# BLUE ROSE Returns, Championing Diversity & Inclusiveness



## Grimstaff (Mar 23, 2015)

Does every book come with a cup of Starbucks "race together" coffee? :/

Seriously, as someone who's gamed with different races and lifestyles for decades, and appreciates the setting in question, this comes across as pandering weaksauce. Inclusiveness should be a given, not a sales point.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Mar 23, 2015)

That's cool that Blue Rose gets to come back into print under the AGE Engine but if this was the big announce on their setting that would be the talk of the year then I am a sad panda.

EDIT: Finished reading Chris's post. I feel like maybe it's a bit heavy handed. We're in a hobby that's already highly inclusive and open right now....I don't think that there's nearly the "tearing apart" going on here that he implies. Maybe I'm just hanging in the wrong crowds though.


----------



## Blue (Mar 23, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Does every book come with a cup of Starbucks "race together" coffee? :/
> 
> Seriously, as someone who's gamed with different races and lifestyles for decades, and appreciates the setting in question, this comes across as pandering weaksauce. Inclusiveness should be a given, not a sales point.




I really enjoy 5e, but can you do me a favor an look at the amount of _game mechanics_ covering "social, political, and romantic relationship"?  Just contrast a page count vs. something like combat.

You absolutely can run those in any RPG.  But that doesn't mean that all other game systems mechanically cover those concepts as well.  I'll run and play in different systems that support the feel and theme I'm looking for in a campaign, why should this be any different?

With Gamergate, maybe something explicitly inclusive is a good thing.


----------



## nomotog (Mar 23, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Does every book come with a cup of Starbucks "race together" coffee? :/
> 
> Seriously, as someone who's gamed with different races and lifestyles for decades, and appreciates the setting in question, this comes across as pandering weaksauce. Inclusiveness should be a given, not a sales point.




Should be a given, but it isn't always a given unfortunately.

I don't know what to make of and that is kind of fun. Never played a romantic fantasy RPG before.


----------



## vongarr (Mar 23, 2015)

D&D5 is inclusive, and it doesn't pat itself on the back about it. The more we treat these things as normal, the more normal they become. Just like chainmail bikinis. If we come to accept them, they become acceptable -- if we made a big deal about it, it becomes aberrant and stands out for reasons other than the strength of its work.

It does look interesting. I've never heard of it, until now.


----------



## nomotog (Mar 23, 2015)

Blue said:


> I really enjoy 5e, but can you do me a favor an look at the amount of _game mechanics_ covering "social, political, and romantic relationship"?  Just contrast a page count vs. something like combat.




I don't think there is a page. (At least I can't think of it off hand.) It's a aspect that you just don't see in a lot of RPGs. Combat is virtually a given, but social mechanics are often token or non existent. (Outside of some more out there RPGs anyway.)


----------



## lyle.spade (Mar 23, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Does every book come with a cup of Starbucks "race together" coffee? :/
> 
> Seriously, as someone who's gamed with different races and lifestyles for decades, and appreciates the setting in question, this comes across as pandering weaksauce. Inclusiveness should be a given, not a sales point.




Grim, I couldn't agree more. No need to wave a flag around for attention...want something to be a certain way? Then you go ahead and be that way. And keep being that way.


----------



## nomotog (Mar 23, 2015)

vongarr said:


> D&D5 is inclusive, and it doesn't pat itself on the back about it. The more we treat these things as normal, the more normal they become. Just like chainmail bikinis. If we come to accept them, they become acceptable -- if we made a big deal about it, it becomes aberrant and stands out for reasons other than the strength of its work.
> 
> It does look interesting. I've never heard of it, until now.




Ya they did. They they even blew up a glove and tied it to the end  of a stick. I know because after I read it, I got to read a bunch of people basically saying what you are. I honestly didn't  mind the backpating. I mean, how are you going to know if they don't mention it.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2015)

One man's "backpatting" is another man's "raising awareness". It's easy enough to ignore and move on if you feel you've heard it before. Yes, the world should be like that. It isn't, though.


----------



## Zaran (Mar 23, 2015)

Blue said:


> I really enjoy 5e, but can you do me a favor an look at the amount of _game mechanics_ covering "social, political, and romantic relationship"?  Just contrast a page count vs. something like combat.
> 
> You absolutely can run those in any RPG.  But that doesn't mean that all other game systems mechanically cover those concepts as well.  I'll run and play in different systems that support the feel and theme I'm looking for in a campaign, why should this be any different?
> 
> With Gamergate, maybe something explicitly inclusive is a good thing.




P 121.  Inspiration.  Basically, if your GM thinks you roleplayed your character well you get an Inspiration.  You can use that Inspiration to reward other players' roleplaying, or you use it yourself by gaining advantage to any d20 roll .   

If I do say so myself, this single mechanic handles "social, poltical, and romantic relationships" just fine as it encourages role-play.


----------



## nomotog (Mar 23, 2015)

Zaran said:


> P 121.  Inspiration.  Basically, if your GM thinks you roleplayed your character well you get an Inspiration.  You can use that Inspiration to reward other players' roleplaying, or you use it yourself by gaining advantage to any d20 roll .
> 
> If I do say so myself, this single mechanic handles "social, poltical, and romantic relationships" just fine as it encourages role-play.




Can you handle SPRR entirely through roleplay and if you do dose that make it better or worse then something handled thought game mechanics? It's one of those things I like to ponder about. I mean on one hand it's like the game is washing it's hands of the idea basically saying don't know don't care. On the other hand it means the game isn't going to get in your way.


----------



## Eirikrautha (Mar 23, 2015)

You know, I'm trying to think of a way to marry romance/relationships and game mechanics and I just can't make those ideas fit together.  It almost defeats the purpose of a roleplaying game to me.  Hear me out...

When I think of game mechanics and romance, immediately I think of video games like Mass Effect or The Witcher.  Because, unless you leave the mechanics so vague as to be almost useless, what you are doing is simplifying the process of relationships down to a numerical score, a mechanical process.  Talk about trivializing love (and don't let the Anita Sarkeesians of the world hear that you've reduced a woman's love to something you roll dice for... their heads would explode)!

Relationships aren't mechanical... they are organic.  If you accurately represent the organic nature, then any mechanical effect will be so negligible as to be irrelevant.  If you create strong mechanics, then you reduce relationships to a hollow shell of what they are.  Neither seem satisfactory.

I will admit that I don't even like the "diplomacy" style rolls in PF/D&D, because they illustrate the problem perfectly.  If you reward the good roleplay with high bonuses, then why roll at all?  If even good roleplay only gets you a small bonus and leaves you at the mercy of the dice, then why roleplay?  I don't think starting a motorcycle, picking a lock, and convincing a friend to trust me are analogous operations.

This entire concept (strong mechanics of relationships) seems a step backwards to me.  CRPGs are limited to these because of their nature; let's not drag our hobby down to artificial limits when it is not necessary...


----------



## nomotog (Mar 23, 2015)

Eirikrautha said:


> You know, I'm trying to think of a way to marry romance/relationships and game mechanics and I just can't make those ideas fit together.  It almost defeats the purpose of a roleplaying game to me.  Hear me out...
> 
> When I think of game mechanics and romance, immediately I think of video games like Mass Effect or The Witcher.  Because, unless you leave the mechanics so vague as to be almost useless, what you are doing is simplifying the process of relationships down to a numerical score, a mechanical process.  Talk about trivializing love (and don't let the Anita Sarkeesians of the world hear that you've reduced a woman's love to something you roll dice for... their heads would explode)!
> 
> ...




Yes someone took the bate.  I rather like talking about this stuff.

Well one of the big things is all the problems and everything else you mention also applies to combat, but RPGs have no problem with that. It's also not like we do combat right, we just kind of fudge it and it just kind of works. Love is organic, but so is combat. I mean simulating massively complex systems with crazy simple systems is 99% of RPGs

The Anita comment is a tad funny, because when you go looking for games that include relationships mechanics and such, you find them among the Anita Sarkeesians of the world. Feminist tumblers are where I find this stuff.

I like diplomacy style roles, but I think the our big difference in view is that I don't really see a big gulf between something like convincing someone and picking a lock. I see everything as mix of Roleplay and Rollplay. You roleplay for fun and then you roll because you want a chance to fail. The big difference between an RPG and something like pure RP is that the dice flub up your plans.


----------



## Ace (Mar 23, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> Does every book come with a cup of Starbucks "race together" coffee? :/
> 
> Seriously, as someone who's gamed with different races and lifestyles for decades, and appreciates the setting in question, this comes across as pandering weaksauce. Inclusiveness should be a given, not a sales point.




Nice. 

I've games with all kinds myself and I  tend to regard all good minded TTRPG gamers as part of my quasi  tribe and race, creed, gender preference and such don't even come into consideration when to use one of Gary's  (rip Gary, rest in play) favorite quotes " Alea iacta est" the die is cast 

However neither diversity nor inclusiveness are especially relevant to the RPG hobby, its not even an a priori assumption that these are inherent good things when applied to the typical gaming group. RPG's are not struggle sessions  or efforts at political correctness or diversity training  but an opportunity for friends to hang out . At its roots this hobby  a form of war gaming where you play the hero instead of a squad.  Its pretty Right Wing  power is truth in its roots and  this hasn't really changed even with the introduction of more story focused games like Fate or even  outright Indie  story games. Its still mostly about the adventure, and power and conquest and glory. 

As such if you want pseudo Europe with not a non White in sight  or  or something multi-cultural  or about relationships or whatever go for it. Do what's right by you and your friends whoever they are, whatever it is and if you don't like  what you see and somehow end up invited, say thanks but no and move on. 

I see the  sales reasoning Green Ronin uses as just well pander-tastic  though it might appeal to the groups core market. I dunno.  That said    I own every book for Blue Rose in print form and delighted to see it return. Its a cool system, a   neat world and well written    I am big fan of the genre as well 

Now alas for GR  I won't be investing in this version as I don't use the AGE system but adding the amazing magic system to AGE is a huge plus to the players of that game as well so I wish GR much  success and if a new True 20 adventure using the original system were to show up, heck my wallet would open pretty fast.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 23, 2015)

I had sort of been expecting something like this because the game has gotten some discussion with its release anniversary coming up.

I have the True 20 edition of the game... I picked it up for the new True 20 rules back in the day, and I thought it was a nice implementation of some romance mechanics. I think the new edition will also have more than a few people picking it up for the AGE rules and to see what they've done with the mechanics.

There was a fair bit of controversy back at the game's release, and I expect we'll see a little of that once again, but it's likely to be far less.

This is the game that taught me the lesson that not every game has to be pitched at me to be perfectly fine. I wasn't that excited by the world of Blue Rose, but that was the point: it was targeted at people who were looking for something different than I was. I sincerely hope that people continue to learn that lesson: not every game is targeted at every gamer, and that's okay. Gaming contains multitudes and all.

So I wish them luck ... I'm sure their core audience will be excited, and there will be more than a few people who buy it for the AGE system and are pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Blue (Mar 23, 2015)

Zaran said:


> Blue said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Do you feel that the inspiration rule provides the same level of details and mechanical support for as 5e does for combat?  Because that was the point of what you quoted from me.

Do you feel that characters involved in a romantic political solution will find that they have the same level of mechanical support from the rules that they would if they were attempting to resolve this from a combat solution?  Not "can a GM do this", but "does the rules provide the level of detail and support for this to be a major and recurring method of resolution".

Personally, I find the answer to be no.  We could definitely run it, but a low/no-combat system that provides other focuses can have it's own niche.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 23, 2015)

When Blue Rose first came out (seemingly) ages ago, I was really excited about a game with a system that made role-play as crunchy and interesting as combat.

Blue Rose is the game that convinced me just how terribly counter-productive that idea was.

I don't really care one way or another what setting the pitch for their game.  I buy a game system for its mechanics, which rarely last more than 15 minutes before I'm changing those.   Things as soft and fluffy as a setting don't stand a chance.


