The Pride Of Blue Rose

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.


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Counter question - why should I bother. I have games I like, that don't use a mechanic I don't like, renamed, reflavored or whatever. What is the benefit to me to change to a system that has a mechanic I don't like, no matter what the name?
So do you only play in non-houseruled games and un-tinkered systems?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So do you only play in non-houseruled games and un-tinkered systems?

Why should I go to the work of leaning a new system with a major mechanic I don't like, when I have systems that I enjoy playing (and any house ruling is already done, years or decades ago). What is the benefit to me?

I say this because it feels like (and I could be completely wrong) you are trying to convince me that the way you play and the system you like is one I should like or try - even though I have tried it, found it not to my taste, and dropped it. What is your purpose in continuing this discussion? At this point, I feel I have stated my position clearly. I will never say I like fate point. I don't. You like them. YAY. What is your purpose in this conversation, if it is not to try to convince me to change my mind.

I stated my purpose - way upthread, someone was confused that someone didn't see how fate point like mechanics can hurt immersion. I provided an example where it does. This is my example for me - not anyone else, not even representing a large group of gamers, just a single point of reference that fate point like systems are not globally helpful for immersion. My further posts have been to clarify and explain my position.

What is it you wish? Explain your purpose and I will gladly answer any other questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aldarc

Legend
[MENTION=4789]Lord Mhoram[/MENTION], that's a lot to process in that post, and I wish that you had not deleted your far more congenial post that I tried to award an XP before you deleted it, as your most recent post feels like two steps backwards. If you feel that you are being unfairly targeted or that my tone is too confrontational, then I apologize. I am not saying that you should like Fate (points) or that you should play it. I admit, that it's not for everyone. I do get that. One of the problems, for me at least, has been a fairly persistent tone within some of the criciticism of Fate and its mechanics that often contains a veiled sense of "One True Wayism" or "Not True Roleplaying!" And some of the criticisms that I have seen lobbed at Fate do stem from misunderstandings or gross mischaracterizations of the system, and in manners that are somewhat hypocritical (as they ignore similar mechanics and issues in other roleplaying games).
 

[MENTION=4789]Lord Mhoram[/MENTION], that's a lot to process in that post, and I wish that you had not deleted your far more congenial post that I tried to award an XP before you deleted it, as your most recent post feels like two steps backwards. If you feel that you are being unfairly targeted or that my tone is too confrontational, then I apologize. I am not saying that you should like Fate (points) or that you should play it. I admit, that it's not for everyone. I do get that. One of the problems, for me at least, has been a fairly persistent tone within some of the criciticism of Fate and its mechanics that often contains a veiled sense of "One True Wayism" or "Not True Roleplaying!" And some of the criticisms that I have seen lobbed at Fate do stem from misunderstandings or gross mischaracterizations of the system, and in manners that are somewhat hypocritical (as they ignore similar mechanics and issues in other roleplaying games).

Ah.

After I finished the post, it came off, to me, as a bit of an emotional screed, and angry rant. - and I didn't want to raise the confrontation level, which I felt that did. That was why I deleted it. the later post.. well when you answered my question with a question it almost seemed like you were using socratic tricks to "win" the argument, and I couldn't see why you didn't answer my first question - hence the question of "what is your purpose" - I understand now, that isn't the case.

To go over the points that I deleted - without quite the emotional intensity.

Fate Points are (I hate to use the phrase) Narrativist. They force narrative changes and player focus by mechanical rewards.
I developed my playstyle back in the early days when all the character sheet meant was "can I do this" and "how well can I do this" - basically the rules in let's pretend that didn't lead to "I shot you" "no you didn't" "yes you did". And so my ways to immerse in character were completely devoid of mechanics that impacted that.
These day mechanics that encourage roleplaying by mechanical means intrude on my immersion because I developed my playstyle before those kinds of mechanics existed.

Fate is a fine RPG, and many love how it works. I find it gets in the way of roleplay. Many people don't like rules heavy games because "it gets in the way of roleplay" - I love rules heavy games with rules for everything, because I learn the rules inside out, play the game for decades, and then I don't even think of rules at all, just about my character and being immersed in his world, emotions and choices. They become the "physics" the character lives by. I don't think of the rules anymore than I think about the physics of walking in real life.

