The Pride Of Blue Rose

View attachment 85582​

After a successful Kickstarter project, Green Ronin Publishing have put out a second edition of their Blue Rose role-playing game. Inspired by the works of romantic fantasy from authors such as Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce and Diane Duane, Blue Rose was originally powered by a variant of the D20 rules that Green Ronin called True20, and this new game uses the company's house system called the Adventure Game Engine, or AGE. The rules themselves are descended from the company's licensed role-playing game based upon the franchise of the Dragon Age computer games.

The design team of Steve Kenson and Jack Norris manage to bring the inspirations of the original Blue Rose game into the newer AGE system. Since Kenson worked on developing the True20 system that powered the first edition of the game, this makes sense. Blue Rose is a self-contained book that doesn't require any other AGE system book for play. It isn't just a matter of pushing the existing world of Aldea into the AGE rules, however. The rules of Blue Rose are set apart from games like Fantasy AGE by the incorporation of some first edition rules.

Conviction is a mechanic that was an important part of the first edition of Blue Rose. It is a narrative control tool, not unlike Fate Points in Fate Core, or a number of other role-playing games. Spending conviction can do things from helping your character in combats, to helping them better survive the effects of those combat situations. Fate point mechanics are good ways to create a cinematic, swashbuckling tone for a game because they can help to mitigate the impact that poor dice rolling can have on such a game. Few things can as quickly ruin a campaign as the randomness of dice rolling undercutting the fact that characters are supposed to be doing flashy, larger than life things and failing because the player rolled a one.

The 3d6 dice rolling for the task resolution systems of AGE does also help to get rid of some of the whiff factor of the original rules, which used the standard D20 mechanic of rolling a single d20 die for task resolution. A part of the reason why rules like the original Conviction rules sprang up around D20 variants was because of the fact that d20-based resolution can often be binary in its results: you succeed or you fail at a task. More often the result is failure, and slows down play while a task is attempted over and over, looking for the needed success. A 3d6 resolution mechanic can also add granularity to resolution attempts, making it possible to add degrees of success that can make results more spectacular, or more horrible, than a simple binary "You Succeed!" or "You Fail!"

The AGE stunt mechanic can also add more long term verisimilitude to task resolution. Rolling doubles on two of the three dice can earn your character stunt points which can be spent later one to add flourishes to future tasks on behalf of your character. There are a number of ways to utilize stunt points, from magic to interactions to other character abilities.

Characters are class-based, and informed by the three generic classes that were used in the original game (which in turn were adapted from material published in the Unearthed Arcana book published by Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons & Dragons 3.x rules), and updated to the current rules. The Fantasy AGE rules do use a similar set up for the game's classes, but the design of the classes in Blue Rose is to my eye a bit more generic than those rules. This isn't a bad thing, because there are a number of ways to differentiate one character from another in these rules. Where the classes give the basic niche of your character (magic for Adepts, fighting for Warriors and skills and knowledge for Experts), the customization for characters comes with focuses, talents and specializations. These are all things from the AGE rules. Focuses are focused, specialized areas within the abilities of your characters that make them better at specific sorts of tasks. Talents are special abilities available to characters. Specializations work in a way similar to how prestige classes worked under the D20 system, they represent a specialized capability or profession within the more general classes, they also unlock talents that would not otherwise be available to a character. Where you have the generic Warrior that represents the idea of the fighter-type of characters, you can show how your Warrior is different from another in your group by picking things like the Berserker or the Champion specialization for your character. These specializations are how you build upon the wider, and more generic, niche of your character's class, and customize that niche into something more unique for your character.

If you've played a D20 game, the talents will be mechanically familiar to you because they work not unlike that system's feats. They give characters special abilities and special rules exceptions that let them do extraordinary tasks within a game.

