JOHN CARTER RPG Coming From Modiphius

Some RPG companies score awesome license after awesome license. Green Ronin is one such company, and Margaret Weis Productions is another. Modiphius Entertainment has product lines for Thunderbirds, Conan, and more, and now Edgar Rice Burrough's John Carter has a roleplaying game coming Christmas 2015, based on the 2d20 Lite system, a stremalined version of the system which powers their Mutant Chronicles and Conan games. Also lined up are miniatures in Spring 2016, and a board game in Summer 2016.

​

"Explore the wonders of Barsoom from the vast deserts to the ancient cities. Discover the forgotten secrets of a world that was old when life first spawned in the oceans of Earth. Play as pilots, warriors, scientists, or one of the terrifying green Tharks. Create you own Barsoom adventures or take on the great journeys as John Carter himself along side Dejah Thoris, Kantos Kan, Xodar, Tars Tarkas, Thuvia of Ptarth, Carthoris of Helium or any of the other major heroes and heroines of Barsoom."

Modiphius says the the RPG will draw directly from Burroughs' original texts, and that they are "committed to a faithful adaptation".

John Carter: Swords of Mars-Miniatures- Due for release: Spring 2016

A line of collectible miniatures for use with the roleplaying game brings your adventures to the battlefield. Play small skirmishes or fight a war for the dying planet-scalable rules provide for both. Defend ruins against a horde of Tharks, raid the city of Helium to capture the Princess or take your battle airborne with the Red Martian navies.

John Carter: Warlord of Mars-The Board Game-Due for release: Summer 2016

Enact the greatest adventures across the ancient world of Barsoom as you lead your heroes through crumbling ruins and take to the skies in the beautiful ships of the Helium Navy. Can you save Barsoom from ruin at the hands of dastardly scientists or ancient forces?

 

[Matchstick]

Or Adamant's "Mars" setting and adventures for Savage Worlds.

 

[Alzrius]

I emphatically wish this effort is not sanitized the Disney way.

If that wasn't clear enough: I hope this game retains the full, complete, and unabashed nudity described by the source material.

CapnZapp makes a worthwhile point here. While it's easy to see this as prurient, being true to the source material is an important point of capturing the feel of the original books, and that includes the fact that there's a fair bit of nudity in the those stories. As Burroughs' himself described Dejah Thoris:

She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure.

 

[modiphius]

So what else do you want from the RPG, the miniatures and boardgame? Any requests?

 

[Umbran]

CapnZapp makes a worthwhile point here. While it's easy to see this as prurient, being true to the source material is an important point of capturing the feel of the original books, and that includes the fact that there's a fair bit of nudity in the those stories.

It is also worth noting that while Burroughs mentioned it, he generally mentioned it once, and then largely ignored it. The books are not loaded with particularly frequent references to nudity through the text, and he does *not* go into graphic descriptions of anatomy.

The problem with loading the book with nude art would be that it would be like consistently going into graphic descriptions of anatomy, which doesn't match the books. Lots of nude art would come across as prurient when the original text does not. This is because the books allow you to self-edit the imagery in your own head, as you see fit, while artwork has the opposite effect. This is one of the issues you run into when converting a property from one media to another - sometimes, in order to get the same impact as the original, you actually have to do something *different* in the new medium.

 

[Alzrius]

It is also worth noting that while Burroughs mentioned it, he generally mentioned it once, and then largely ignored it. The books are not loaded with particularly frequent references to nudity through the text, and he does *not* go into graphic descriptions of anatomy.

The problem with loading the book with nude art would be that it would be like consistently going into graphic descriptions of anatomy, which doesn't match the books. Lots of nude art would come across as prurient when the original text does not. This is because the books allow you to self-edit the imagery in your own head, as you see fit, while artwork has the opposite effect. This is one of the issues you run into when converting a property from one media to another - sometimes, in order to get the same impact as the original, you actually have to do something *different* in the new medium.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't hold true in the reverse. Having artwork that departs from the original descriptions creates a point of contention with the very people that make up the game's core audience: the fans of the original works. At that point it becomes a question of trade-offs regarding fidelity to the material you're presenting versus how much people might be offended by the artwork. (Though nobody has brought up "lots of" nude art, per se.)

Personally, I suspect that at least some of that is a false dichotomy, since you can have character be (largely) unclothed without it being salacious (though there's something to be said for the fact that being salacious was also part of the author's intent in the original stories).

 

[Umbran]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't hold true in the reverse. Having artwork that departs from the original descriptions creates a point of contention with the very people that make up the game's core audience: the fans of the original works.

With all due respect - I think that ought to be amended to, "might create a point of contention with some of the core audience". I think you have to give a whole lot of support before you can reasonably assert, "not having full-frontal nudity in much of your art will cheese all the fans off." Not that this was exactly what you said, but you were vague, and we need to start somewhere.

Case in point, I love Burroughs' Barsoom, but I will be in no way offended by artwork that covers the naughty bits. Disney's "John Carter" level of nudity will be fine for me.