----------



## Hitdice (Mar 23, 2015)

Blue said:


> Do you feel that the inspiration rule provides the same level of details and mechanical support for as 5e does for combat?  Because that was the point of what you quoted from me.
> 
> Do you feel that characters involved in a romantic political solution will find that they have the same level of mechanical support from the rules that they would if they were attempting to resolve this from a combat solution?  Not "can a GM do this", but "does the rules provide the level of detail and support for this to be a major and recurring method of resolution".
> 
> Personally, I find the answer to be no.  We could definitely run it, but a low/no-combat system that provides other focuses can have it's own niche.




I don't feel like the inspiration rule does, but the social interactions rules are bit more robust. Compared to the combat rules, social interaction seems to lack only a hit point/_*this how you die!!*_ mechanic.


----------



## Riley37 (Mar 23, 2015)

Blue said:


> With Gamergate, maybe something explicitly inclusive is a good thing.




The Social Justice Warrior class is overpowered compared to the Pick Up Artist class, but it balances out... meanwhile, I hope that the reviews of Blue Rose are ethical game journalism...

Social interactions in classic 5E are either directly played out, which can have higher resolution than ANY rules mechanics can ever have; or they are played out as Ability Checks, generally either Charisma to influence others (+Deception, Persuasion, etc.) or Wisdom to accurately understand others (+Insight). Stat checks get a few pages on their own; not nearly as many pages as are dedicated purely to combat.

And then there's other material. Consider the feat list; how many of the feats are combat-specific, and how many are useful for social goals? Consider the spell list. What percentage of the spell list is combat (Magic Missile), what percentage is social (Friends)? How do you measure things which affect both? For example, Plant Growth can be used in combat, but it can also be used to *double food production across 500 acres of farmland*, which is a HUGE factor if you want to inspire a peasant revolt, or to encourage peasant loyalty to their overlord, or turn a city into an exporter of food, which could in turn strengthen (or topple) an alliance of city-states.

If 5E D&D were a pure combat game, it would not have a CHA stat.

Speaking of character creation, the 5E rules for PC gender are a HUGE step towards inclusivity.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 23, 2015)

Is that the same Steve Kenson who wrote the re-boot Shadowrun trilogy, back in '05 ? Because if so, then I'm down for a pre-order.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2015)

I have the original Blue Rose. Glad to see it's coming back. I doubt I'll play it, but I'll happily pick up a copy and check it out anyways.


----------



## Ace (Mar 23, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> When Blue Rose first came out (seemingly) ages ago, I was really excited about a game with a system that made role-play as crunchy and interesting as combat.
> 
> Blue Rose is the game that convinced me just how terribly counter-productive that idea was.
> 
> I don't really care one way or another what setting the pitch for their game.  I buy a game system for its mechanics, which rarely last more than 15 minutes before I'm changing those.   Things as soft and fluffy as a setting don't stand a chance.




I've read almost everything that inspired  True 20 and liked most it which is amusing considering how Conservative my politics can be. I never found it hard to tweak it a bit and to make Aldis a bit more like Valdemaar which is nowhere near as fluffy bunny as some people think . Its a bit off topic but Valedemar is   Liberal and Tolerant but not Progressive which are two separate things . Heck the Green Rider series wasn't especially political only it had kind of psi-magic and some of the tropes as well.  The writers of True 20 kind of conflated the two as does a good part of the Leftist Entriests we've seen creeping into gaming of late. This is a product of the political issues in the US right now more than anything and its unfortunate as I like my gaming like my Starbucks  free of political BS unless I start it.   

As for me I mostly  bought the game for its awesome magic system. Of course I also like True 20 a lot and own most of the game save a few of the every newest as well. Its maybe my favorite D20. 

However the D20 mechanics don't do well with social conflicts and from what I've seen neither does AGE. In reality it ends up an action game anyway with a somewhat prog setting if you use Aldis as written.  My groups  certainly don't need a values lesson any more than I need one with overpriced coffee. Not everything needs to be political.

However it is possible to make social conflict rules that work well, GURPS manages it   with its social engineering supplement,. Its  well supported with pyramid issues and other supplements playing off it. Its not for most groups though, my guys just want to stab demon cows with swords and detonate Shaper flying saucers and such like not RP every social encounter and romance, the alleged staple of Romantic Fantasy is right out. We're mostly  Dudes, Bro.YMMV of course. 

After all that I have to say  gaming is pretty tolerant as a hobby and I'm proud of that. we've had gay characters in games I've been in  forever Vanyel Ashkevron knockoffs , bi characters, women pretending to be men ,all sorts of races and creeds, nobody cares.  We've had all manner of players with Satanists and Christians and Pagans and Hindus and many different races at the same table, playing, hanging out getting along.  Sometimes I wish we could share that with others. I'm a grown up and I know we can't but now and than its great to be a geek.


----------



## Ace (Mar 23, 2015)

Saelorn said:


> Is that the same Steve Kenson who wrote the re-boot Shadowrun trilogy, back in '05 ? Because if so, then I'm down for a pre-order.




Yep I believe so  . He also wrote  Mutants and Masterminds too.  Blue Rose is a great game as is True 20 and while the AGE system used in Dragon age is different , more structured and less free form its still pretty good from what I can tell and this release will add one of my favorite magic systems too it.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Mar 23, 2015)

I'm always on the lookout for new and interesting mechanics, especially if they can be stolen for use in D&D.



camazotz said:


> EDIT: Finished reading Chris's post. I feel like maybe it's a bit heavy handed. (snip)



Chris Pramas has a really unfortunate habit of using the "if you disagree with me then #$%^ you" formula to make his points. Personally I find it rankles (a lot), even when I'm in full agreement with what he's saying.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Mar 23, 2015)

Nice of them to let know they're making the game to push their social agenda.  It's hard enough to make a fun game when making a fun game is your main priority.  Relegate that to second priority and your chances of coming up with a good game are remote.  So pass, don't think I need to even give this one a look.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Nice of them to let know they're making the game to push their social agenda.  It's hard enough to make a fun game when making a fun game is your main priority.  Relegate that to second priority and your chances of coming up with a good game are remote.  So pass, don't think I need to even give this one a look.




There is nothing wrong with expressing yourself via the art you create.  It's an ancient, ages-old thing, and perfectly acceptable.  Disagree with what they're expressing if you wish, but implying that they're somehow _wrong_ to express themselves via their art is just unfair, and phrases like "nice of them to let know they're making the game to push their social agenda" are just snotty.  And make no mistake, game design is art, and one of the fundamental properties of art is expression.  It is utterly appropriate that a game designer use that medium to express themself.

If you're not interested, that's fine. Go find a thing you are interested in!  BUt for me, it would be a sad world in which people didn't express themselves through their art. Art is good when it says something.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 23, 2015)

Regarding the cynical comments about political agendas and, "But RPGs are already inclusive, no need to advertise it."

That's why we need it.  That's why it needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Because without Green Ronin setting the example, both in 2005 and now, D&D 5E and other games would not have progressed in the ways that they have regarding inclusivity.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 24, 2015)

I also hope this wasn't their big announcement for the AGE system.  Blue Rose is a nice setting, but it doesn't seem like that big news.  I own all the books and still run into several people that when they see the books in a store are unaware it has been around for awhile.  It wasn't that big of a game when it first came out.


----------



## pedr (Mar 24, 2015)

On Twitter earlier today, Jack Norris said "Big GreenRoninPub announcement coming.  Note: this isn't the "possibly biggest of the year" one we talked about earlier.  But its big."

So that's still on track to be my predicted Tabletop RPG show to use AGE announcement


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2015)

pedr said:


> So that's still on track to be my predicted Tabletop RPG show to use AGE announcement




Yeah, that's where I'd put my money.


----------



## DM Howard (Mar 24, 2015)

I always liked the idea of Blue Rose, my friend has all the books, but we've never actually played it.  Happy to see it getting some attention.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Regarding the cynical comments about political agendas and, "But RPGs are already inclusive, no need to advertise it."




I have the original game, and because of it, I got the True20 system. The introduction of the game gives a pretty good description of the genre its trying to emulate. Hey, why not? Those books had their fans, and certainly we saw plenty of games around works of specific writers and sub-genres.

RPGs aren't inclusive or non-inclusive; they are systems often with some embedded campaign elements. The campaign & its setting is where you get it. Anyone can make any version of D&D inclusive if they want to, and likewise, anyone can beat the nutritional value out of Blue Rose if they want to. The embedded campaign in the Blue Rose RPG (I don't have the later books) certainly has inclusive elements in it. But I think you'll find that people were running inclusive campaigns well before that. A friend of mine ran such a campaign in 1981 using Dragonquest.

The game doesn't rub me the wrong way, but touting a game as "better  than XXX for its inclusiveness" rubs many people the wrong way - and I  don't think they are entirely wrong to feel that way. Its much like the story games vs rpgs argument. Along with the message that its a game worth playing, someone wraps that in a message that its superior to whatever you were doing before, and not liking that makes you a backwards neanderthal hater.

When I heard Blue Rose was coming back, my first thought was okay, cool, why not. After reading Chris' blog entry, I lost interest. I wouldn't say no if someone offered to run the game. I don't find the embedded setting unattractive. But the message that this game is being embedded into runs contrary to a simple, but effective principle:

Don't pick yourself up by pushing others down.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> The game doesn't rub me the wrong way, but touting a game as "better  than XXX for its inclusiveness" rubs many people the wrong way




I think it's very fortunate that nobody has said that, then!


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

That's the thing about inclusivity, though.  The straight, white, cisgender, male gamer doesn't ever worry about being included, about being represented.  He knows that the game defaults to him and takes it for granted.  Seeing a game make an effort, indeed make it a point, to include folks other than that "default" means we get to feel acknowledged.  

For people who are used to being invisible at best, hated at worst, having a game say, "Hey, you exist and are valued," is so incredibly important that its hard to express.  It is, therefore, likewise important, that Green Ronin and other companies be vocal about taking that stand.  

Being inclusive and being vocal about it is not, in any way, pushing anyone down.  It is saying, "Hey, we want everyone to have an equal space at the game table."


----------



## Ace (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> That's the thing about inclusivity, though.  The straight, white, cisgender, male gamer doesn't ever worry about being included, about being represented.  He knows that the game defaults to him and takes it for granted.  Seeing a game make an effort, indeed make it a point, to include folks other than that "default" means we get to feel acknowledged.
> 
> For people who are used to being invisible at best, hated at worst, having a game say, "Hey, you exist and are valued," is so incredibly important that its hard to express.  It is, therefore, likewise important, that Green Ronin and other companies be vocal about taking that stand.
> 
> Being inclusive and being vocal about it is not, in any way, pushing anyone down.  It is saying, "Hey, we want everyone to have an equal space at the game table."




For clarity , this isn't about marketing but social policy, From a market POV s assuming anyone else need to care about "others" is inaccurate  they really don't as gaming has and tabletop RPG's will continue to do well as a somewhat conservative White Middle/working  Class Heterosexual Cis Gendered  Male pastime for High IQ Geeks right where they started.  Its about 20% female  now as well at least as of 2000 or so. From the Escapist   Unless there was a huge influx from the LGBT communities I don't think gaming would even notice since the LGBT community itself isn't very large, maybe twice the size of D&D players in the US and most aren't geeks AFAIK 

If saleswas  the issue than Hispanic, Asian and Black outreach makes much more sense. That's nearly  50% of the young people now vs maybe 4% for LGBT  

 That said I don't see games that address issues of otherness whether they be Blue Rose or Wraeththu or even Furry centric games in a respectful and quality way  are a bad thing. I think they are a good thing in general and games like  Blue Rose  being masterfully written manages to breach the boundaries and appeal to several communities, I like this . I also think the iconic Pathfinder Shaman being Transgendered was pretty cool, its a unique way to address something the authors cared about and done in a very clever way with some historical precedent.  