There are also human cultures and non-human races that are available to characters. The non-human races are flavorful, and offer a number of meaningful role-playing opportunities to players. They are unique to the setting of Blue Rose, and while they are obviously inspired by fantasy concepts like elves and orcs, they manage to bring new ideas and interpretations of these archetypes to the gaming table. Vata, for example, clearly aren't elves (despite filling a similar niche within the world), but at the same time they aren't the "Nope. These totally aren't elves." approach that you get in a lot of games. They are original concepts that do not derive their concepts from running down the archetypes. This is a welcome change in RPG world building.

All of these character options work to add uniqueness to characters without adding a lot of complexity to them. Despite the AGE rules drawing inspiration from the D20 system, and some ideas from earlier editions of D&D as well, they do so in a much more streamlined manner than the D20 rules manage. There are as many special cases for GMs to remember in the AGE rules, and there aren't as many character options for players to wade through either.

Another mechanic that has come over from the first edition of Blue Rose would be the Corruption rules. Corruption is something that fits into the theme of the romantic fantasy that the game emulates. In a way it is a mechanical implementation of the oft-quoted Bob Dylan song lyric: "to live outside the law, you must be honest." Taken from his song Absolutely Sweet Marie the idea is something that you often see in heroic fiction, and comic books. The idea of Corruption is that the darkness of the world, which is literal in a world where magic and supernatural creatures are real, can taint even those who are the most good, tempting them to follow a darker, and sometimes easier, path. These are conflicts that you see in a lot of romantic fantasy, and in settings like that of the Star Wars universe, with its internal and external conflicts between the Jedi and the Sith. Embracing this Corruption is easier for characters in Blue Rose sometimes, but "easy" isn't always the best path for heroes.

The Corruption mechanic ties into Callings, which are another character option. Callings aren't as simple as talents or specializations, because they address how a character fits into the world of the game, or into the overall story of the campaign that a group is playing through. Following through with the ideals of a Calling is how a character earns Conviction. Callings will tell you how your character moves towards their long and short term goals. Like with Corruption, Callings are an idea carried over from the first edition of Blue Rose and help to show how your character is a part of the game's world.

The setting of Blue Rose, the world of Aldea, is where the game really sings. Rather than relying on the same tropes that inform just about every other fantasy game on the market, or call back to the same set of inspirations (whether drawing upon Tolkien or Howard or Moorcock), the game instead looks to the tropes that are important to romantic fantasy. Obviously, romance is one of these things, but gender and sexuality can also play important parts of romantic fantasy. Romantic fantasy not only elevates the women who are characters out of the secondary roles that they often fill in more traditional style of fantasy, but they make them the protagonists of the stories as well. Yes, Jirel of Joiry exists. Yes, Red Sonja exists. Yes, there are women-lead stories in high fantasy and swords and sorcery fiction. No one is saying that these characters, these stories, do not exist. The problem is that for those genres they are still the exception rather than the rule. There are still more stories and movies with male protagonists than female ones in these genres. That is one of the strengths of romantic fantasy, and the draw of it for a lot of people who do not identify as traditionally male in any number of ways.

It isn't coincidence that this review is "coming out" after the weekend that many celebrate Pride around the world, and in the same week as the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots that triggered what we would eventually come to know as Pride. Blue Rose normalizes homosexual relationships in the same way that heterosexual relationships are normalized in other fantasy settings. In worlds where shape shifting, magical fleshshaping and magical artifacts that can impact gender or presentation are so common, it shouldn't be such a strange idea that people would be free to adopt the gender, or genders, with which they identify themselves, even if they are not born that way. On the world of Aldea, like in many real world religions, not all deities conform to the binary standards of gender, and because of that the people who worship those gods should not be required to do this either. Obviously some cultures are more accepting of this than others, but overall the world is one that has much, much more of what is called an egalitarian nature than what you see in a lot of fantasy worlds. The idea that the existence of magic or werewolves in a game is okay, but somehow men marrying one another, or individuals choosing the gender (or genders) with which they identify, "break fantasy" is a strange one for me.

