Let's Talk Blue Rose

[Crothian]

there are no rules for them but looking at the examples from the back of the book...well, that doesn't help. There are charcters of varying abilities. Some have 3 points worth of attributes and another has seven. I would use the classes they present. They cover a lot of different roles and its the only option they give you.

 

[BryonD]

which is also what the attackers of the setting are doing as well. You really can't blame one side without blaming the other. But the thrtead was desinged to talk about Blue Rose and not attack the setting for being something they just don't like.

I don't dispute that.

But the pro-BR side has this whole "we are open-minded, therefore the other side must be closed minded, therefore, in the interest of open-mindedness, their position must not be tolerated." thing going. And I'll readily admit that THAT is a real peeve of mine.

Based on comments by both pro and anti-BR people, I am distinctly of the impression that the BR "evil" Theocracy is a political cartoon caricature of real world political ideas that some people honestly view as "good" themselves. Yet in this thread you have compared setting them as the good guys to favoring the Empire and in the thread over in general you compared it to favoring the evil gods of Midnight. If you can not comprehend the vast difference between purely fictional presentations of pure evil and politically inspired characterizations of opposing views AS evil, then it is hard to accept that you have fairly considered the perspectives. I'm certain I could throw out some campaign ideas that would get just as much vitrol from the other side.

Honestly, my one concern is appearing to actually support the opposition to BR. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just opposed to its defenders here at ENWorld.
I think the people who are attacking the setting outright are self-righteous and wrong.
I think the people who are counter attacking them are self-righteous and wrong and hypocritical.

I don't think anyone from Green Ronin falls in either of those groups.

I also don't see how this discussion can go much further without delving deeply into politics.

 

[Skywalker]

One thing that bothers me: Are there any stats for non-heroic “regular” characters in this game? If so, could someone point them out to me? I find it somewhat odd that "bandits" are mentioned as a serious problem at several points, yet I can’t find any stat-block for one. If I made one myself, I would have to give the bandit “heroic” levels of something, since that’s all I’ve got to work with… And do I use the standard 6-point spread for normal characters? In other words, more “human” antagonists would have been nice... Of course, this is from someone unfamiliar with the normal romantic fantasy setting- maybe human antagonists are uncommon in them? Or regular people for that matter?

At the moment there seems to be no rhyme nor reason to the NPC stats that aren't heroes. Unless the BR Companion has rules for it, I would suggest:

1. Just making them 1st level NPCs.
2. Choosing whatever stats seem appropriate.
3. Developing a 0 level NPC. My suggestion is that they should have 4 Ability points, 2 Feats and 2+Int Favoured/Known Skills. They get no bonus to Att, Def, Saves or Rep.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you consider the entire sword and sorcery genre, which predates the Lord of the Rings and modern Epic Fantasy and constituted by far the largest branch of fantasy prior to the '60s, a "few" exceptions, then yes, shades of gray are a modern addition to the canon.

Well, we have to start our definition of "fantasy" somewhere, otherwise we end up going all the way back to the caves and wall paintings about thunder gods.

While I can certainly understand (and agree with, to an extent) arguments to the contrary, right or wrong, Lord of the Rings is effectively the beginning for modern fantasy. If we use that as our seminal event (wow, that's an interesting word in this context), it and the Chronicles of Narnia absolutely do present baseline fantasy worlds with very few shades of gray. They're present (Sarumon, the reluctant heroes who appear in Lord of the Rings, some of the supporting characters in Narnia), but on the whole, the world is sharply divided into Good and Evil.

Obviously, REH's work was popular throughout this period and presents a very different vision of the universe, and is in a lot of ways the thematic forebearer of a lot of today's more "realistic" fantasy fiction. But while Conan might have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in the 1960s, it was only after the flower children rediscovered Lord of the Rings and made it hugely popular. I loves me some Conan, but it would be tough to say REH's vision of fantasy is more dominant than the JRRT vision once both their works were in wide circulation.

The pendulum swung towards Conan and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and ultimately the Black Company and A Song of Ice and Fire in time (I bet it could be argued that Watergate and Vietnam changed the national perspective on pure and noble heroic leaders and absolute villainous opponents), but once the pendulum had swung far enough that direction, we got the reactionary (in the least perjorative sense) fiction that Blue Rose is based on. That is, a world where there is Good and Bad (which is mostly distinct from Evil, which also exists), where heroines (and even heroes) might be flawed, but to a much lesser degree than in the "shades of grey" fiction, and where hope is not a delusion but a vital and essential part of the world, and one where Good ultimately triumphs over Bad (and Evil) and where animals aren't frightening beasts of the wood, but helpers and companions.