So I can deal with generic bennie points, or things like "chi" that has a specified pool of (that the character is aware) - but fate points that tie the economy of them to character decisions, actions and plot pull me out of character, as I developed my own way of having character make unwise choices (as an example) without outside mechanical intrusion into doing so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
Again, fine distinction, but for me, a large one:

In the case of barbarian's rage, or a monk's Ki points - those are expendable resources at the character's disposal to use, not necessarily the player. Master Chi Lo Nih knows when he spends a point of chi. He doesn't know when I've used a fate point.
I don't understand what distinction you are drawing.

In D&D, the monk focuses his/her chi - the player spends a ki point. This can't be done every time - it's a limited resource.

In Fate, the monk focuses his/her chi - the player spends a fate point to activate the Master of Chi aspect. This can't be done every time - it's a limited resource.

The same parallel obtains in respect of the D&D barbarian and the rage power, and the Fate "barbarian" and the Primal Fury aspect.

What's the difference that you're seeing?

it may not be difficult to retool fate points into what you describe, but why go to the work, when I have plenty of game system with which I don't have to go to that extra work.
I don't care what RPGs you play.

My point is that a player could be playing his/her monk in Fate and be having exactly the same experience that you have playing your 3E barbarian or your 5e monk. Because there is nothing about player expenditure of fate points to augment an action that requires them to be understood as anything but a manifestation of the character trying with great determination.

There are in-game roleplaying (or even mechanical) choices that make sense in-character that the player knows are suboptimal (for their character, the party, or task/conflict resolution) and so they rationalize ways for their character to avoid making those (ir)rational in-character choices.

<snip>

One of things that I appreciate about Fate points (and similar mechanics) is that they provide a player incentive to make suboptimal choices that are otherwise more appropriate in-character choices than the optimal choices that the player may recognize and gravitate towards. (It essentially provides a character-oriented corrective for a player-bias.)
The basic logic of this is not wildly different from "XP for RP", except that (i) what counts as the relevant RP is generally less contentious at the table, (ii) the reward cycle happens on a much tighter timeline and (iii) the reward is a one-off buff rather than a permanent boost in power.

EDIT:

For what it's worth, I've never played FATE and I don't regard it as particularly "narrativistic" in any sense of that term I'm familiar with. I see it as a character concept/world concept driven game, much like AD&D 2nd ed (say) aspires to be but with the mechanics to more reliably deliver.

The only game I play that has (literal) fate points is Burning Wheel. They are earned mostly for various sorts of RPG choices, and are spent mostly to boost rolls.

4e doesn't have fate points - instead it has various sorts of rationed powers and abilities to model luck, trying hard, etc.

MHRP uses "plot points" but these aren't earned for RP choices, they accrue based on dice rolls and are spent to manipulate the dice pool.

The most immersive of these games, for me, is BW. It pushes the player harder than other RPG I've played, by pushing the character hard in respect of all the things the character cares about. It's quite intense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I don't understand what distinction you are drawing.

In D&D, the monk focuses his/her chi - the player spends a ki point. This can't be done every time - it's a limited resource.

In Fate, the monk focuses his/her chi - the player spends a fate point to activate the Master of Chi aspect. This can't be done every time - it's a limited resource.

The same parallel obtains in respect of the D&D barbarian and the rage power, and the Fate "barbarian" and the Primal Fury aspect.

What's the difference that you're seeing?

In one case from an in-character pov the character is aware of that limited resource. In D&D The monk knows he has a limited resource that he is spending, and when it runs out. In Fate from the in-character POV the monk is not aware of how many fate points are available, and when they might recharge or run out.

As for what games I play, that was in response Aldarc's comment.

My point is that a player could be playing his/her monk in Fate and be having exactly the same experience that you have playing your 3E barbarian or your 5e monk. Because there is nothing about player expenditure of fate points to augment an action that requires them to be understood as anything but a manifestation of the character trying with great determination.

