Daft idea: His 'n' Hers game system

[Dr Simon]

So, I've just been reading more about Blue Rose, I quite like the way its done and it struck me that it's definitely one for the ladies, being inspired by pretty much an entirely female stable of authors, winged cats, talking horses, neo-pagan pre-Raphaelite styling and fairly low crunch rules.

On the other hand, Iron Heroes is a man's game, inspired by axe swinging, dagger-throwing, brawn blood and guts inspiration which ought to be illustrated by Boris Vallejo. Furthermore it adds another layer of complexity to the rules and more numbers to play with.

My stupid idea which lasted all of three seconds was to run a game where male characters used Iron Heroes and female characters used Blue Rose. So, one's True20 but the underlying d20 mechanic is exactly the same in both game, so theoretically it *ought* to work.

Whether one should go there is another matter, but as a one shot set in the sort of world you get in original Star Trek where the men and women are kept seperate by some annoying overlord figure... would it work?

(Both, by the way, feature sorcerer types mainly as bad guys).

 

[frankthedm]

LOL! As it happens I was just pondering a dual sided system to handle players both with optimised min maxed characters and non optimised characters.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What about "Iron Rose"? Do stuff like the Steel Chrysanthemum did, but be poetic about it. I guess we better won't go down the "Blue Heroes" lane.

(Both, by the way, feature sorcerer types mainly as bad guys).

That's blatant classism. Casting (sorry for the pun) us arcanists as villains. Only because our favourite bed-time reading are "Necronomicon" and "Book of Vile Darkness". Not all of us are homicidal maniacs. The fact that I am proves nothing!

 

[I'm A Banana]

"My unicorn laughs at your pathetic pleas for mercy as it slices off your arm with the keen edge of it's horn."

Weird thing is, most girls I've played with would much rather do that than anything Blue-Rose-Style.

I think, laying the gender issue aside, that I would very much like to see a system that could combine Blue Rose and Iron Heroes, or a setting that used both rulesets for two different nations or something along those lines. It could be very 'fall of Rome,' with Blue Rose representing the Machiavellian court life of assassination and decedance, and Iron Heroes being for the invading barbarian hordes who (using hit points) stand up to punishment to a near-supernatural level....

Of course, it might just be easier to convert IH into T20 and run them all from the same system, or vice-versa, converting Blue Rose into a system like IH where more esoteric concepts than HP are key.

 

[frankthedm]

That's blatant classism. Casting (sorry for the pun) us arcanists as villains. Only because our favourite bed-time reading are "Necronomicon" and "Book of Vile Darkness". Not all of us are homicidal maniacs. The fact that I am proves nothing!

I am far more concerned that your avatar is about to Hentacle Krusk / Imsh...

 

[mara]

Do you assume that players will play their own gender?

 

[Umbran]

Whether one should go there is another matter, but as a one shot set in the sort of world you get in original Star Trek where the men and women are kept seperate by some annoying overlord figure... would it work?

Anything can be made to work if you've got a big enough shoehorn. But more's the question - is the stereotyping you're using based well enough in reality to suggest that the extra work is necessary, or called for?

I think that upon closer examination with eyes open, you'll find that real gamers don't fit the male/female stereotypes you mention all that well. I suspect they are more an extension of the normal gender stereotypes wer stil see everywhere than they are on observed gamer behavior. If I'm correct, they'd make a poor basis for creating a new game.

 

[Goldmoon]

I play male characters about 40% of the time. It freaks some men out.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

So, I've just been reading more about Blue Rose, I quite like the way its done and it struck me that it's definitely one for the ladies, ...... and fairly low crunch rules.

I just find that amusing, and just last night my wife was commenting that there is a reason she prefers solid, stable high crunch rules....

And yes it fit the above characterisation - if the crunch of the system handles all the situations then the GM and players are free to think about nothing but character and story (we are of the "rules are the physics of the world" camp - and generally play HERO).

 

[Stormtower]

My wife (and gaming partner of 14+ years... me as DM, her as player) has a tendency to play against gender as well. I'd say she plays males about 50-60% of the time. The funny thing is, I've seen her play well with crunch-heavy combat optimized builds as well as intentionally challenging flawed builds.

I tend to attract lady gamers to my table anyway; it seems like we almost always have a 50/50 gender balance (of players as opposed to PCs) at the table. The ladies I've gamed with over the years wouldn't tolerate a system which played up the traditional gender dichotomy. My wife and others want to play by the same rules as everybody else - it's a very egalitarian table culture.

This "Iron Rose" idea might have some mileage in it with the right group, especially in a particularly mature and intimate group interested in a fun "battle of the sexes" scenario (or even an extended campaign).