There are a number of lands that fill the world of Aldea. The lands of Aldis are assumed to be where player characters are from, while the antagonists are typically those people from the Theocracy of Jarzon or Kern, which was once ruled with a brutal hand by a Lich King. All three of these countries are outlined, but Aldis is given the lion share of description. A couple of other countries are outlined as well, and the nomadic culture of Roamers is talked about as well. The world of Aldea is well described, and everything that you might need to explore the world is contained in the Blue Rose book.

The designers did a great job of customizing the AGE rules to fit the Blue Rose game, and making sure that the new game lives up to the legacy of the first edition. I was a fan of the first edition of Blue Rose, not just because of the well-designed rules, but also because of the unique setting. I don't think that fantasy role-playing games push at the boundaries of the genre in the same way that the fiction does. We need more boundary pushing in RPGs across the board, if we ever want to see the fanbase expand and grow in new directions. Games like Blue Rose are an integral part of this boundary pushing and growth, and we need more well-made games like this.

 

[Marc Sanchez]

That's roughly the line I'm talking about. In a traditional RPG (like D&D), the GM creates the world and describes everything going on, and each player only has to worry about role-playing their own character. In collaborative story-telling games (like FATE), the players all contribute toward building the world and providing details as they go along, in addition to everyone playing their own characters.

Like, I get it. Some people care more about telling a cool story, and fate points (or any sort of player-narrative mechanic) lets them do that. Personally, I just want to pretend to be a rad hero for a couple of hours per week, and nothing drags me out of that mind-set any worse than being asked to also invent the environment that my character is supposed to be interacting with. It is very literally the difference between playing as my character, and telling a story about my character, where the latter holds zero appeal for me.

And I still don't know where Blue Rose fits into this, whether I could play it as a traditional RPG, or whether the Conviction mechanic steers it irrevocably toward player-narrative control.

Correct me if I'm wrong. For what I read, your argument is that collaborating in making the story is equal to not roleplaying your character.

Personally, I disagree, and I tell this from my experience. I have not played FATE. I come from playing AD&D, Legend of the 5 rings, Star Wars West End Games, WoD... from almost 20 years, as a Game Master and player.

Recently I am playing 7th Sea Second Edition and it has similar mechanics about affecting the story by both GM and players. I have played it as a character and as a GM. It has been a big change of paradigm. And I liked it a lot.

As a player, I played an Inismore bard, and I asure you, is the character I enjoyed playing the most in all this 20 years. I had the best immersion experience ever, and the fact that I can affect the story not also with my roleplaying, but also with a mechanic that allows me to creaate opportunities and make the narrative more amusing is... I enjoyed it a lot. In your terminology, there were times I was playing Character, and in others I was playing Author. The GM also liked it.

As a GM, the more I age the more I sense the weight of having to control and tell everything. I prefer less crunch and less thinking and controlling everything. To share the narrative with the players helps me a lot. My shoulders weight less, and I have a lot of fun seeing what my players come up to. My players, old Rolemaster and Lord of the Rings grognard players, also enjoyed it a lot. They told me that sharing narrative was like not feeling like spectators who were told a story. And I assure you, they immersed in their characters, they performed them by heart. They also played author when they saw to affect parts of some scenes, but they enjoyed it, they felt more part of the game.

What I am trying to explain is that, from my experience, its not a thing like "if A,then not B, if B then not A". Its is not "if shared oriented, then Auhtor. If not shared oriented, then Character". It is BOTH. Again, from my experience.

I am not telling you are wrong in your way of playing, or thinking. The main thing here is having FUN. A lot of FUN. What I am saying is that A (author) does not excludes B (character). Or making another example, I never liked codfish until I tasted real, fresh and well cooked codfish in a restaurant that knew how to make a gret dish with it.

There are players that want to roleplay, others that want to share narrative, and others that do both things. Also, there are GM that like crunch and to control everything, and GM that want more light rules and share the narrative.

All of them, you, us... are right if we are having fun with what we are doing.

Have fun!

 

[Aldarc]

No, but spending a Fate point often does. It's a decision made as an author, rather than as the character. The character isn't the one who decides when there's a convenient rock to hide behind, or that the enemy is aware of their fearsome reputation.