Under no circumstances should anyone  take this as anti "other" post either  I've had gaymers in my group and bi folks as well and they are perfectly welcome, bigotry isn't welcome since it takes away fun and I've never had  a group that is that uptight. For most us its grab some dice and lets play. As an aside  most have ever seen transfolk in gaming  though we   do have them  in our community (Jannell formerly Paul Jaquays)  of course.   Transfolk are after all  less than that about 700,000 in the entire US, about 1/2 of 1% of adults  and in fact there are more Roma (1 million or so) and most people have never seen any of them either. Hopefully either  of these groups can be portrayed with respect when they are used in games. Maybe good games can have that benefit with going Starbucks on us . Heck as long as no one pulls another piece of drek like  World of Darkness Gypsies I'll be happy 

I've noticed that  most gamers are pretty tolerant and their is plenty of room in the hobby for all kind of views as, I've had groups of 100% BDSM people and that about as .alt as you can get.  Whatever movement to inclusiveness is pretty welcome since gaming being what it is can create its own spaces that suit each group needs which is all anyone can ask for. Nobody gets in anyone else's space, the tolerant have spaces, the people needing safe spaces haven and them the trads and such  have theirs  too. The only real issue might be conventions  but that happily I don't have to deal with. 

On a personal note I  also hope that people with other views take advantage of the low cost of entry to create  cool stuff with independent views  for themselves and when possible everyone. This is good for our community and while we are a creative lot sometimes we trod the same paths too much. I like these paths and I think most people do and vote with their wallet but good new ideas are good for the community . 

Its not easy  to do, even  Lou Porter' abortion themed D20  Choice and Blood   was no hit , no ones cuppa apparently but it had value as can Blue Rose.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think it's very fortunate that nobody has said that, then!




I thought with the XXX it was clear the quotes were there for paraphrasing or emphasis rather than an actual, direct quote but Ill know better next time ;-)

Injecting a moral high ground into the message is one way to do just that. And to reiterate, while I don't see that moral high ground in the first edition of the RPG, going out of your way to bring back the game with the message seems (sorry for my cynicism) as opportunistic as anything else.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> I thought with the XXX it was clear the quotes were there for paraphrasing or emphasis rather than an actual, direct quote but Ill know better next time




It's more that you're injecting entire things which aren't there and attributing them to people who didn't say them - and then castigating them for saying the things you yourself created.  Nobody claimed their game was better than anybody else's, let alone for the reasons you ... errr ... "paraphrase".  I think that's just in your head; it's certainly not on that page, either explicitly or implicitly.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> That's the thing about inclusivity, though.  The straight, white, cisgender, male gamer doesn't ever worry about being included, about being represented.  He knows that the game defaults to him and takes it for granted.  Seeing a game make an effort, indeed make it a point, to include folks other than that "default" means we get to feel acknowledged.




Please do not reduce people of a race/gender/sexual orientation into a stereotype, even for a frame of reference.



Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Being inclusive and being vocal about it is not, in any way, pushing anyone down.  It is saying, "Hey, we want everyone to have an equal space at the game table."




In itself, I agree that it _need not_ push anyone down, so long as the language used doesn't create a new frame of reference that places other games or players of other games in a negative light to differentiate itself. Do you agree?

The setting (as I perceived it from the first edition) is inclusive. Some players are uncomfortable playing characters with a significantly different world view than themselves, but not all players.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> Please do not reduce people of a race/gender/sexual orientation into a stereotype, even for a frame of reference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Its not a stereotype in this instance, its a demographic.  A stereotype would be assigning a personality trait to the straight, white, male, cisgender gamer.  Plenty of non-gamers do that on a regular basis; no need to perpetuate it here.

Other companies and players and games need to have a negative light shone on them if they are indulging in negative stereotypes, bigotry, or discrimination.  That said Mr. Pramas does not disparage any company, group, player, or game in his statement.  He doesn't make any accusations and he doesn't state that Blue Rose will be better at being inclusive than any other game, just that inclusivity is one of its primary goals.  The implication of a "new frame of reference that places other games or players of other games in a negative light" is reading something between the lines that isn't there.  Posthuman Studios, Paizo, Wizards of the Coast - all have made public and vocal steps toward inclusivity.  Green Ronin is simply emphasizing the point, so to speak, not placing itself above.

If a player is uncomfortable with the content of Blue Rose, they don't have to play it.  However, demeaning it and those who do want to play it and arguing against its existence is a step beyond that.  Its a step that says, "Not only am I uncomfortable playing characters with a significantly different world view, I'm uncomfortable with acknowledging that those world views exist in my space."


----------



## TreChriron (Mar 24, 2015)

I liked the original game. True20 was refreshing take on the d20 mechanics. I'm not as familiar with AGE system, but I think I need to pick up some Dragon Age when the hardcover comes out. 

Anyone played AGE? Thoughts?


----------



## Ace (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> SNIP
> 
> Other companies and players and games need to have a negative light shone on them if they are indulging in negative stereotypes, bigotry, or discrimination.   SNIP
> 
> "




That's not your or anyone else's call really,   People need simple neutral, apolitical facts in areas  are interested  in, not an assumed leftism is correct slant  The assumptions you are going by are called entryim  and wholly unnecessary and in fact bad for the hobby



Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> If a player is uncomfortable with the content of Blue Rose, they don't have to play it.  However, demeaning it and those who do want to play it and arguing against its existence is a step beyond that.  Its a step that says, "Not only am I uncomfortable playing characters with a significantly different world view, I'm uncomfortable with acknowledging that those world views exist in my space."




So? Its their space and no one has a right to be included in private space nor does anyone have an obligation to like, respect or even tolerate anyone else in that private space.   

In fact  everyone will find it copacetic to stay out of each others ways. Anti Trans or Gay  or even Racist  gamers  don't need reeducation, they need to be left alone to their own space and if that space has no room for interesting differences, its on them. They aren't hurting you by excluding you and as i said, you don't have a right to inclusion. If they prefer MYFAROG to Blue Rose, so be it. 

On those grounds I'd like to prevent a TTRPG version of the underlying cause of the   Gamergate BS, For the love of dice, do not try to hijack other peoples resources for your political agenda when a lot of people in the tangential hobby don't share it or just don't care.Instead make the games you want and offer them to the market and knowing gamers you'll sell plenty.  Blue Rose sold very well because it was great end of story, take advantage of the low cost of entry to make  make great games and they'll sell. 

The only way for a free country or an open hobby  to work is when you run into unpleasant opinions re: gender identity ex roles, violence,  sexual preference, race and all that  the solution is to address the points with facts if you feel like it in any case accept that a lot of people have opinions you aren't going to like, won't change  their mind and there is nothing you can or should do about it,.  You don't need to police public discourse in gaming like some Stalinist putsch just say it like it as and let the  smart  people figure it out. I have  a lot of confidence in gamers to make good calls and you should too.  This is also why I have a serious issue with the guys at Evil Hat  pushing the satirical Gamergate card game off DTRPG, its shows they don't respect me to make my own choices, have no confidence in me or my fellows  and are willing to use economic muscle to make it harder for me to make those choices. This is the kind of conduct that is a direct insult and one   that leads to a closed off hobby instead of an open one. Green Ronin has to their credit never done that. 

That said if someone wants to buck the trends and chooses to make something that stands out like Blue Rose , Lou Porter or the others do, defend it, let your friends know as GR did  and let the market figure it out. As I said earlier, I am quite far right yet I own a complete collection of Blue Rose, That's what quality does. Its sells games which benefits everyone. 
.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

Not sure I'm understanding your point, here.  You say not to squash opinions, but...what, exactly?  Chris Pramas isn't allowed to make a statement because he owns a game company?  I'm not allowed to agree with and support that statement?  Evil Hat isn't allowed to make a statement by putting out a satirical product?  Help me out here, what's your point?

_Edit: Also, thanks for pointing out another game company that's deserving of more of my money.  I had been planning on checking out Fate.  Now its higher on my list of things to do.  _


----------



## redrick (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> That's the thing about inclusivity, though.  The straight, white, cisgender, male gamer doesn't ever worry about being included, about being represented.  He knows that the game defaults to him and takes it for granted.  Seeing a game make an effort, indeed make it a point, to include folks other than that "default" means we get to feel acknowledged.
> 
> For people who are used to being invisible at best, hated at worst, having a game say, "Hey, you exist and are valued," is so incredibly important that its hard to express.  It is, therefore, likewise important, that Green Ronin and other companies be vocal about taking that stand.
> 
> Being inclusive and being vocal about it is not, in any way, pushing anyone down.  It is saying, "Hey, we want everyone to have an equal space at the game table."




This is a great explanation of the value of active inclusivity. Well said.


----------



## Ace (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Not sure I'm understanding your point, here.  You say not to squash opinions, but...what, exactly?  Chris Pramas isn't allowed to make a statement because he owns a game company?  I'm not allowed to agree with and support that statement?  Evil Hat isn't allowed to make a statement by putting out a satirical product?  Help me out here, what's your point?
> 
> _Edit: Also, thanks for pointing out another game company that's deserving of more of my money.  I had been planning on checking out Fate.  Now its higher on my list of things to do.  _




Evil Hat actually used its presence in the gaming industry to censor a product. Warning here this is the Kotaku subreddit . 

I have a big problem with  censorship and bullying and Evil Hat in this case acted in that fashion.  No humor, no tolerance of divergent opinions  is nothing to be proud of

Now  Evil Hat, they do  make  good games and I don't feel bad about sending them a little  accidental business. In fact  I've played FATE more than a little before . It was fun and free and legal to download. You'll like it. I know I did.  had they not acted as they did, I'd be pushing Dresden files for the group 

The thing is  I do no business with bullies or censors or narrow minded people . The principle of market choice and free speech is more important than they Evil  Hat and bigger than all of us. Its the hobby's prime directive and should not be violated.

 As such I cannot in good conscience play or run  anything Evil Hat  makes . However I won't fault you for doing it and as its your space feel free to play and enjoy their games many of which are high quality  and this won't effect someone who wants to game with me which is I think the difference here. You can play  anything in your space and I won't care so long as it doesn't spill over, The personal  must not be political , there is too much of that already. There are too few of us to support infighting and we geeks need to hang together or our hobby will suffer. 

As for what Pramas did, I have no issue at all. The only reason they aren't selling me any Blue Rose this time out is I already have it all and don't want  any AGE games. Come back with new True 20 or Original System stuff and l OTOH and I'll be there, 

Also your statement here  







> However, demeaning it and those who do want to play it and arguing against its existence is a step beyond that. Its a step that says, "Not only am I uncomfortable playing characters with a significantly different world view, I'm uncomfortable with acknowledging that those world views exist in my space."




Its not about you, really its not. Instead this looks like classic  Entryism and even though I am sympathetic to your feelings on that matter, I simply have to not care, Go play with some other group if you aren't happy and leave the groups who dislike you to their own affairs. I hope that's clear .

After all that understand you and I have more in common gaming  wise than you think   I personally enjoy  interesting and inclusive games and a diverse gaming hobby is generally a good thing  but  keeping that means everyone minds their own business and allows people without rancor or interference to find the games they want . Inclusiveness means intolerant or narrow voices also have value and this hobby benefits   from Carcosa,  Blue Rose and MYFAROG alike. Anything that appears to lay the ground work for a threat to that like entryism needs to be quashed.


----------



## psiconauta_retro (Mar 24, 2015)

I wasn't aware of Blue Rose and this phrase of the 1st post caught my attention: 

"the game tackled a number of diversity and inclusiveness related issues, and those issues are very much the subject of intense - and often unpleasant - debate and conflict today." 

From the other answers I see that there are transgender characters and that the diversity and inclusiveness refers to sexual orientation. Which are the other diversity and inclusiveness related issues it deals with?

