Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lynnfredricks" data-source="post: 7664902" data-attributes="member: 91695">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.</blockquote>

Verification