I really see this as going full circle (in a new evolution) towards Narnia and Middle Earth, two of the core works of modern fantasy, especially the latter. But plenty of people don't need any more reheated Middle Earth works (I have a pretty strong aversion to most of the wannabe fiction clogging fantasy bookshelves nowadays) -- witness the popularity of The Black Company and A Song of Ice and Fire -- and I don't think, viewed in this light, it should be a surprise that they would dislike "romantic fantasy" which is a modern take on many of the themes that Tolkein and Lewis wrote about. Heck, Narnia even has a talking horse companion!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But the pro-BR side has this whole "we are open-minded, therefore the other side must be closed minded, therefore, in the interest of open-mindedness, their position must not be tolerated." thing going. And I'll readily admit that THAT is a real peeve of mine.

I would assert, in the politest way possible, that you seem to be projecting a bit of this on the thread -- I suspect I know the types of people you're talking about in real life, and your reaction to them is being applied here.

Given the superheated political climate of the past 15 years (whatever side you're on), this is entirely natural and hardly surprising. Politics winds everyone up now, which is why I imagine ENWorld forces us to leave it at the door at swordpoint.

 

[Skywalker]

Given the nearly uniformly positive response to BR's system (ignoring the setting and its attendant debate), one has to wonder why 3.*E wasn't built more like this.

I think it because the market for D&D in its full form is much larger than the market for d20 streamlined as in BR. This is because much of D&D's fan-base likes:

1. Comprehensive rules.
2. D&D Traditions and Sacred Cows.
3. Tactical Elements.

The crowd that likes a more streamlined version of D&D as in BR are a subset of the greater crowd. It is still a significant number I have been surprised to see how long publishers have taken to exploit it. However, with Lone Wolf, BR and C&C, I think it shows that the d20 industry is now realising that it is a crowd worth investigating.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Compared to M&M I would say it would be easier. The simplicity gained in not having superpowers could be lost if you have many high level multi-role NPCs. However, if you have single Role NPCs then it becomes easier as you don't need to juggle overall power points. Abilities are easily distributed. The Roles work out all stats except Skills and Feats. Skills are now simply choose X Known Skills. Most of the time you can assume that they are all Favoured. Choosing Feats may take a while but doing so normally covers any Arcana you are dealing with. The lack of magic items also helps.

Thanks for the info.
What I'm really looking at is this sort of situation.
Me: "You're attacking the guards? Why not ask the king?"
PCs:"Look, the fate of the kingdom is at stake, right?"
Me:"Yeah."
PCs:"Time is of the essence."
Me:"Yeah"
PCs:"And the King's a forgiving guy. After we save the world, he'll understand."
Me: "Uh.... ok. Can I have 5 minutes?"

There's nothing quite as frightening as the thursday before saturday's game when I realize that I haven't even started looking at stats yet.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Well, we have to start our definition of "fantasy" somewhere, otherwise we end up going all the way back to the caves and wall paintings about thunder gods.

While I can certainly understand (and agree with, to an extent) arguments to the contrary, right or wrong, Lord of the Rings is effectively the beginning for modern fantasy. If we use that as our seminal event (wow, that's an interesting word in this context), it and the Chronicles of Narnia absolutely do present baseline fantasy worlds with very few shades of gray. They're present (Sarumon, the reluctant heroes who appear in Lord of the Rings, some of the supporting characters in Narnia), but on the whole, the world is sharply divided into Good and Evil.

Obviously, REH's work was popular throughout this period and presents a very different vision of the universe, and is in a lot of ways the thematic forebearer of a lot of today's more "realistic" fantasy fiction. But while Conan might have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in the 1960s, it was only after the flower children rediscovered Lord of the Rings and made it hugely popular. I loves me some Conan, but it would be tough to say REH's vision of fantasy is more dominant than the JRRT vision once both their works were in wide circulation.