I submit that "largely unclothed" may, in fact, be exactly what you need to get the effect of Burroughs text to most folks in today's market and the more visual medium. Will some people be a tad disappointed if Deja Thoris has some strategic veils on, instead of being buck naked? Perhaps. But, to be brutally honest - the art should be secondary to how well the game plays. Yes, I know, "art is inspiration". If you need naughty bits for inspiration, that's a personal thing that you probably can't expect other people to address for you. I have come to be of the opinion that you can't successfully write game products for those who are willing to make perfect the enemy of good.

Personally, I suspect that at least some of that is a false dichotomy, since you can have character be (largely) unclothed without it being salacious (though there's something to be said for the fact that being salacious was also part of the author's intent in the original stories).

Yeah, but 1) "salacious" for his time and "salacious" in our time are not the same thing. 2) actually being really salacious is not generally a good way to sell much game product today. Gaming is already Niche. Barsoom gaming, specifically, is even more niche. Barsoom gaming for those who want salacious art is triply niche. Doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

 

[Alzrius]

With all due respect - I think that ought to be amended to, "might create a point of contention with some of the core audience". I think you have to give a whole lot of support before you can reasonably assert, "not having full-frontal nudity in much of your art will cheese all the fans off." Not that this was exactly what you said, but you were vague, and we need to start somewhere.

If we wanted to start somewhere, we should note that you've misinterpreted what I said... apparently deliberately, this you acknowledge that your summary of my position is a strawman. Not once did I assert that "not having full-frontal nudity in much of your art will cheese all the fans off." Rather, what I said was "Having artwork that departs from the original descriptions creates a point of contention" among the core audience. That's the key element.

It's not about the level of nudity (though it should be noted that you also came up with the "full-frontal" bit out of absolutely nowhere, as well), so much as it is about staying true to the source material as much as possible.

Now, I suppose you could raise a stink that I didn't include a qualifier that any generalization won't apply to absolutely everyone in a given group, but that's taken to be understood. If your biggest complaint is that the things that go without saying aren't actually said, then you really don't have much to complain about.

Case in point, I love Burroughs' Barsoom, but I will be in no way offended by artwork that covers the naughty bits. Disney's "John Carter" level of nudity will be fine for me.

Again, nobody's saying that the "naughty bits" have to be bared. Even in Burroughs' original description, it was noted that Dejah Thoris had jewelry on; while it may be skimpy, one could very well posit that that's the equivalent of some sort of bikini, etc. That's more skin showing than the Disney version had, but at the same time not pushing the envelope too far.

I submit that "largely unclothed" may, in fact, be exactly what you need to get the effect of Burroughs text to most folks in today's market and the more visual medium. Will some people be a tad disappointed if Deja Thoris has some strategic veils on, instead of being buck naked? Perhaps.

See above for why this is a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between "absolutely nothing" and "put her in a dress."

But, to be brutally honest - the art should be secondary to how well the game plays.

Er, what? Yes, the art and the game mechanics are two different things; has anyone suggested otherwise?

Yes, I know, "art is inspiration". If you need naughty bits for inspiration, that's a personal thing that you probably can't expect other people to address for you.

So now you're responding to a point I never raised in the first place? This is even more pointless than that deliberate misquote you led off with.

I have come to be of the opinion that you can't successfully write game products for those who are willing to make perfect the enemy of good.

Yeah, but you can offer opinions when someone actively solicits them, hence the point of this thread. And again, where did I ever say that it had to be all or nothing? You're really arguing against a phantom, here, rather than what I've said.

Yeah, but 1) "salacious" for his time and "salacious" in our time are not the same thing.

I think that "near-naked beautiful women" are fairly universally taken to be salacious between then and now.

2) actually being really salacious is not generally a good way to sell much game product today. Gaming is already Niche. Barsoom gaming, specifically, is even more niche. Barsoom gaming for those who want salacious art is triply niche. Doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

There's something to be said for the idea that when something is that niche to begin with, going one layer deeper won't make that much of a difference. Likewise, no one has said how much or how provocative the art should be. It's not like anyone's expecting the book to be filled with racy pictures to the exclusion of all other types of artwork. Hence, I seriously doubt that this could be extreme enough to be called an additional layer of niche.

 

[Umbran]

If we wanted to start somewhere, we should note that you've misinterpreted what I said... apparently deliberately

I explicitly stated that it wasn't what you said. How am I misrepresenting anything when I point that out?!?

 

[Alzrius]

I explicitly stated that it wasn't what you said. How am I misrepresenting anything when I point that out?!?

You said that wasn't "exactly" what I said, meaning that it was still generally a proper summary of my position, as well as saying that I was "vague" in what I said, neither of which were accurate.

 

[CapnZapp]

Words like "salacious" and "prurient" are thrown around here carelessly. Like Burroughs didn't know exactly what he was doing when he added in nekkid princesses...

Gaming is already Niche. Barsoom gaming, specifically, is even more niche. Barsoom gaming for those who want salacious art is triply niche. Doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

I happen to believe people who want specifically Barsoom want their product to be erotic. I could argue the niche for "non-salacious" Barsoom gaming to be zero.

Speaking only for myself, I know I want all my sword and sandals and sorcery to be fleshy and steamy and frazettian. Plastic disneyan sword and planets was predictably boring as fcuk.