This is the sort of misunderstandings that I suspect that Helton is talking about. Neither the player nor the character decides there is a convenient rock to behind: the GM does. And these are also things that can be done in-character. A player can slide a Fate point to the GM while saying, "I'm looking for any rocks to hide behind in this valley pass, do I see any?" But it's the GM's fiat to accept or reject that Fate point when deciding if large enough rocks are there. I don't understand why the GM and their arbitration of the rules gets forgotten when discussing Fate points. (That's not to mention when people seemingly pretend that Fate players would somehow be incapable of roleplaying in-character when spending Fate points.)

For me, I play for immersion in character, and I want every choice I made to effect the world to be one made in character. It's actually a pretty big thing for me - but I know I'm on the extreme end. Most game mechanics can be made to connect to character action (I roll the die, the character is attempting to pick a lock: Rolling the die=Character lockpicking - one to one correlation between character and player). Things like Fate Point mechanics rob me of that immersion, If I spend a fate point to change a plot point or adjust the situation, the character is not doing anything that is that action, I the player am.

There is an easy solution then really: don't spend your Fate points in an immersion-breaking manner. Spend them in a manner that is in-character. Player slides a Fate point to the GM, and says, "Hmmm... I may have a friend who can help us. I go look for my old childhood friend Carl, who is a mechanic for the mob in this district, to see if I can get some information about the suspicious car that we saw at the heist." (The GM accepts.) I am spending a point to both (a) establish a fact about my character, and (b) hopefully advance the narrative.

And yet, it's not nearly the most controversial thing that they can represent, either. If you wanted to cut a middle ground, without intentionally excluding players on either side, you could easily design a mechanic that represents effort which doesn't also grant narrative control. It's usually called something like Willpower.

So how does "something like Willpower" fundamentally differ as a concept from "something called Conviction"?

Given how easy it is to design an inoffensive mechanic, once you're aware of the issue, failing to do so is a strong signal that the designer is either clueless about the controversy (which may have been the case in some early games) or actively doesn't care about the audience that might be put off by it (which is more likely the case in recent games).

You may find this odd, but I have a number of roleplaying friends here in Vienna who don't find Fate's mechanics dissociative to roleplaying, but do find D&D's mechanics dissociative and immersion-breaking for roleplaying as they find certain aspects too (war-)gamist.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

There is an easy solution then really: don't spend your Fate points in an immersion-breaking manner. Spend them in a manner that is in-character. Player slides a Fate point to the GM, and says, "Hmmm... I may have a friend who can help us. I go look for my old childhood friend Carl, who is a mechanic for the mob in this district, to see if I can get some information about the suspicious car that we saw at the heist." (The GM accepts.) I am spending a point to both (a) establish a fact about my character, and (b) hopefully advance the narrative.

I understand the uses, and for other people that is fine, but even that example is one I wouldn't care to use. I don't worry about advancing the narrtive - my entire attention is on being my character and being in their headspace - no room for worrying about narrative. If this NPC friend had been established already, then I would think of calling them as a normal flow of character. I don't invent the fact they exist on the spot. That is player, not character input.

As I said, I'm something on the extreme end of immersion. My absolute favorite moments in gaming have all been when I've almost got to that state that I forget I'm playing and am the character in feeling and thought.

I can deal with "Luck" as a enhancement mechanic, because the action I'm trying is still that 1 to 1 correlation, just with modifiers. If fate points were disconnected from aspects and could only be used to adjust a die roll, I'd be fine with them.

Again, not saying this is a bad mechanic, just not one that I like, due to my preferences in why I game.

 

[Aldarc]

I understand the uses, and for other people that is fine, but even that example is one I wouldn't care to use. I don't worry about advancing the narrtive - my entire attention is on being my character and being in their headspace - no room for worrying about narrative.