It sounds very appealing that, for the appropriate campaigns, there can be more robust rules for social interaction.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 24, 2015)

How do the romantic relationships of BR work?


----------



## remial (Mar 24, 2015)

Ace said:


> Evil Hat actually used its presence in the gaming industry to censor a product. Warning here this is the Kotaku subreddit .




yeah, I went to the developer's web site and bought a copy of his game specifically because Evil Hat didn't want it sold.

Fred Hicks has also attacked Zak S. and Mandy Morbid of "I hit it with my Axe" and "D&D with porn stars" because they don't conform to his idea of what a feminist (or trans friendly) gamer should be.

I believe one of his lines was something along the lines of "Zak S. is one of those people I think should self-abort."


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2015)

We're _not_ bringing those particular conflicts to EN World.   If you want to discuss them, please find a different venue to do so.  Thanks.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 24, 2015)

psiconauta_retro said:


> I wasn't aware of Blue Rose and this phrase of the 1st post caught my attention:
> 
> "the game tackled a number of diversity and inclusiveness related issues, and those issues are very much the subject of intense - and often unpleasant - debate and conflict today."
> 
> ...




Are the diversity and inclusiveness tackled through the rules or just as setting fluff?


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 24, 2015)

While I personally would have preferred them go outside their own house systems for this one and decided to use something more like Cortex Plus Drama as that system is one entirely built around the ideas of relationships being central go your characters and determines a lot about what drives your characters... I am glad this is getting a new edition. 

I am honestly surprised by a lot of the anti-Blue Rose comments that have been stated on this thread though. Its a game that focuses on a different genre of fantasy than most fantasy games, a sub-genre that I think most people might not even have heard much about and definitely lacking in the roleplaying space still. 

I'm excited for it.


----------



## Wolvercote (Mar 24, 2015)

As someone who doesn't care about feeling self-righteous, I will go out on a limb here and say, I'll probably never see this played. It will vanish in the sea of all the other RPGs that don't get played.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2015)

Wolvercote said:


> As someone who doesn't care about feeling self-righteous, I will go out on a limb here and say, I'll probably never see this played.




Yes, but then, it is important to realize that each of us, individually, probably don't see most of the games that are published in play.  There are a *lot* of systems out there, after all.

The important thing is that the system exists for those who would like the sort of game it is designed to produce.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 24, 2015)

Wolvercote said:


> As someone who doesn't care about feeling self-righteous, I will go out on a limb here and say, I'll probably never see this played. It will vanish in the sea of all the other RPGs that don't get played.




I still find it amazing... and I know I shouldn't find it amazing... that in this hobby of a gaming medium where we have the ability and potential capacity to use our imaginations to create and play in all kinds of different kinds of worlds, be them fantasy, sci-fi, post apocalyptic, etc, etc... that there is still this very narrow minded attitude towards a sub-genre of fantasy that is different than the norm that this kind of negative attitude towards it still persists. 

It's really a shame.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Mar 24, 2015)

Ace said:


> That's not your or anyone else's call really,   People need simple neutral, apolitical facts in areas  are interested  in, not an assumed leftism is correct slant  The assumptions you are going by are called entryim  and wholly unnecessary and in fact bad for the hobby




That assumes that "apolitical" is something that is actually common in RPGs. Most RPG settings have underlying political influences and assumptions. Not being aware of these assumptions does not mean they not exist.


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 24, 2015)

I'm excited about it.  After years upon years of fantasy and gaming being drowned in cynicism and grimdark, it'll honestly be a relief to get some hopeful idealism in the place. I've really missed romantic fantasy, and if this helps give that genre a much needed boost I'm more than 100% behind it. 


Truth be told, my first PCs would have been more at home in Blue Rose than constantly banging their heads against the ugly expectations my early D&D experiences were saddled with.  I say bring it on. 


And quite frankly, with all the reactionary Gamergate-ish crap flying around the gaming communities these days, it'll also be nice to have a shining counterpoint to it. 


(and keep the Vata!  I want to make my "drow" fey knight unicorn-rider in a game where he'll work!)


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

My apologies for getting a little riled up last night.

I do want to say this (with apologies to the mods if it crosses a line).

People are not a political issue or an agenda.  There is more to expression and publishing than the almighty dollar.  Sometimes a company wants to make a statement, regardless of the financial fallout.  

And sometimes abuse needs to be called out for what it is.  That's not censorship, its human decency.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you like; it doesn't give you the right to an audience; it doesn't give you the right to a venue other than some random street corner.


----------



## nightspaladin (Mar 24, 2015)

Zaran said:


> P 121. Inspiration. Basically, if your GM thinks you roleplayed your character well you get an Inspiration. You can use that Inspiration to reward other players' roleplaying, or you use it yourself by gaining advantage to any d20 roll .
> 
> If I do say so myself, this single mechanic handles "social, poltical, and romantic relationships" just fine as it encourages role-play.




This! My wife's half orc barbarian has the flaw hopeless romantic. It has feuled a lot of our social, poltical and romantic relationships, and inspiration has been the driver.

Alot of this should be narrative game play. Crunchy rules should be used to define things that have clearer delineated event(hit/and or miss, etc) It's ok to have rules to guide you through how npcs will interact, but if we hard code social activites we end up with the worst end of skill challenges(a good idea, that often played out as a roll and see if i win social engagement). 

This stuff should be handled loosely at best. It's what makes the game an RPG, not a boardgame with a Romance/Social Phase...


----------



## TaiChara (Mar 24, 2015)

There seems to be some confusion over what "romantic fantasy" means.  The genre doesn't have the laser-like focus on specifically romantic-as-in-non-platonic-relationships being assumed -- the definition is somewhat different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_fantasy

So while, yes, there's a certain element of romance-romance at times, that's not the be all and end all of what is meant by the "romantic fantasy" genre.  No, I don't think it's a particularly accurate label at times either ;3


----------



## Blue (Mar 24, 2015)

I'm not taking a swap at 5e - I started with that I greatly enjoy it.  I'm just saying that RPGs with other mechanical focus can also find a niche.

Let me go the the extreme for a moment.  Let's say someone enjoys a wide variety of different RPGs.  The type of campaign that the GM and players want to run will have combat say once every 6-8 sessions.  Is 5e your first choice for a system, or perhaps a system that gives more mechanical focus to the non-combat parts of play, such as FATE with it's aspects?

5e is a great system, and it fits well for the type of game I normally run.  But I can say that other games with a different focus can handle their particular niche well without putting 5e down.


----------



## TreChriron (Mar 24, 2015)

I was hoping for more discussion of the game. :-(

Some people on both sides of these arguments are bad examples of understanding, tolerance and practicing liberty. Free speech means you get to say what you want. That can be hurtful, ignorant and divisive or encouraging, inspiring and helpful. Free speech is both. Of course you don't get a guarantee of an audience, however if anyone can post here, then everyone is the audience. You can't ask some people to "shut up and go to a street corner" because their opinions bother you. Being inclusive is not code for "be nice to my particular group" or worse "the way I think is the right way to think".

If you really want people to be more inclusive, you have to fight for it. This is the hallmark of free speech. It's designed to encourage debate. Discussion opens people's minds. It exposes them to ideas that are "alien" to them. We all have a perfect echo chamber in our minds. The goal with free speech is to enlighten those who don't see things from your perspective. For example: Kiraya want's to create a "safe place for LGBTQ+" gamers (as per your signature). However, is that what you really want? How can you possibly share your thoughts on being a LGBTQ gamer, build an inclusive environment, and bring awareness to issues in a "safe place"? I would posit you don't want a safe place if you really want to be a force for change. I don't care if you think homophobes and misogynists suck. I already know that. What I DO care about is your opinion. How you game. What I can do to make my games appeal to you. What I want to see is you being a part of the community at large. The community is never going to be served by stifling opinions or segregation. Free speech is a cornerstone of an inclusive community. If you want to be heard you have to listen.

I would encourage everyone to seek first to understand, then to be understood (Stephen Covery - wise man . Some people are scared of things they don't understand. This is actually a common human condition. If you have never talked to a "different" person (someone outside your "norm"), that person could be seen as terrifying. Look at nearly every conservative in the US who speaks out against gay marriage until one of their children comes out as gay. Then all of a sudden they are for gay marriage. Why? It's easy to dehumanize something that is not personal. The point of free speech, open debate and our exchanges are just for that! To make our relationships personal. You also have to be prepared that some people are simply not going to agree. That's ok. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Focus on the good. Focus on the progress. Don't silence people or take away free speech or censor things. That's the wrong direction. Keep speaking out. Keep saying what you want to say. Be inclusive. Lead by example. Keep fighting for what you believe in. That spirit, that open exchange, that liberty... is what creates a strong inclusive community.

Everyone deserves a voice. If you get an audience so does the person you don't agree with. This is liberty.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

Regarding settings, Dragonlance is, to me, a romantic fantasy setting.  It doesn't have the innate, almost psychic magic of other settings in the genre, but it does have the focus on relationships (political, romantic, and social).  

The original Blue Rose (True20 version) didn't use game mechanics to deal with those sorts of interactions (as I recall, I only got the chance to GM it once and that didn't last very long), relying on the setting and character backgrounds to convey relationships and their importance.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2015)

TreChriron said:


> I was hoping for more discussion of the game. :-(
> 
> Some people on both sides of these arguments are bad examples of understanding, tolerance and practicing liberty. Free speech means you get to say what you want. That can be hurtful, ignorant and divisive or encouraging, inspiring and helpful. Free speech is both. Of course you don't get a guarantee of an audience, however if anyone can post here, then everyone is the audience. You can't ask some people to "shut up and go to a street corner" because their opinions bother you. Being inclusive is not code for "be nice to my particular group" or worse "the way I think is the right way to think".
> 
> ...




That's quite the civics essay! But I don't think anybody here or from Green Ronin has tried to say that people don't have the right to say what they want, or attacked the notion of free speech.  The only person who has is me, who has asked people to keep certain topics off EN World. If you want more discussion of the game, feel free to discuss the game!


----------



## TreChriron (Mar 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's quite the civics essay! But I don't think anybody here or from Green Ronin has tried to say that people don't have the right to say what they want, or attacked the notion of free speech.  The only person who has is me, who has asked people to keep certain topics off EN World. If you want more discussion of the game, feel free to discuss the game!




I like Blue Rose. I think it's a creative setting and I look forward to what they do with it and the AGE system (which know very little about).

I would love to see some links and discussion of the AGE system, and how people who have played it feel it will support the themes in Blue Rose.

For example, in the True 20 version there is conviction. I think it was a cool "willpower" type mechanic that spoke more to "what I believe" than "I dig deep and grit my teeth"  Also, the virtues and vices generally modeled after the 7 sins and virtues. You could earn conviction for following your virtue and more if you succumbed to your vice! I imagine some of this would be supported in the new game. Are there mechanics like this in Dragon Age?


----------



## Allensh (Mar 24, 2015)

dm4hire said:


> I also hope this wasn't their big announcement for the AGE system.  Blue Rose is a nice setting, but it doesn't seem like that big news.  I own all the books and still run into several people that when they see the books in a store are unaware it has been around for awhile.  It wasn't that big of a game when it first came out.




It isn't. The other announcement comes later.

Allen


----------



## Allensh (Mar 24, 2015)

TreChriron said:


> I liked the original game. True20 was refreshing take on the d20 mechanics. I'm not as familiar with AGE system, but I think I need to pick up some Dragon Age when the hardcover comes out.
> 
> Anyone played AGE? Thoughts?




It's my favorite system, even over D&D 5e, which I do really like. I love the stunt system, I love the way it handles classes, I enjoy the Dragon Age setting and magic system and I am looking forward to Blue Rose as well.

