BLUE ROSE Returns, Championing Diversity & Inclusiveness

Back in 2005, Green Ronin published a roleplaying game called Blue Rose. It was designed by Jeremy Crawford (yep, him who works at WotC on D&D 5E), Steve "Mutants & Masterminds" Kenson (that's his actual middle name), Dawn Elliot, and John Snead, and was billed as a "romantic fantasy" game, of the genre for whom Tamora Pierce, Mercedes Lackey, and Jacqueline Carey are known. It used the True20 System, which was a slimmed-down, modified version of the d20 System, and won multiple ENnies. And now it's back!

This time round, the game will be using the Adventure Game Engine, which powers the Dragon Age RPG, and will be funded via a Kickstarter launching in April. One of Green Ronin's reasons for bringing it back is that 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.

You can click on the cover image below for the full announcement from Green Ronin's Chris Pramas.

​

What's Romantic Fantasy? It's "a subgenre of fantasy fiction, describing a fantasy story using many of the elements and conventions of the romance genre". According to Wikipedia, the genre's focus is on social, political, and romantic relationships.

 

[pemerton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.