When I say "advancing the narrative," I do refer to the character attempting to resolve a conflict within the narrative space of the imagined world. It's something my character wants to achieve. It's something naturally done in-character. I am in their head space, Mhoram. What would I (my character) do in this situation? I might consult a friend or someone who might know something relevant. I think about someone in my life who would be applicable. Do Who might that be? I know anyone who works for the police? No. Do I know any car dealers? No. Do I know any mobsters? None that I know of. But there was that one kid I grew up with during primary school who became a mechanic that I see on occasion. What was his name? Ah ha! I remember Carl now! I just had to jog my memory a bit. Asking the GM who that is or having them tell me about my backstory would be immersion breaking.

If this NPC friend had been established already, then I would think of calling them as a normal flow of character. I don't invent the fact they exist on the spot. That is player, not character input.

You can't have character input without player input. It's impossible no matter how immersed in roleplaying you believe yourself to be. Roleplaying is essentially player input pretending to be character input. There is a fundamental disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge, which rubs both ways. My character does not know what I as a player knows, and I do not know everything that my character knows. Your entire character backstory is a product of player input. But it's also not something that someone creates whole cloth, but piece by piece, often in the gameplay itself. Do you honestly sit there as a player and chart out every single NPC that your character ever knew in their backstory? Every memory? Every event in your storied life? Do you really know no one apart from pre-established NPCs in this city? But your character invented a sister for your character! She was not pre-established. Who said she existed? Do you expect that the GM would laboriously create every single one of those characters for you prior to gameplay?

This is what I find immersive about Fate's system. You dismissively refer to it as inventing the fact that they exist on the spot, but I find that it allows for simultaneous character-discovery and world-development. It's me as a player establishing my character and their story as I play, because I don't know everything about my character even if I operate with the conceit that I do. As a player, I am discovering my character, and the more that I discover, the more immersed that I become.

As I said, I'm something on the extreme end of immersion. My absolute favorite moments in gaming have all been when I've almost got to that state that I forget I'm playing and am the character in feeling and thought.

Again, I know players who at a similar extreme (almost annoyingly so when they castigate other players who don't share their preferences), and they don't share your problem with Fate.

I can deal with "Luck" as a enhancement mechanic, because the action I'm trying is still that 1 to 1 correlation, just with modifiers. If fate points were disconnected from aspects and could only be used to adjust a die roll, I'd be fine with them.

What do you mean by disconnected from aspects? I think that their connection with aspects is immersion-generating for me. (And their connection with aspects does adjust die rolls. You invoke your aspect "World's Greatest Detective" to get an additional +2 to your Investigate roll as Batman.) If your are referring to compels, then I will get my fighting gloves out, because I have heard way too many misconceptions and gross exaggerations about compels to let those punches against Fate go unanswered for.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

When I say "advancing the narrative," I do refer to the character attempting to resolve a conflict within the narrative space of the imagined world. It's something my character wants to achieve. It's something naturally done in-character. I am in their head space, Mhoram. What would I (my character) do in this situation? I might consult a friend or someone who might know something relevant. I think about someone in my life who would be applicable. Do Who might that be? I know anyone who works for the police? No. Do I know any car dealers? No. Do I know any mobsters? None that I know of. But there was that one kid I grew up with during primary school who became a mechanic that I see on occasion. What was his name? Ah ha! I remember Carl now! I just had to jog my memory a bit. Asking the GM who that is or having them tell me about my backstory would be immersion breaking.

I understand what you mean now. Usually I see "Advance the narrative" as something from authorial stance.

I agree with what you say to a point, and I would do a lot of that. It just wouldn't involve spending an in game currency to allow that to happen. As for asking GM, I guess that is just practice and approach. That is how I've done it for 40 years, so it doesn't break immersion for me... whereas spending a bennie or fate chip would. I have this mental divide "my character is me, the world is GM" and if I made that decision without asking the GM, it just feels wrong. LOL.

I see where you are coming from, and understand it. I'm not saying it's wrong or invalid... just not what I do.