Allen


----------



## redrick (Mar 24, 2015)

TreChriron said:


> If you really want people to be more inclusive, you have to fight for it. This is the hallmark of free speech. It's designed to encourage debate. Discussion opens people's minds. It exposes them to ideas that are "alien" to them. We all have a perfect echo chamber in our minds. The goal with free speech is to enlighten those who don't see things from your perspective. For example: Kiraya want's to create a "safe place for LGBTQ+" gamers (as per your signature). However, is that what you really want? How can you possibly share your thoughts on being a LGBTQ gamer, build an inclusive environment, and bring awareness to issues in a "safe place"? I would posit you don't want a safe place if you really want to be a force for change. I don't care if you think homophobes and misogynists suck. I already know that. What I DO care about is your opinion. How you game. What I can do to make my games appeal to you. What I want to see is you being a part of the community at large. The community is never going to be served by stifling opinions or segregation. Free speech is a cornerstone of an inclusive community. If you want to be heard you have to listen.




Fair points, but it's important to note that a "safe space" and "being a force for change" aren't really meant to address the same thing. The need for defined safe spaces is because, unfortunately, a lot of spaces are, by default, _not safe_ for all people. We create safe spaces because everyone deserves to have a place where they can relax and not get slammed by misogynistic, racist, homophobic or transphobic or any other form of targeted, hateful speech or behavior. And yeah, we do that by shutting down a certain aspect of free speech in those spaces, and, as a result, so-called "safe spaces" are probably not places that folks who really want to exercise their right to free speech by saying bigoted things are going to hang out. Which makes them bad places to go about going all "force for change" up in these individuals' faces.

But folks can (and do!) choose to walk out of that safe space and into the den of the lion to engage in all sorts of debate and conversation. And, while I wouldn't exactly call EnWorld the den of the lion, I'd say that seems to be what Kiraya was doing earlier. Articulating the value of active inclusion in our hobby.


----------



## TreChriron (Mar 24, 2015)

redrick said:


> Fair points...
> 
> But folks can (and do!) choose to walk out of that safe space and into the den of the lion to engage in all sorts of debate and conversation. And, while I wouldn't exactly call EnWorld the den of the lion, I'd say that seems to be what Kiraya was doing earlier. Articulating the value of active inclusion in our hobby.




Good (and understood).


----------



## Ace (Mar 24, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> That assumes that "apolitical" is something that is actually common in RPGs. Most RPG settings have underlying political influences and assumptions. Not being aware of these assumptions does not mean they not exist.






Jürgen Hubert said:


> That assumes that "apolitical" is something that is actually common in RPGs. Most RPG settings have underlying political influences and assumptions. Not being aware of these assumptions does not mean they not exist.




That's true enough

Think of this as a variant of O'Sullivan's First Law , All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. If you don't step in covert Leftism creeping into games of the hobby, it will zerg-creep the hobby far to the Left and co-opt it as a tool for Progressivism and say D&D 7 will end up Race with Us rather than a game  For a large number of gamer's ,a little is enough and many of us simply don't want that to happen.  

Let me use an example of an existing game, Dark Heresy  , a fairly apolitical description might be "In the  41st Millennium the players play Inquisitors of the God Emperor who seeks out Chaos, Heresy and protect the Empire using any means necessary" and let the reader figure out whether torture and murder are appropriate in game, how they feel about these things in real life and avoid unnecessary commentary .

And my group plays this game regularly, we don't do those things in game but we also don't need some scold telling us games are wrong and those cultural slips to PC are quite common. I want the larger forces of the hobby to remain open to Right and Left ideas alike and unless entrysim is quashed, it won't. The hobby will go on no matter what do to the low cost of entry but its fine the way it is and political correctness getting involved is not welcome, 

And note I don't see Blue Rose doing this at all, its overt, on the cover and clear. I find Aldis a bit silly in places, I actually thought your capsule review  was pretty spot on however and a great example of politically neutral without value judgement that I was  aiming for,  

And yes I did notice a bit of snark about family formation , that's fine. Its fact based, as that's how retirement was handled in most of history.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Mar 24, 2015)

dd.stevenson said:


> I'm always on the lookout for new and interesting mechanics, especially if they can be stolen for use in D&D.
> 
> 
> Chris Pramas has a really unfortunate habit of using the "if you disagree with me then #$%^ you" formula to make his points. Personally I find it rankles (a lot), even when I'm in full agreement with what he's saying.




Interesting...and quite true. A shame really, because I think Blue Rose can and should stand on its own merits as a "romantic fantasy" game that might emphasize the social/romantic elements over sticking swords in people (although ironically those gals I know such as my wife would prefer an equal mix of both). Touting it as a tool of social justice clouds the waters on what it really is: which is a game that may get more widespread acceptance thanks to an already existing shift in our general culture as hobbyists, rather than as the instrument of that change.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

Regarding my signature - My goal with Kiraya's Korner is to create a safe space for diverse gamers to converse with like-minded folks, away from the often hostile environments of places like Twitter (or even here, though EN World is a hell of a lot more civil than Twitter has been lately), without having to worry about defending themselves and their opinions.  It'll be a place to take a break from being a force for change and just be a gamer.  It'll also be a place to hide, when the fight gets too overwhelming.  It won't be a place for debate or arguing or "social justice warrioring" - it'll be a place for the warriors to relax, dress their wounds, and then head back out in to the fray with renewed vigor and confidence.

That's the goal, anyway.


----------



## Ace (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> My apologies for getting a little riled up last night.
> 
> 
> People are not a political issue or an agenda.  There is more to expression and publishing than the almighty dollar.  Sometimes a company wants to make a statement, regardless of the financial fallout.
> ...




These things matter to you. Its understandable 

To your points, everything in the human sphere is political and even the value of tolerance as vs. what society demands and even what decency is in inherently political. Agreed that there is more reasons to publish than money though and I'll note  Blue Rose  was profitable AFAIK,  heck they got my money didn't they  I'm not anti-tolerance even if I think Aldea is silly 

Calling about perceived abuse is fine  but yes using economic leverage to censor ideas is wrong. Imagine if the Right was in charge , a corporate version of HUAC shutting down businesses who ideas were not acceptable to the Far Right would be just as bad , imagine if Run-By Publishing got this treatment " publish Red  Daisy  and that "abusive" unnatural junk  and you'll never see any money from Good Socks and were number #5." That's what I  am trying to avoid  .


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2015)

Ace said:


> Think of this as a variant of O'Sullivan's First Law , All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.





Folks,

While we do allow some discussion of sexism and racism within our hobby, broadly speaking, EN World otherwise has a No Real-World Politics rule.  The above, I'm sorry to say, is getting into general political theory, and is over the line.

Let us keep it to discussion that's particular to RPGs, please.  Thanks all.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

Ace said:


> These things matter to you. Its understandable
> 
> To your points, everything in the human sphere is political and even the value of tolerance as vs. what society demands and even what decency is in inherently political. Agreed that there is more reasons to publish than money though and I'll note  Blue Rose  was profitable AFAIK,  heck they got my money didn't they  I'm not anti-tolerance even if I think Aldea is silly
> 
> Calling about perceived abuse is fine  but yes using economic leverage to censor ideas is wrong. Imagine if the Right was in charge , a corporate version of HUAC shutting down businesses who ideas were not acceptable to the Far Right would be just as bad , imagine if Run-By Publishing got this treatment " publish Red  Daisy  and that "abusive" unnatural junk  and you'll never see any money from Good Socks and were number #5." That's what I  am trying to avoid  .




These sorts of tactics are commonly used by a variety of companies in a variety of industries for a variety of reasons.  Its not the exclusive province of niche game publishers.  It is a valid tactic and it is up to the venue involved whether and how they will respond.  

For example - http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Statement_Regarding_SB101.pdf 

_Edit: Regarding Umbran's post above, if the link crosses the line, my apologies and I'll remove it.  It, in my opinion, straddles the line._


----------



## Ace (Mar 24, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Regarding my signature - My goal with Kiraya's Korner is to create a safe space for diverse gamers to converse with like-minded folks, away from the often hostile environments of places like Twitter (or even here, though EN World is a hell of a lot more civil than Twitter has been lately), without having to worry about defending themselves and their opinions.  It'll be a place to take a break from being a force for change and just be a gamer.  It'll also be a place to hide, when the fight gets too overwhelming.  It won't be a place for debate or arguing or "social justice warrioring" - it'll be a place for the warriors to relax, dress their wounds, and then head back out in to the fray with renewed vigor and confidence.
> 
> That's the goal, anyway.




  I'd advise starting a forum of your own for that, by invitation and see where it goes. Hosting is fairly inexpensive, sometimes free with adds  and the tools are all out there and so much easier to use than when Eric and the other started this site. A little moderating  should create the safe space y'all want .  

I was here when ENWorld started as basically a water cooler for 3e  gossip and its a major player now you may manage the same. 

Good luck.


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 24, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Folks,
> 
> While we do allow some discussion of sexism and racism within our hobby, broadly speaking, EN World otherwise has a No Real-World Politics rule.  The above, I'm sorry to say, is getting into general political theory, and is over the line.
> 
> Let us keep it to discussion that's particular to RPGs, please.  Thanks all.




Unfortunately, there is no way to discuss this game without discussing political theory. This game is being marketed as an agent of social change; hence, to discuss it is to discuss the social change they want to bring and use this game and its Kickstarter as Green Ronin's tool of choice.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 24, 2015)

Allensh said:


> It's my favorite system, even over D&D 5e, which I do really like. I love the stunt system, I love the way it handles classes, I enjoy the Dragon Age setting and magic system and I am looking forward to Blue Rose as well.



What kind of stunt system does it have? I'm always a bit leery of those.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 24, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> Unfortunately, there is no way to discuss this game without discussing political theory.




Well, if you cannot find a way to discuss the game without discussing political theory, then you can't discuss it.  But I think you are suffering tunnel vision here.



> This game is being marketed as an agent of social change; hence, to discuss it is to discuss the social change they want to bring...




The game is more than its marketing.  You could discuss the actual *game*, rather than is marketing.  You could discuss how maybe the marketing is less about bringing about social change, and more about putting something forth to and for an under-served portion of the gaming market.  You could discuss the impact upon people at tables - not so much about Left and Right, but about Joe and Jane.


----------



## nomotog (Mar 24, 2015)

What do we know about the game? I have been pecking for info here and there, but haven't found too much and I kind of assume that they will end up changing things in the new edition.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 24, 2015)

Has anyone around here play or have read the original BR? If so how do the rules support the genre? What is the setting like?  How do the rules and/or setting support diversity and inclusiveness?


----------



## Fergurg (Mar 24, 2015)

*Mod Edit:*  My apologies - I gave you the wrong impression.  Discussing moderation here was an exception to our standard operating procedure, and I didn't make that clear.  I was making a clarification, not inviting free-for-all discussion.

From this point on, if you have a problem with the moderator directives, please take them to e-mail or PM.  Let us not clutter up the thread with this further.  Thank you.

~Umbran


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 24, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> Has anyone around here play or have read the original BR? If so how do the rules support the genre? What is the setting like?  How do the rules and/or setting support diversity and inclusiveness?




I read it and ran one session.  Most of the diverse qualities were present in the setting as opposed to the rules.  The rules were an early form of what became True20 and were thus somewhat...I don't want to say generic, but applicable to a variety of settings and genres, with Blue Rose being the first sample setting, so to speak.

My impression was the rules took some of the concepts from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (generic classes in particular) and then ran with them.  The setting was ok for what it was trying to do but could have used a bit more conflict and/or bad guys.  I am very much in support of Blue Rose, but I would like to see the setting be a little less idyllic and/or have a bit more detail on villains/creatures/events that threaten that idyllic setting.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 25, 2015)

I hope they focus this edition of Blue Rose as a genre book of romantic fantasy with examples of different setting tools and examples so we can then use those tools to create our own settings in this genre. I also hope they go over a lot of the fantasy novels that make up this genre and show how this take on the AGE system can be used to pull it off. 