The pendulum swung towards Conan and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and ultimately the Black Company and A Song of Ice and Fire in time (I bet it could be argued that Watergate and Vietnam changed the national perspective on pure and noble heroic leaders and absolute villainous opponents), but once the pendulum had swung far enough that direction, we got the reactionary (in the least perjorative sense) fiction that Blue Rose is based on. That is, a world where there is Good and Bad (which is mostly distinct from Evil, which also exists), where heroines (and even heroes) might be flawed, but to a much lesser degree than in the "shades of grey" fiction, and where hope is not a delusion but a vital and essential part of the world, and one where Good ultimately triumphs over Bad (and Evil) and where animals aren't frightening beasts of the wood, but helpers and companions.

I really see this as going full circle (in a new evolution) towards Narnia and Middle Earth, two of the core works of modern fantasy, especially the latter. But plenty of people don't need any more reheated Middle Earth works (I have a pretty strong aversion to most of the wannabe fiction clogging fantasy bookshelves nowadays) -- witness the popularity of The Black Company and A Song of Ice and Fire -- and I don't think, viewed in this light, it should be a surprise that they would dislike "romantic fantasy" which is a modern take on many of the themes that Tolkein and Lewis wrote about. Heck, Narnia even has a talking horse companion!

Whether RE Howard and Fritz Lieber or JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis are the dominant influences on fantasy wasn't my point - you called gray areas like those repeatedly explored in sword and sorcery a "relatively modern development." Since Howard's pre-dated the fantasies of Tolkien and Lewis, it can't be a relatively modern development.

If you excise Howard from the fantasy canon for some reason, why does, for example, George R. R. Martin qualify as a valid fantasy writer to have introduced gray areas to the genre later?

Certainly I prefer sword and sorcery to epic fantasy, but my preferences have nothing to do with the chronological development of the subgenres and their attendant themes.

Of course, that sidesteps the very significant ideological differences between the likes of Lewis and Tolkien on the one hand and Mercedes Lackey on the other. It's very possible for a reader to consider stark good and evil as seen in the former in a very different light than the same as seen in the latter. Or vice versa.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think it because the market for D&D in its full form is much larger than the market for d20 streamlined as in BR. This is because much of D&D's fan-base likes:

1. Comprehensive rules.
2. D&D Traditions and Sacred Cows.
3. Tactical Elements.

The crowd that likes a more streamlined version of D&D as in BR are a subset of the greater crowd. It is still a significant number I have been surprised to see how long publishers have taken to exploit it. However, with Lone Wolf, BR and C&C, I think it shows that the d20 industry is now realising that it is a crowd worth investigating.

I'm not entirely certain that this is true.

New (at least younger) gamers generally like comprehensive rules and tactical elements, but I seriously doubt they like D&D traditions and sacred cows when they essentially know nothing about them.

By contrast, most long-time gamers, the only group that could care about D&D traditions and sacred cows, I would say are probably split and not necessarily in favor of comprehensive rules and tactical elements.

Wizards probably could have done a better job serving (and hence selling to) both markets if they'd made more of a break between them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whether RE Howard and Fritz Lieber or JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis are the dominant influences on fantasy wasn't my point - you called gray areas like those repeatedly explored in sword and sorcery a "relatively modern development." Since Howard's pre-dated the fantasies of Tolkien and Lewis, it can't be a relatively modern development.

That's why I talked about LotR being a de facto (if imperfect) start for modern fantasy. You're working with a different timeline, obviously. In a different timeline, Howard and his contemporaries obviously set the trend early on.

What point would you start with for fantasy? And do you not see a dividing line between the sword & sorcery and pulp fiction -- which to a large extent became a rather small part of genre publishing by the time LotR was rediscovered -- and what's come after LotR's renaissance in the 1960s?

Of course, that sidesteps the very significant ideological differences between the likes of Lewis and Tolkien on the one hand and Mercedes Lackey on the other. It's very possible for a reader to consider stark good and evil as seen in the former in a very different light than the same as seen in the latter. Or vice versa.

The differences between Lewis and Lackey are more a matter of real-world religious and philosophical differences, rather than what's actually on the page. Both posit a world where Good and Evil are real forces, and both posit that Good is the default state of the universe, and that authority and groups in general tend towards Goodness in the absence of active interference by Evil.

That's a huge difference from the worlds of Howard or (I always spell his name wrong) Leiber, and I would say a larger difference between what exists between Lewis and Lackey.

YMMV, of course.