 

[Christopher Helton]

Ultimately the thing is this: a game isn't objectively bad for not doing the thing that you like, or doing the thing that you don't like. It just means that the game was designed with a different sensibility than what you're interested in. This is an okay thing. We're in a time where we suffer from the riches of games that are available. Celebrate that, find the games that work for you and enjoy. Games that do things differently aren't a threat to what you're interested in.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

What do you mean by disconnected from aspects? I think that their connection with aspects is immersion-generating for me. (And their connection with aspects does adjust die rolls. You invoke your aspect "World's Greatest Detective" to get an additional +2 to your Investigate roll as Batman.) If your are referring to compels, then I will get my fighting gloves out, because I have heard way too many misconceptions and gross exaggerations about compels to let those punches against Fate go unanswered for.

Not compels.

I'm very much in the mode that what is on your character sheet defines what you do mechanically, but position in world, personality and such are played without mechanical intervention (for the most part). I don't see how being "the worlds greatest detective" should help me improve my roll to investigate - it should be my investigation skill is so high, that the definition come from how good I am, not that I get bennies from a definition, if that makes sense. Very much Task Resolution - the roll is my ability to perform that skill - and it is modified by physical factors, to determine if that single task succeeds. How much I care about something or some abstract definition doesn't change how well I can perform that task.

Again, not saying anything against a game or playstyle. It just isn't mine. People like different things. People dislike different things. I happen to dislike fate like systems and it doesn't fit my playstyle. Plenty of games do.

I kickstartered blue rose. I love the setting and plan to play it in another systyem.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Ultimately the thing is this: a game isn't objectively bad for not doing the thing that you like, or doing the thing that you don't like. It just means that the game was designed with a different sensibility than what you're interested in. This is an okay thing. We're in a time where we suffer from the riches of games that are available. Celebrate that, find the games that work for you and enjoy. Games that do things differently aren't a threat to what you're interested in.

Agreed. Part of what I love about modern RPG situation - most anyone can find a game that hits their playstyle because of all the choices that are out there.

It took me a while decades ago to learn to separate "what I like" and "What is good" and that the two don't have to be the same. Part of why I am careful in my language in playstyle discussions like that to say "I like" and "my playstyle" and not use absolute value judgements in my language.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

You can't have character input without player input. It's impossible no matter how immersed in roleplaying you believe yourself to be. Roleplaying is essentially player input pretending to be character input. There is a fundamental disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge, which rubs both ways. My character does not know what I as a player knows, and I do not know everything that my character knows. Your entire character backstory is a product of player input. But it's also not something that someone creates whole cloth, but piece by piece, often in the gameplay itself. Do you honestly sit there as a player and chart out every single NPC that your character ever knew in their backstory? Every memory? Every event in your storied life? Do you really know no one apart from pre-established NPCs in this city? But your character invented a sister for your character! She was not pre-established. Who said she existed? Do you expect that the GM would laboriously create every single one of those characters for you prior to gameplay?

This is what I find immersive about Fate's system. You dismissively refer to it as inventing the fact that they exist on the spot, but I find that it allows for simultaneous character-discovery and world-development. It's me as a player establishing my character and their story as I play, because I don't know everything about my character even if I operate with the conceit that I do. As a player, I am discovering my character, and the more that I discover, the more immersed that I become.

That works for you, which is wonderful. It doesn't work for me

I tend to have detailed backstories - 2 or 3 pages of notes, quotes, and history. Stuff like staying I have a sister - I do that outside actual playtime - in character generation or after the actual playtime in session. If I was playing in the situation we were talking about - Instead of saying "I know a friend that can help me, I spend a fate point and get a bonus to roll" - I would, in character, consider "You know, having someone that knows about this stuff would be helpful" and develop a relationship with such an NPC. Still character discovery (how does he start a friendship, what is he like in these social situations) and building world (gaining the connection with NPC gives all sorts of opportunity for GM to create stuff based on my character's actions and decisions), but nothing is invented at the table.

Again, just my preferred playstyle.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yet, one of the things that struck me is that the setting and campaign information takes up far more space than the actual rules. The AGE system is fairly simple and easy to understand - it’s definitely not a rules-laden tome.

I received my hardcopy by mail today. This book is huge and really really pretty and vibrant. Cant wait to start playing!