As for everything else being discussed... I think the only reason they made the comment about BR bringing awareness to being inclusive is because back in 2005 I can't remember any other RPG actually making it really a part of its game design motif and it being a game about romantic fantasy, which is a genre where one of the main elements of this genre of fantasy is dealing with the ideas of being aware of the differences between people and life, forming relationships and coming together of communities and even a kingdom where everybody is accepted and the relationships that form truly matter. Life, nature, and inclusiveness matter within the majority of romantic fantasy, as that's just how this particular genre of fantasy simply is.

So yes any game based on romantic fantasy must go over all these topics... Not as any political statement but because its quite genre specific and appropriate and it kinda has to be noted in any advertising about the game because it relates to what romantic fantasy is all about so we all can then decide for ourselves to support it or not. 

I'd like go know how the AGE system will pull this off. I plan on getting the Dragon Age RPG when it comes out and from what I have seen of the DA: Inquisition game, which does quite a lot of romance in it... Maybe AGE system will work.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 25, 2015)

I've been collecting the Dragon Age RPG, though, sadly, I haven't gotten a chance to play it, yet.  The Dragon Age video games are also at the forefront of being inclusive with the range of relationship options in the games and the inclusion of Krem, a transgender NPC, in Dragon Age: Inquisition.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Mar 25, 2015)

If you want to look at other settings with politicial leanings embedded within them:

World of Darkness: Left-wing horror, since it focuses on alienation of the self from society.
Call of Cthulhu: Right-wing horror, since it presents human society as something fragile that needs to be protected against the alien Other at all costs.

That doesn't mean either can't be enjoyed by gamers of particular political leaning, but these games were never really "apolitical" in the first place.


----------



## Mikaze (Mar 25, 2015)

Well this is certainly timely considering what's going on with Gencon. 

Personally I was onboard primarily for optimistic, non-grimdark fantasy with the inclusiveness simply deeply appreciated.  Now I'm grateful for it on a very different level.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 25, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> I read it and ran one session.  Most of the diverse qualities were present in the setting as opposed to the rules.  The rules were an early form of what became True20 and were thus somewhat...I don't want to say generic, but applicable to a variety of settings and genres, with Blue Rose being the first sample setting, so to speak.
> 
> My impression was the rules took some of the concepts from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (generic classes in particular) and then ran with them.  The setting was ok for what it was trying to do but could have used a bit more conflict and/or bad guys.  I am very much in support of Blue Rose, but I would like to see the setting be a little less idyllic and/or have a bit more detail on villains/creatures/events that threaten that idyllic setting.




My impression was much the same. I liked the setting quite a lot, but it was also a bit...vanilla (?) and could have used more sophistication, I think. But it was also recognizably true to the foundation upon which it rested. The Blue Rose books are some of the few that I kept when I sold most of my d20 collection.

True20, which evolved out of Blue Rose, had a lot of potential. Personally, I couldn't stand it's presentation and graphic design. It looked good in BR, and terrible in the "core" True20 books. It went too generic.


----------



## shamsael (Mar 25, 2015)

Eirikrautha said:


> (and don't let the Anita Sarkeesians of the world hear that you've reduced a woman's love to something you roll dice for... their heads would explode)!




I'm not a feminist by any stretch, but this argument is ridiculous.  Let's pretend we don't already reduce to a die roll a living creature's ability to survive despite the protagonist's righteous desire to kill it.

Not being an Anita Sarkeesian myself I can't say for sure, but I would bet that if the same die roll governs the love of any creature, man or woman, there's by definition no sexism involved.


----------



## shamsael (Mar 25, 2015)

Isn't fantasy supposed to be about imagining a life you couldn't otherwise live?  I'm sad to think that there are enough people in the world with a lack of real world romance and politics that we can support an RPG based on imagining them.


----------



## TreChriron (Mar 25, 2015)

shamsael said:


> Isn't fantasy supposed to be about imagining a life you couldn't otherwise live?  I'm sad to think that there are enough people in the world with a lack of real world romance and politics that we can support an RPG based on imagining them.




I imagine a world someday where we don't toss a group of people under the bus as having a "lack of romance and politics". Or what about "I find it sad to think that there are enough people in the world with a lack of conflict and adventure that we can support an RPG based on imagining them..."

Let's start with your original supposition. "Imagining a life you couldn't otherwise live" Excellent. So, can I otherwise live these?



Playing a sentient animal who is a spy for the White Witch, watching the human lands to ensure policies don't ruin the untouched north...
Playing a courtier in a "medieval realm" castle surrounded by fellow courtiers from the Elven, Dwarven, Orcish and Gnomish lands...
(as a hetero-male) playing a homosexual lover to the Prince who is constantly harried by his evil uncle who wants to usurp the throne...

I mean. The list goes on and on. Fantasy is fantasy. Maybe I like to insert a little political or romantic themes into the mix? When I fantasize about make-believe I don't want to jump head first into current headlines (they already hurt my soul). I want to escape. And you may have a perfect romantic life, but maybe some of us want to fantasize about other romantic possibilities?

You may not want to (or see the "need" to... whatever that word is doing in our discussion about hobby happy times...) play Blue Rose, but can't those of us who might be interested have the game?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> If you want to look at other settings with politicial leanings embedded within them:
> 
> World of Darkness: Left-wing horror, since it focuses on alienation of the self from society.
> Call of Cthulhu: Right-wing horror, since it presents human society as something fragile that needs to be protected against the alien Other at all costs.
> ...




I'll grant that oWoD was not apolitical, but not for the reasons you metion - I'd cite that it had clearly stated themes of environmental protection (Werewolf) and conspiracy The-Man-Is-Out-To-Get-You (Mage's Technocracy).

But trying to stuff Call of Cthulhu into that mold on the basis of the antagonist seems pretty much over-analyzing.  Sometimes a beast from the deeps is just a beast from the deeps.


----------



## shamsael (Mar 26, 2015)

Fair enough. I didn't realize the setting was so 'fantastical'.  The complaints leveled on this thread implied that it was lacking in the sorts of things you just mentioned.

And for the record, yes: there is a distinct lack of dungeon delving and monster slaying in my real life experience.


----------



## TreChriron (Mar 26, 2015)

shamsael said:


> ...
> 
> And for the record, yes: there is a distinct lack of dungeon delving and monster slaying in my real life experience.




Me too! I guess we should be happy? I mean, testing software has thus so far been a somewhat safe profession...


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Mar 27, 2015)

shamsael said:


> Isn't fantasy supposed to be about imagining a life you couldn't otherwise live?  I'm sad to think that there are enough people in the world with a lack of real world romance and politics that we can support an RPG based on imagining them.




In defense of the concept, my wife and her cohorts who do engage in a lot of online RP that involves romance mostly seem to focus on the obsession with tall buff gay blood elves and other oddities which, I can assure you, are completely not part of RL. So there is just as much fantasy in romance as there is in monster slaying.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 28, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> Has anyone around here play or have read the original BR? If so how do the rules support the genre? What is the setting like?  How do the rules and/or setting support diversity and inclusiveness?




I have the original BR. I would not say that the 'rules support the genre' specifically; the original rules with only a few small changes went on to be able to support pretty much any genre. Perhaps they mean that the rules do a better job of supporting the genre than many others, since they are written with the idea of customizing your PC to a significant degree, and that there are rules for social contact, etc. 

Many of the adept paths reflect character archetypes usually found in romantic fantasy: shapeshifters, healers, psychics, etc. A lot of the magic will also be familiar - there are lots of 'shaping' spells, much like in ElfQuest. There is discussion of romance, conviction, your reputation score, and several other 'soft' aspects of role-playing. Really, even having those sections in there perhaps goes a long way to saying that the 'rules support the genre'. 

The setting owes a great deal to Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar - there are intelligent animals here and there, the main civilization is a pre-industrial one where the rulers are 'vetted' by a magical force for good, the culture of the main civilization is very open and inclusive of what we might call 'non-traditional' romance - fluidly bisexual and same-sex pairings are not treated any differently, gender roles are very blurred, etc. They adopt the Valdemarian idea of 'there is no One True Way' to anything, and so remain a very flexible and adaptable culture. One of their chief enemies has a very unforgiving religion that act as rulers, though they don't go for the 'religion is evil' trope. They are treated as a very harsh and conformist culture that I seem to remember has some reasons for being that way.

That would make BR the first game setting to even talk about that subject matter at any real length, other than perhaps a sentence or two here and there. Any depiction of non-traditional romance or gender roles is very, very rare in most game settings - heck, outside of oWoD you might never see even a mention of it, never guess that it occurred - and that was doubly true at the time the original game was written.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 29, 2015)

Eirikrautha said:


> I'm trying to think of a way to marry romance/relationships and game mechanics and I just can't make those ideas fit together.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Here are some examples I can think of:

In The Riddle of Steel and HeroWars/Quest, action taken in furtherance of a relationship gains bonuses;

In Burning Wheel, action taken that pertains to a relationship (furthers it, comes into conflict with it) earns fate points;

In Gygax's AD&D, kind and generous treatment of a friend, henchman or servitor increases their loyalty, which means they are less likely to betray or abandon you.​
I'm sure there are plenty of others from different RPGs over the years and decades.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 29, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> If you want to look at other settings with politicial leanings embedded within them:
> 
> World of Darkness: Left-wing horror, since it focuses on alienation of the self from society.
> Call of Cthulhu: Right-wing horror, since it presents human society as something fragile that needs to be protected against the alien Other at all costs.
> ...




I refuse to view life through a lens of politics.   While it is I guess in some sense true that World of Darkness encodes for modern "left-wing" values simply because the writers held these values in a sort of stereotypical way - back in the '90's a book buyer I knew hated to call World of Darkness because, as he put it, "you could smell the smoke hanging in the air all the way through the phone."  But even so, I don't think you can simplify the World of Darkness down to "alienation from self" nor can I think you call something as generic as "alienation of the self" an inherently left-wing fear or experience.  The very modern of the moment liberal politics of the writers show up in much more overt ways than that.  

Still, "chaos" and "lawful" mean far more and have far more coherent definitions than "left-wing" and "right-wing".   You might as well say that people really are "chaotic" or "lawful" as say they are "left-wing" and "right-wing".  If you think alignment arguments are useless, perhaps you should try a mixed political forum and try to get agreement about what words like 'left-wing', 'right-wing', 'liberal', and 'conservative' mean.  I assure you, no alignment discussion every generated as many contradictory opinions as you'll get regarding such words.  'Liberal' is particularly bad because the English word also has about a half-dozen unrelated meanings to its political meaning, and this fact is often not known to users of the word who will assume all uses of it refer to the same thing, and worse its political meaning has demonstrably changed radically over the course of its existence (and equally "conservative" means radically different things geographically, and is almost equally misused).

And you simplification of the horror of Lovecraft down to "fear of the alien" and "fear of societal destruction", and your equation of those fears and experiences with inherently "right-wing" is even more strained.  For me, the big fears in Lovecraft are fear of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, fear of quantum spaces, fear of the big bang, fear of the heat death of the universe, fear of general relativity, fear of cosmological vastness, and the general fear that the faith of the Enlightenment that the world could be made sensible had ultimately shown through those very tools a world which was provably unknowable, alien, and incomprehensible.  That's not an inherently left-wing or right-wing problem.  And fear of the unknown is very much a human fear, and as such is inherently apolitical.  It's not as if Lovecraft himself had any sort of easily classified political leaning, especially not in the trivial - and meaningless - way the words are used to refer to modern political parties.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2015)

Lovecraftian horror is also based in the existence of powerful, otherworldly beings who- contrary to all such beings in mainstream human religion, in which humans are loved or hated by the gods- generally care for us less than humans care for gnats.  Not hate, not love, but supreme indifference.  As such, it is lying an uncomfortable theological space between religion and atheism.