I disagree. That is ok. We are different people with different playstyles.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Ah.After I finished the post, it came off, to me, as a bit of an emotional screed, and angry rant. - and I didn't want to raise the confrontation level, which I felt that did. That was why I deleted it. the later post.. well when you answered my question with a question it almost seemed like you were using socratic tricks to "win" the argument, and I couldn't see why you didn't answer my first question - hence the question of "what is your purpose" - I understand now, that isn't the case.

To go over the points that I deleted - without quite the emotional intensity.
Sometimes, conversations need 'refresh' buttons. When people can just take time to remind themselves (and each other) that they are humans talking with humans.

Fate Points are (I hate to use the phrase) Narrativist. They force narrative changes and player focus by mechanical rewards.
I developed my playstyle back in the early days when all the character sheet meant was "can I do this" and "how well can I do this" - basically the rules in let's pretend that didn't lead to "I shot you" "no you didn't" "yes you did". And so my ways to immerse in character were completely devoid of mechanics that impacted that.
These day mechanics that encourage roleplaying by mechanical means intrude on my immersion because I developed my playstyle before those kinds of mechanics existed.

Fate is a fine RPG, and many love how it works. I find it gets in the way or roleplay. Many people don't like rules heavy games because "it gets in teh way of roleplay" - I love rules heavy games with rules for everything, because I learn the rules inside out, play the game for decades, and then I don't even think of rules at all, just about my character and being immersed in his world, emotions and choices. They become the "physics" the character lives by. I don't think of the rules anymore than I think about the physics of walking in real life.

So I can deal with generic bennie points, or things like "chi" that has a specified pool of (that the character is aware) - but fate points that tie the economy of them to character decisions, actions and plot pull me out of character, as I developed my own way of having character make unwise choices (as an example) without outside mechanical intrusion into doing so.
It's incredible how time changes the norms and preferences, despite the 'common' hobby of tabletop roleplaying. I will address some of my own RP experiences and understanding of the philosophy behind Fate, while also (hopefully) addressing some of your own experiences and philosophies that you address here.

You sound like an 'actor' when it comes to RP. You immerse yourself as fully as possible to roleplaying your character as your character. Pemerton and I have discussed, here and there in this thread, about how this pertains to the (dis)connection between player and character knowledge and the behaviors that impacts, so I will refrain from talking about that again. Anyway, I find that it is impressive that you attempt to immerse yourself so heavily into your character. It's something that not everyone can do. But my tables, particularly the group that I have now, has had sour experiences with an actor (player and GM) with "RP immersion purity," though this happened before I met my current close friends. Usually when my fiance and her best friend complain about approaches to RP that have left them sour, this guy's name comes up a lot. They thought he was brilliant at what he did, but they deeply resented him for telling them how they should play their characters. My fiance's best friend is effectively in traumatic recovery mode from this, and so my fiance and I have been trying to build up her RP confidence again. But the two of them can roleplay, and roleplay well, according to their in-character motivations. And part of the problem has been the GM's differing sense of their characters in relation to the world. Social things happen, and a romantic break-up between this GM and another non-player mutual friend caused the GM to depart. This, again, happened before I knew them. What does this have to do with Fate, roleplaying, or immersion?

My players tend to be "high concept" players. Their character concepts always come before the mechanics. They know who they want to roleplay rather than the mechanics they want to rollplay. Fate works exceptionally well in giving them this as part of its core 'mechanics' via aspects. It allows them to define their character concept at the outset instead of looking for which cookie-cutter fits closest, and even then, class levels in some systems can impair their sense of achieving their character concept. So on that end, Fate works better than many others for us. It lets them jump into their character much easier and quicker. There is a defined sense of character rather than the player thinking "once I reach level X, then I will get abilty Y that I envisioned for my character." Though we are all enjoying playing a campaign of 5E together under another GM, a number of these players have also expressed that they see D&D as too transparently stuck in its wargaming roots, which makes certain mechanics feel far too gamist for their tastes.

