's been around since Traveller). I was talking the damage mechanic that specifically appeared in Blue Rose.




True Dat!!!  Ah... Traveller...  I loved that game...  rolling up your character was half the fun.

We now return you to your previously scheduled discussion...

Blue Rose... looks cool...  will buy it.  

--sam


----------



## Kesh (Feb 20, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking the concept of the one-die system (heck - that's been around since Traveller). I was talking the damage mechanic that specifically appeared in Blue Rose.



 And I was talking about both.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Feb 24, 2005)

Skywalker said:
			
		

> What I would like to find is someone who liked Tribe 8 but disliked Blue Rose or vice versa. Tribe 8 has a real angry feminism vibe and in many ways is similar in BR in how it presents same sex marriages, strong female protaganists, anmistic magic and feminist terminology. Despite that, Tribe 8 doesn't get half the criticism that BR has.
> 
> I am wondering whether that is because:
> 
> ...




Hmmm... Angry feminism?  I think i misssed something in tribe 8, granted i only got the first book when it first came out. 
I myself am D20 crowd that like Blue Rose (so far)  and Tribe 8.  Of course I'm probably pretty darned strange, several of my friends are lesbians and or vegetarians. I should probably start pushing RPGs on them again and see if they'll give Tribe-8 or Blue Rose a spin since they haven't been tempted by d20-D&D yet.  I have succeed in tempting straight non-vegetarian women to D&D and a couple of them are curious about BR.     

Heck i think Green Ronin is to be commended on a so far decent take on another style of fantasy fiction i'd much rather play games in as opposed to read (just like post D&D fanatsy fiction on the average I can't stand the novels but i like the games).


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 25, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> And I hadn't seen M&M yet. The damage save system in UA didn't really impress me that much, but I heard Blue Rose had a slightly better version.



Well, it's less severe than the one in _MnM._

For nonlethal damage, they replaced "_stunned_" with "_dazed,_" and added "_staggered_" between "_dazed_" and "_unconscious._"

*bruised -> dazed -> staggered -> unconscious*

For lethal damage, they replaced "injured" with "hurt," and added "_wounded_"* between "hurt" and "_disabled._"

*hurt -> wounded* -> disabled -> dying -> dead*

*See _Blue Rose_ fast-play, available for download at http://bluerose.greenronin.com


----------



## Herobizkit (May 1, 2010)

*RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!

*So... Five years later, Blue Rose has been absorbed as a setting for True20.  My question - was anything lost mechanically from the transition (ex The Tarot alignment system, magic, rhydan)?


----------



## ValhallaGH (May 1, 2010)

Herobizkit said:


> So... Five years later, Blue Rose has been absorbed as a setting for True20.




Huh?  When did that happen?  (Citations desired.)


----------



## Herobizkit (May 1, 2010)

It was mentioned up-thread.  I'm more curious to know if this in fact the case, or if any improvements were made to the original BR rules since 2005.


----------



## ValhallaGH (May 2, 2010)

No, and No.  Blue Rose is it's own system (very similar to True 20, but different).  And no major books, including rules updates, have come out for it since 2005.


----------



## Thanael (May 16, 2010)

What are the mechanical differences between Blue Rose and True20 ?


----------



## ValhallaGH (May 16, 2010)

Honestly, I'm not sure.  I never really got into BR, so I don't know all the nuances (which is the vast majority of the differences).  Still, I know some and will list the BR version first.
Armor as Defense bonus (AC) vs Armor as Toughness Save bonus.
Class Toughness Bonus vs no automatic Toughness bonuses.
Minor differences in skill lists.
Built in Setting vs Generic (setting-free) rules.
Corruption rules for mages and those with magic gear vs no such option.

Probably other stuff.  Overall, though, they are very close.

Good luck.


----------