That's not political, that's psychological.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Mar 30, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Lovecraftian horror is also based in the existence of powerful, otherworldly beings who- contrary to all such beings in mainstream human religion, in which humans are loved or hated by the gods- generally care for us less than humans care for gnats.  Not hate, not love, but supreme indifference.  As such, it is lying an uncomfortable theological space between religion and atheism.
> 
> That's not political, that's psychological.




This is often rather hard to separate, with Lovecraft. Lovecraft himself was very reactionary, not to mention racist. His loathing of miscegenation echoes in "The Shadow over Innsmouth", and his story "He" could be interpreted as "Guy freaks out because some Asians have a Rave Party in Future New York". "The Horror at Red Hook" also has deeply racist overtones, and likely do a number of other of his stories which I forgot.

I mean, I enjoy Lovecraft's stories as much as the next guy, but his stories aren't "apolitical". And the Cthulhu Mythos originated from his writings first and foremost. We can try to remove all the racist undertones from his writings - and we probably should - but many of the fears that his stories and the Mythos as a whole tap into are the same fears that are frequently tapped into by right-wing political leaders and pundits.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 30, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Here are some examples I can think of:
> 
> In The Riddle of Steel and HeroWars/Quest, action taken in furtherance of a relationship gains bonuses;
> 
> ...




Pendragon is the oldest I'm aware of. You can roll against your passions (which include relationships) for a bonus (or penalty if you fail) on actions which serve to advance those passions.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 30, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Lovecraft himself was very reactionary, not to mention racist. His loathing of miscegenation echoes in "The Shadow over Innsmouth", and his story "He" could be interpreted as "Guy freaks out because some Asians have a Rave Party in Future New York". "The Horror at Red Hook" also has deeply racist overtones, and likely do a number of other of his stories which I forgot.



"Call of Cthulhu" is the first HPL story that comes to my mind that fits your description.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 30, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> This is often rather hard to separate, with Lovecraft. Lovecraft himself was very reactionary, not to mention racist.




My understanding is that from some of his personal writings we know he was racist.  But one needs to be very, very, very careful about how one interprets literature.  Don't confuse "reflective of his personal psychology" with "political".  

Just because we can make an analogy, does not mean that analogy existed for the writer.  To be "political" that analogy has to be intentional, and intended to be read as a statement about real world things.  Otherwise, it is at worst merely a reflection of his inner fears and hates, rather than a statement on how the real world should be governed.  

Overall, just like with people on the boards, we have to be careful about attributing motives to authors.  We can create what we think are plausible reasons why a thing was written, but just because they hang together, doesn't mean that narrative we build is correct.  Unless the writer made a statement to the effect, we must remember it is an *interpretation* of the work.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Mar 30, 2015)

I think a BR reboot is a spledid idea - if the political aspect of the game is not stressed too much. Like, people do not need to be educated through a game, and especially with the traditional, all-male nerdy RPG groups, the step from "embracing diversity" to "reenacting the Albert Goodman scenes from 'The Birdcage'" is relatively small.

I remember that the original Blue Rose intro adventure, about a romance between a captain and his squire (or something) was the funniest game we ever ran. And for all the wrong reasons.

The setting, and the ruleset were pretty interesting, though. Some unconventional ideas, and, most importantly, ideas that were expressed well in writing.

In short, I would buy this one. I *will* buy this one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 30, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> This is often rather hard to separate, with Lovecraft. Lovecraft himself was very reactionary, not to mention racist. His loathing of miscegenation echoes in "The Shadow over Innsmouth", and his story "He" could be interpreted as "Guy freaks out because some Asians have a Rave Party in Future New York". "The Horror at Red Hook" also has deeply racist overtones, and likely do a number of other of his stories which I forgot.
> 
> I mean, I enjoy Lovecraft's stories as much as the next guy, but his stories aren't "apolitical". And the Cthulhu Mythos originated from his writings first and foremost. We can try to remove all the racist undertones from his writings - and we probably should - but many of the fears that his stories and the Mythos as a whole tap into are the same fears that are frequently tapped into by right-wing political leaders and pundits.



IMHO, HPL's stuff wasn't as deeply racist as some say- I'd say that his reactions to those "others" were an extrapolation of how he might feel as a racist extended to those even more fundamentally different to humanity than someone with a different melanin content in their skin.

How racist HPL himself was, well...that's a different matter.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Mar 30, 2015)

I wrote it somewhere else, recently: I find it deeply ridiculous to pretend as if writers aren't people of their time. And the only thing worse than that, I think, is to try and relativize their racism, or rather, general bigotry, because one now considers it somehow "unfashionable", and because it makes certain topics difficult to adapt for modern audiences.

Now, no offense, but it seems to me that American culture has not yet found balance on the issue - and I don't need to point out current political issues to make that argument. This reductionism could be counterbalanced if people were not trying to market the original works, *instead of the adaptational works*, as the defining reason to buy, or to read. 

Is it really so hard for otherwise responsible fellow adults to admit that we like a story's overall theme, but not the message? That we read, whatever, Ivanhoe, as a tale about knights, and not as a disccussion about Judaism?   Or, for that matter, Lovecraft as a story of monsters, and not of white man angst?


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 30, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> This is often rather hard to separate, with Lovecraft. Lovecraft himself was very reactionary, not to mention racist. His loathing of miscegenation echoes in "The Shadow over Innsmouth", and his story "He" could be interpreted as "Guy freaks out because some Asians have a Rave Party in Future New York". "The Horror at Red Hook" also has deeply racist overtones, and likely do a number of other of his stories which I forgot.




Lovecraft in his personal letters and in various writings would be considered extremely racist today; how racist he'd be considered in his time, is really debatable. Don't rely solely on depictions in the media, movies, etc that take creative license to tell a story.

Also, and this also goes to the question of politics too, like most people he changed over time - after living in New York, getting married, experiencing poverty, and the like.



Jürgen Hubert said:


> I mean, I enjoy Lovecraft's stories as much as the next guy, but his stories aren't "apolitical". And the Cthulhu Mythos originated from his writings first and foremost. We can try to remove all the racist undertones from his writings - and we probably should - but many of the fears that his stories and the Mythos as a whole tap into are the same fears that are frequently tapped into by right-wing political leaders and pundits.




Nitpick - Lovecraft never used the term Cthulhu Mythos, and as many people understand it, that was a creation of August Derleth and how he interpreted the works of HPL.

I do think there were some political undertones in HPLs works - ST Joshi's "Decline of the West" book about HPL goes into philosophical and political topics, but you are making a creative leap to associate him with right wing political leaders.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 30, 2015)

Raphael Pinthus said:


> Is it really so hard for otherwise responsible fellow adults to admit that we like a story's overall theme, but not the message? That we read, whatever, Ivanhoe, as a tale about knights, and not as a disccussion about Judaism?   Or, for that matter, Lovecraft as a story of monsters, and not of white man angst?




Historically, academics - true scholars and scientists - judge a work on its own merits, or as a part of a body of work, and in context. The creator stands apart from that.

The problem is that there's a non-scholar political sort that has already created their own political narrative, and historical works, for them, exist only to validate their positions (and at the expense of the work or its author). Sadly its not particularly new. Thanks to the internet, the volume is though.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 30, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> Historically, academics - true scholars and scientists - judge a work on its own merits, or as a part of a body of work, and in context. The creator stands apart from that.




That pretty much exposes this strain of historical literary criticism as incomplete (so much for those "true scholars and scientists"). It's impossible to divorce the creator from the context of the work and have a comprehensive context. Ultimately, this is why there are different methods and focuses of literary criticism, none of which have "The Answer" and all of which can inform the interested reader about the merits, context, and role of a particular work.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 30, 2015)

billd91 said:


> That pretty much exposes this strain of historical literary criticism as incomplete (so much for those "true scholars and scientists"). It's impossible to divorce the creator from the context of the work and have a comprehensive context. Ultimately, this is why there are different methods and focuses of literary criticism, none of which have "The Answer" and all of which can inform the interested reader about the merits, context, and role of a particular work.




It is. Scholars also understand that there isn't any one final "Answer".

Many historical literary works exist that have no identifiable creator, so then is it impossible to make an analysis of them?

The creator stands apart except when its relevant to the inquiry - but not all inquiries. You can analyze a work and take into account what is knowable about the creator. Or you can completely ignore that if its not relevant. It isn't a requirement.

For example, I can analyze the Alexander Pope translation of the Aneid on the basis of his choices of putting it into meter that makes sense in English, rather that norms found in the Latin of the time in which Virgil wrote it. It isn't necessary to take into account Pope's sexual orientation or political views, unless that's specific to the inquiry.


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 30, 2015)

I have the T20 Blue Rose game. Leaving aside politics, the game is a good entry path into the hobby for a certain type of reader. For example, let's say you read The Hobbit or The Lord of Rings. D&D is the natural entry point for that branch of fantasy.

But if you're into romantic young adult fantasy, with authors like Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce, Sherwood Smith, Robin Mckinley, etc. This type of fantasy tends to skew young and female. Blue Rose models that type of fantasy better.

The problem with Blue Rose is that it has a very heavy hand compared to the authors above. It really does not like the idea of subtlety. Everything is dialed up to 11, and it's hard not to roll your eyes at some of the excesses.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 30, 2015)

GSHamster said:


> The problem with Blue Rose is that it has a very heavy hand compared to the authors above. It really does not like the idea of subtlety. Everything is dialed up to 11, and it's hard not to roll your eyes at some of the excesses.




"Ouran High School Host Club" levels of excessive?


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 30, 2015)

billd91 said:


> "Ouran High School Host Club" levels of excessive?




I'm not entirely certain where you're going with this. I loved Ouran Host Club, but I don't really see the connection to Blue Rose.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Mar 31, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> Lovecraft in his personal letters and in various writings would be considered extremely racist today; how racist he'd be considered in his time, is really debatable. Don't rely solely on depictions in the media, movies, etc that take creative license to tell a story.




Here is what Kenneth Hite has to say - a scholar whose opinion I trust, not the least because he is an RPG author as well:


_'This will do as well as anywhere as a place to remind a 21st century readership that Lovecraft’s racism is not somehow “separate” from his other thought, for all that it seldom takes the front row in his fictional themes. Lovecraft described himself as a blend of three streams of thought: an tiquarianism, scientism, and the weird. His racism fully partakes of the first two. He clearly believed that the Anglo-Saxon culture of roughly the 18th-century “Augustan Era” was the high point of human aesthetic achievement, and strongly self-identified with it. He was a “cultural” racist, who believed that cultural admixture (and even assimilation) of foreigners, and especially Jews, was polluting what remained of that culture in New England, and in Anglo-Saxondom generally.'_

[...]

_'With all that under our belt: Okay, so Lovecraft was a racist. (And very much an anti-Semite, although to the atheist HPL, it was pretty much the same thing.) No question. He was probably more racist even than the average Yankee of his generation, and if not, he was certainly far more articulate in his racism. If you find that an insuperable problem—well, good luck reading Lovecraft.'_

Source: "Tour de Lovecraft - The Tales"


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 31, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Here is what Kenneth Hite has to say - a scholar whose opinion I trust, not the least because he is an RPG author as well




I haven't read that book. He was not so anti-Semitic later in life in that his wife was a Ukrainian Jew. What I find sort of funny is that works like The Call of Cthulhu or Shadows Over Innsmouth get quoted when there are far, far worse and direct examples.

I don't think I have heard of anyone, anywhere say HPL wasn't a racist.  But where arguments do seem to come up quite often recently is if his racism makes him not worth reading, or somehow, someone who enjoys Lovecraft's fictional works should somehow feel guilty about it. Also, that some people bring it up for the sole purpose of belittling his works and aggrandizing their own world view. HPL is a real easy target for that.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Mar 31, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> I don't think I have heard of anyone, anywhere say HPL wasn't a racist.  But where arguments do seem to come up quite often recently is if his racism makes him not worth reading, or somehow, someone who enjoys Lovecraft's fictional works should somehow feel guilty about it. Also, that some people bring it up for the sole purpose of belittling his works and aggrandizing their own world view. HPL is a real easy target for that.