But what about the Fate points and immersion? My sense for the underlying philosophy of Fate and its points (and this may be giving the creators too much credit) is also what I suspect is one of the reasons why my players seem to like Fate. And it kinda goes back to that dick-GM. Fate (points) operates via social contract gaming with a system of built-in checks and balances between the players and GM: fate points. Player's can exercise some control over the narrative and game world, including potential checks that the GM places on their characters, while the GM can provide checks on how a player's own character concept or roleplaying thereof. For example, if someone were to define their character by writing "Scared of Water" as their character's trouble, but then never roleplay their character as being scared of water, what would you think of the player or their roleplaying? That player may resent the GM for "telling you how to roleplay your character" - that oft-flaunted criticism of compels - but if they're ignoring a self-professed chunk of their character concept, then I do think the GM should have a say in that. (Generally in D&D, GMs really only have this sort of mechanical power over clerics via their deities having a check on their power.)

So I do agree that fate points are narrativist and gamist to an extent - as I tend to see most RP mechanics aas gamist (even if couched from the perspective of characters: e.g. a monk's ki, wizard's spell slots, barbarian rages, etc.) but I also don't think that narrativism and immersive-roleplaying are mutually exclusive. And this may be, to some measure, part of the contention between our differing sense of preferred game philosophy. I have seen some of the most memorable roleplaying in these moments that you perhaps see as immersion-breakers.

For example, one player had a trouble to the effect of 'uncouth ruffian,' which I then compelled in an important social situation. The player, without skipping a beat or slipping out of character, slid a fate point across the table to reject my offer. She then proceeded to 'rise above' her usual social inclinations and inhibitions to not only maintain her composure, but also to turn the situation to her advantage. In-game, this was incredible to watch. Her spending that fate point to reject the complication alerted me to how important this moment was for her. As a GM, it's a sign, as I could have caused a similar narrative problem without this player's consent or not. ("The NPC reacts this way to your character," being a common way GMs have wrestled narrative control or in-game ageny away from players.) But her spending this fate point, also forced her to consider her character and who she was. It provided her with an opportunity for her to define her character in this narrative moment.

You may regard fate points (and Fate mechanics) as redundant or unnecessary for recreating such moments. Fate is obviously not the sole roleplaying game out there, and there is not a One True Way for these things. Nevertheless, I appreciate how it achieves that. I appreciate that social contract gaming experience, especially when it brings some of the best roleplaying experiences out of my players. And I do think that for my players, fate points provide a means of engaging me, the GM, without having to necessarily leave their in-character perspective.
 

Sometimes, conversations need 'refresh' buttons. When people can just take time to remind themselves (and each other) that they are humans talking with humans.

<Snippage>

You may regard fate points (and Fate mechanics) as redundant or unnecessary for recreating such moments. Fate is obviously not the sole roleplaying game out there, and there is not a One True Way for these things. Nevertheless, I appreciate how it achieves that. I appreciate that social contract gaming experience, especially when it brings some of the best roleplaying experiences out of my players. And I do think that for my players, fate points provide a means of engaging me, the GM, without having to necessarily leave their in-character perspective.

I agree with you in the most part, on that, and I know I'm on the far end of the curve- I've run into other extreme immersionist that come off as really selfish.

I'll go into a bit of my history too.
I started with Holmes basic D&D. A few months later we say the hardcover "Advanced" D&D and moved to that. I only played that (and a little Gamma World) for 8 or 9 years.
When I went to college I discovered Rolemaster and Champions/Hero.
Now - superheroes are my favorite genre, I've loved comics since I was little, and after playing D&D I had a list of mechanics that "the perfect RPG" had. Every one of them it had. I pretty much stopped paying attention to other RPGS for the next 15 years or so. So I pretty much skipped all that happened in RPGs in the 90s. Also in that time I married, whom I met because she was running the Champions group I joined when I moved in 86. So we did a LOT of solo play when we didn't have a group. That specific thing really helps the entire total character immersion approach I use.

When next I came into the broader gaming world it was because of this newfangled "Open Game License" and D&D 3rd. I fell in love with the concept of the OGL, and I really really liked the 3rd edition rules. That became my secondary game of choice. Hero/Champions is still my primary and will likely be so until I die. I got a job as a manager of a game/card/comic shop (a friend purchased it). I was the RPG expert. With that I really needed to know what was going on in teh world of games, game design, what was popular - and to do so in a completely non judgmental way - different people like different things after all, and my job, now, was to get them to buy what they liked, from me.