That's not what I am saying at all, and neither does Kenneth Hite - he even wrote a role-playing game based on his works! (Trail of Cthulhu)

But neither is the racism something we should ignore when either discussing Lovecraft or his works.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Mar 31, 2015)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> That's not what I am saying at all, and neither does Kenneth Hite - he even wrote a role-playing game based on his works! (Trail of Cthulhu)




I didn't jump to any conclusion that you or he did.



Jürgen Hubert said:


> But neither is the racism something we should ignore when either discussing Lovecraft or his works.




HPL's racism doesn't have to be a part of every conversation about his works. There are some people (and I am not accusing you of this) that seem to take a perverse pleasure of diverting any discussion of HPL's work in that direction however.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 31, 2015)

GSHamster said:


> I have the T20 Blue Rose game. Leaving aside politics, the game is a good entry path into the hobby for a certain type of reader. For example, let's say you read The Hobbit or The Lord of Rings. D&D is the natural entry point for that branch of fantasy.




People who go to D&D thinking that it'll play anything like The Hobbit (and even more so LotR) are I suspect going to be very surprised at how very different it is. Possibly quite disappointed too. I'm not sure there's any type of fantasy novel which D&D does serve as a natural  entry point for, except for some of it's own novels.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2015)

billd91 said:


> That pretty much exposes this strain of historical literary criticism as incomplete (so much for those "true scholars and scientists"). It's impossible to divorce the creator from the context of the work and have a comprehensive context.




But, it is also possible to over-interpret, and push too much of what you know about the author into your thinking about the work, distorting the actuality.  

There's a comedic songwriters, Tom Lehrer, who had noted, "When correctly viewed, *everything* is lewd.  I can tell you things about Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz?  There's a dirty old man!"  Which here we can take as in an indication that if you are *looking* for something, you will find it.  So, if you are looking for racism, you will find something you can interpret as racism.  That doesn't mean that was the author's intent, or even the effect when a reader who isn't looking for it will receive.

So, what do you prefer - incomplete, or inaccurate?

Moreover, there is a major issue when we look at a historical figure, note his attitudes, and then analyze that by *today's* standards.  That is leaving out a major context of the work - yes, HPL was racist.  But so was most of his culture.  Interpreting how "political" the work was requires we keep that in mind.  Saying something that most of his culture already believes isn't much of a political statement.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 31, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Interpreting how "political" the work was requires we keep that in mind.  Saying something that most of his culture already believes isn't much of a political statement.




There is also the question of whether or not all statements are political statements.  That is to say, through his fiction, was HP Lovecraft offering a political solution to the problem?   Did HP Lovecraft think that the problems that he saw had a political solution at all?   I fundamentally think HPL was wrestling with the fear not that his preferred political ideology would collapse, but that his 18th worldview had already collapsed and was collapsing under the weight of scientific discoveries that meant that that worldview was and always had been wrong, because it was based on a description of a world that didn't actually exist.  It's within this framework I think we have to see his pronouncements, and within this framework the rise of (to his mind) mongrel races or communists was only a symptom of darker bleaker and to the educated person - inescapable truth.  Scientific discovery would ultimately overturn all order, all rationality, and leave a picture of a universe which was counterintuitive to the rational ordered mind, meaning life itself and the Anglo-Saxon culture particularly could not be the rational ordered pinnacle of the universe he wished it to be.

There is a tendency in political circles and especially modern political circles to think that everything has a political solution of some sort.  Indeed, there are some people for whom they feel everything is political, so that there is a very tight and one to one relationship between, "Things that are true.", and "Things which ought to be a matter of law."  and perforce advocacy for taking a list of things that are true, a list of laws, and attempting to reconcile the two.  And in fact, there is a school of thought which suggests this is the core of moral human behavior, and a person's ethics are revealed by how linked they see these two things and how much passion (at least) they have for this great reconciliation.  It's something I see linking say socialists and libertarians - they both think that in the main, the problems they see could be fixed if only there was a reconciliation between truth and law.

To my reading, HPL wasn't making political statements.  If I am correct regarding his philosophy, there could be no possible political solution any more than there could be any possible society or permanent place for humanity (particularly civilized humanity, as he saw it) once "the stars were right".  He was making philosophical statements certainly, but I see no call to arms, no proscriptive formulas in his writings at all.  There is racism there obviously, as there is racism in Howard (who he corresponded with), but at least in his fiction its a racism that is not easily classified according to any political system at all.   HPL is in many ways reactionary even in 1776 - he opposed the Colonies revolting against the monarch.   But that wasn't a normal feature of any political movement of his own day, and in other respects he has characteristics normally associated with 'liberal' ideology.   HPL doesn't easily align with any block of people.  He's not conforming to anything.  He is fundamentally esoteric - 'wierd' to use another phrase.  He's not even easily classified according to the usual divisions of his time, much less our time.  What are we to make of a reactionary conservative who supports FDR and hates Woodrow Wilson, not because HPL's own political prescriptions differ markedly on much of anything from Wilson (both are aristocratic, educated, progressive on some matters, secular, racist, anglophiles), but because Wilson is in HPL's mine far too reticent in leaping to defend 'mother Britannia' from (to his mind) the mongrel barbarians that threaten it.  Normal conservative politics of the day were high isolationist and busy yelling from the rooftops that Wilson was the anti-Christ for seeking against the guidance of the founding fathers to entangle the US in European wars!  Nor does the atheist HPL whose best friend (so far as he had any) was a gay man easily fit into stereotypes regarding modern conservative thought.  

And as I said, I don't believe that 'the right' and 'the left' actually even exist save as 'hats' for different tribes.  The terms for me are far vaguer and less useful than D&D alignment (but come to think of it, I wonder if there is inverse correlation between how strongly someone believes alignment is meaningless, and how strongly they think 'left/right' is meaningful.)

Compare HPL with a contemporary political activist, say the late period writings of HG Wells, and you'll see a very marked difference in tone and style of the writing.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> There is also the question of whether or not all statements are political statements   That is to say, through his fiction, was HP Lovecraft offering a political solution to the problem? .




Yes, that is part of what I'm talking about here.  That he had a position does not mean he was actively advocating that position with every word.  



> I fundamentally think HPL was wrestling with the fear not that his preferred political ideology would collapse, but that his 18th worldview had already collapsed and was collapsing under the weight of scientific discoveries that meant that that worldview was and always had been wrong, because it was based on a description of a world that didn't actually exist.




I would even suggest that he was *subconsciously* wrestling with that, but that there was perhaps no necessary conscious, intentional connection between his personal beliefs and his work.  Which is to say, as a racist, he'd have issues with miscegenation.  But, as an author, he may not have been thinking, "Well, I don't like half-breeds, so I'm going to make some characters that represent that mixed blood, and make them terrifying, as an analogy."  

And, beyond that, it is possible to come up with an image or theme in a work that is *not* related to your personal beliefs in its origin, that a reader will interpret *is* related to those beliefs.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, much as the imagery can be interpreted as otherwise.



> And as I said, I don't believe that 'the right' and 'the left' actually even exist save as 'hats' for different tribes.




Meh.  While I'm willing to discuss how much of a person's political beliefs are represented as an active part of this or her work, I'm not going to go into the theory here, beyond noting that I've seen some psychological theory that supports that they are more than just hats for tribes.  More than that is real-world politics not appropriate for the open forum.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Meh.  While I'm willing to discuss how much of a person's political beliefs are represented as an active part of this or her work, I'm not going to go into the theory here, beyond noting that I've seen some psychological theory that supports that they are more than just hats for tribes.  More than that is real-world politics not appropriate for the open forum.



Actually, I was just reading an article the other day about the measurable psychological and physiological differences observed in those who self-identified as "right" or "left".  They didn't get into the direction of causation, though- I don't think that was the point of that study.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Apr 1, 2015)

lynnfredricks said:


> The problem is that there's a non-scholar political sort that has already created their own political narrative, and historical works, for them, exist only to validate their positions (and at the expense of the work or its author). Sadly its not particularly new. Thanks to the internet, the volume is though.




This. It's like one would need to make some of those 2012 "Get Over It"-shirts.


It's not a matter of education alone, or political intent alone, though; most people these days try to substitute fact-based debate with discourses about semantics, á la: "What's racism, _really_?"

That's part of the reason why we apparently need a game that specifically endorses LGBT equality: Because it's not enough to say we're okay with it. We need to give detailed, pseudo-objective reasoning to our cause - since, apparently, simply stating that one doesn't mind boys kissing is not enough. 

I wonder how future generations will evaluate our present social discourse; like, it's not that they simply will be more advanced - it's that we may look outright bad, and petty, with our ersatz debates.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2015)

Raphael Pinthus said:


> That's part of the reason why we apparently need a game that specifically endorses LGBT equality: Because it's not enough to say we're okay with it.




Stop there for a second.

Broadly speaking, we *don't* say it.  Broadly speaking, there's still a ton of folks who say the exact opposite, and in fact take public action against it being okay - or have you missed that GenCon may end up moving over such public action?  Less broadly, other than Blue Rose, and the most recent edition of D&D, what game has explicitly said we don't mind boys kissing?

We need a game that endorses it because there's a segment of gamers who are still told it isn't okay.  This has nothing to do with ersatz debates, and much to do with how some folks are still feeling the weight of discrimination.


----------



## Le Noir Faineant (Apr 1, 2015)

You know what? You are right, and I was wrong. I apologize. 

It's just that the issue - and that's coming from somebody who really considers himself as pro-American as they come - is so completely alien to me: I've visited, and I've lived in many countries over the world, and the racism and the discrimination that are reportedly happening in the US is something I have never witnessed, not to a degree that would be even slightly comparable. - I've since read up a bit on the new law in Indiana (I was not aware of it, Spaniard that I am), and I am shocked at this display of barbarism. Like, I've discussed this with my coworkers over our coffee break, with the same words we talked about the tragic plane crash in France last week. Not sure how to respond to this, really: Be careful some s don't pull you back into the middle ages, folks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Less broadly, other than Blue Rose, and the most recent edition of D&D, what game has explicitly said we don't mind boys kissing?



Essentially, The Wraethu RPG.
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14347.phtml

I read the books upon which the game was based.  Definitely not for everyone.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Less broadly, other than Blue Rose, and the most recent edition of D&D, what game has explicitly said we don't mind boys kissing?




Tianxia is the most recent I've seen. Exalted before that. It's certainly not common, although to be fair the number of RPGs which talk about relationships of any sort is not that high. 

I don't think it was ever made explicit, but Duke Norris of Traveller's Third Imperium canon is generally assumed to be in a relationship with his Seneschal - both male - and he's been a major heroic canon NPC since the 1980s. That's the oldest I can remember.


----------



## Mikaze (Apr 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Less broadly, other than Blue Rose, and the most recent edition of D&D, what game has explicitly said we don't mind boys kissing?




Adding to those above, Pathfinder(the setting) too, though your point still stands. 

Throw in the embedded homophobia in the videogame community, which has a ton of cultural and player crossover with tabletop gaming, and the need becomes even more apparent.


----------



## nomotog (Apr 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Broadly speaking, we *don't* say it.  Broadly speaking, there's still a ton of folks who say the exact opposite, and in fact take public action against it being okay - or have you missed that GenCon may end up moving over such public action?  Less broadly, other than Blue Rose, and the most recent edition of D&D, what game has explicitly said we don't mind boys kissing?




I'm not countering your argument here (because you know an exception doesn't invalidate a trend.), but it made me think of Hot Guys Making Out. http://www.tao-games.com/hot-guys-making-out/


----------