We also tend to run long games - I don't feel like a game is successful until it hits 3 years, and have been in two campaigns that ran over a decade each (same characters within campaign).

So between lots of solo play and my obsession with what was my near perfect RPG - I skipped the entire industry embracing the sort of things that led to fate points, and plot/character driven elements. That pretty much cemented my early approach to gaming (the character sheet is what I can do, everything else is me) that works completely at odds with the newer developments in RPG design.

When I remember the "best" moments I've ever roleplayed, it isn't a good dice roll, it isn't a great tactic that saved the party, it isn't even a great story the character was involved with - everyone of them are those moments when I "became" the character, even if for a few moments.

With the wife GMing me solo - we usually have Hero as the group game (our group rotates GMs, every player also GMs), and solo I run a different system. For the last while that has been 3.x/Pathfinder. Now we are trying W.O.I.N. (there is your plug Russ). :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Just thought of a metaphor for while personality/story mechanics don't work for me.

It's like at work, you know your job, you are doing it really well, got a flow going.. and a boss comes over to suggest something - or sorta micro managing - and it breaks your flow; especially when you have been at that job a while and know how to handle it.

That is what it feels like and breaks immersion.

Then there is that time when you are at work, your main duties are completely, and the boss comes over to show you a new way that could work better. It doesn't impact the flow, and what you are doing may already be better, but it might not. To me that is talking with the GM outside of play, or looking at rules and whatnot.

That doesn't break immersion for me.
 

That is an inherent part of roleplaying to me, so I find Fate's system more transparent and pragmatic about the realities of roleplaying, particularly that the roleplaying game is a game with imperfect character-/world-knowledge. When I create a character and their backstory, it's a declaration of how the world is and these are often elements that help build or refine a world, especially a homebrew. Much as pemerton says, as a player my characters in D&D (and other systems) have often declared how the world works. When I say that my character was a slave, then I'm saying that slavery exists in this world. When I "invent" a saint for deity for my cleric's religion in someone's homebrew, then I am effectively declaring how the world works.
You're conflating the role of the player with the role of the setting designer. It's not the place of the player to decide that slavery is a thing in this world because they want to play a character who was a slave. Not that it's a big deal, or anything, because setting creation is something that happens outside of the game - mostly before the game even starts. However you come up with your premise for how the world works, whether by group consensus or by the decision of the GM or by purchasing a setting book, the actual game - the role-playing - doesn't start until the characters meet in a tavern (or however you get things going).

I would hope that we at least understand where we each sit on the topic of players introducing setting elements after the game starts.
And? So what? Shouldn't that discrepancy between player- and character-voluntarism always be the case if one is roleplaying? We can also flip your statement around a bit, primarily for the sake of emphasis, by pointing out the other obvious counterpoint: what the character wants is not necessarily what the player wants.
[...]
Correction: it's a premise that doesn't really work for FOR YOU. But as a blanket statement, the assertion that this doesn't work from an RP perspective reeks of a veiled "Not True Roleplaying" fallacy.
What you are stating here is that you don't understand the concept of role-playing. Role-playing is defined as making decisions from the perspective of the character. You can't role-play by accounting for player preference aside from character preference. It's definitionally impossible.

If you want to role-play a flawed character, then you need to make bad decisions even if the player knows they're bad. Player knowledge isn't allowed to interfere with the decision-making process of the character regardless. You should get into the mindset of the character, understand why they think it is a good idea, and make your decision based on that. You certainly can't use player knowledge (of the Fate point economy) to bribe the player into role-playing their flaws, with the promise that indulging in a vice now will causally allow the character to succeed later on; that's all information that the character doesn't have, and which thus cannot be legally used to inform any decision. And yet FATE explicitly makes this offer, which is why that game is so offensive from an RP perspective.

The only information that a player is allowed to use when making a decision for their character, from a role-playing perspective, is their own understanding of how the character thinks and what their character knows about how their world works. End of discussion.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top